PSG ticket prices - Protest options v West Brom.

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

Against our best interests to take a stand before ticket prices price out even more blues? Bizarre.

The walk out was ONE OPTION mentioned at the start - something that hasn't been helped by lack of an 'official' poll on here, stickied and all that. In fact, other than PB, the lack of opinions on this from the mod team has been odd to say the least.

That's because PB is about as wrong as you can get in his stance. We are City fans who have been given the earth by our owners. We don't act like spoilt children and throw our toys out of the pram at the first sign of something we don't agree with. Maybe those on here complaining and saying the club don't listen to the fans should ask the fans in the £299 season ticket seats if they agree.

Please don't embarrass yourself anymore by suggesting City are ripping off the fans.

 

[John Wayne]

I don't want to get too distracted from the original topic of the would-be protest against WBA but the PSG prices are incredibly out-of-touch, myopic and have the potential for consequences far more long-lasting than our top-level management could have forseen. The club would rather alienate thousands of fans for a pot of money that may just about pay Wilfried Bony for two weeks. Those who try to defend this pricing as somehow keeping up with the Joneses just doesnt wash with me. The club can make tickets affordable to all and make up the shortfall by being creative in so many other ways. For starters, we could be more thoughtful and think outside the box with our recruitment strategy, instead of lashing 49m on the likes of Raheem Sterling. The additional revenue from high ticket prices for the PSG game (assuming it sells out, which I very much doubt it will) does not move the club from being unable to compete with Liverpool and United financially to being able to compete with them. It's money-grabbing, pure and simple.

My biggest axe with City came when they ushered in the Gold, Platinum and Superbia categorisation. Pay 50 quid and double your points. This is an outrageous policy and exploited the fans when they were riding on the crest of a wave following finally winning a trophy after such a long time. I have always refused to "go Platinum". The club wouldn't know loyalty if it sat up and gave them a haircut. I've had a season ticket since 1993 but am well down the pecking order for tickets. So be it. It's a game I refuse to play.

My other problem was when they turfed out fans from the North Stand Lower in 2010 to create an expanded Family Stand. After sales were slow, they made 134 part of the Colin Bell Stand. I have to pay side-stand prices for what is essentially an end seat. Still.

City have the chance to restore a lot of confidence by freezing season ticket prices. It doesn't matter to me whether it's Messi, Pogba or Pollock. I'm thick and thin (didn't go to York away but did do Northampton, Chesterfield and Preston that year) but don't take the team away from its people. Please.

 

[jrb]

You also left out Everton's wage bill.

And?

Our wage bill, which by the way has been reduced over the last few seasons, I stand corrected, and has been added to by some dreadful buys costing millions, won't impact on any season ticket or matchday ticket price freeze or reductions next season. Once again Paul, you haven't been reading the threads properly.(sorry) It's been explained numerous times by PB and others that our season ticket and matchday ticket sales account for a small percentage of the clubs income/turnover. The majority of income is made up of TV money, prize money, and sponsorship deals.

Look, I'm not trying to be funny, but I'm going to break it down for you.

Next season.

1. New PL prize money from next season. Rounded up. Top £165mill. Roughly £50mill more that this season. Bottom £100mill.
2. New CL prize money.(City already £10mill better off via reaching the QF this season)
3. On-going new Sky/BT/Virgin TV money.
3. New BT CL TV money.
4. Renegotiated and new sponsorship deals.
5. £265miil from the sale of 13% of the club to a Chinese investor.
6. New domestic cup prize money.
7. Expanded Etihad stadium, with larger corporate facilities.
8. Revenue from the CFG. I stand corrected on that.
Pre-season tours to China, etc.
Etc.

Come on Paul, look at the bigger picture, please. Regardless of what excuses and reasons you keep on coming up with, there is absolutely no reason why City can't freeze or reducie the price of season tickets and matchday tickets next season. Is there?

 

[Blue Mooner]

And?

Our wage bill, which by the way has been reduced over the last few seasons, I stand corrected, and has been added to by some dreadful buys costing millions, won't impact on any season ticket or matchday ticket price freeze or reductions next season. Once again Paul, you haven't been reading the threads properly.(sorry) It's been explained numerous times by PB and others that our season ticket and matchday ticket sales account for a small percentage of the clubs income/turnover. The majority of income is made up of TV money, prize money, and sponsorship deals.

Look, I'm not trying to be funny, but I'm going to break it down for you.

Next season.

1. New PL prize money from next season. Rounded up. Top £165mill. Roughly £50mill more that this season. Bottom £100mill.
2. New CL prize money.(City already £10mill better off via reaching the QF this season)
3. On-going new Sky/BT/Virgin TV money.
3. New BT CL TV money.
4. Renegotiated and new sponsorship deals.
5. £265miil from the sale of 13% of the club to a Chinese investor.
6. New domestic cup prize money.
7. Expanded Etihad stadium, with larger corporate facilities.
8. Revenue from the CFG. I stand corrected on that.
Pre-season tours to China, etc.
Etc.

Come on Paul, look at the bigger picture, please. Regardless of what excuses and reasons you keep on coming up with, there is absolutely no reason why City can't freeze or reducie the price of season tickets and matchday tickets next season. Is there?

City's matchday revenue currently stands at £47.1m when you compare that to the club's with whom we are trying to compete:

Rags £86.7m
Arsenal £100.4m
Chelsea 70.8m
Dippers 57.1m

So we are not far off half the revenue of 3 of our main rivals and behind Liverpool and Chelsea who average less in attendances than we do by several thousand seats a game.

What does that tell you? Quite simply that from a ticket price perspective we compare very favourably to all our rivals. Clearly arsenal and the rags get higher gates but certainly not double our average.

So basically you are asking our club to make that gulf in revenue even bigger. When you take into account the fact that the TV revenue is restricted in terms of spending on players transfers and wages it is matchday revenue and sponsorships that allow the club to compete financially.

What this also highlights is that ticket prices are certainly not an MCFC problem they are a FOOTBALL problem so stop hammering the owners who have invested currently far more than they have taken out off this club in order to put us where we are today. They always stated that eventually they wanted the club to operate financially on its own merits which is the right model for the long-term sustainability of the club.

If you want to attract the best managers like pep gaurdiola and the best players you have to fund that and maximise every revenue aspect of the club.

If you want to cut what you pay to watch a match then it's inevitable the product you watch has to reduce in quality. I would rather see the MCFC be successful and go to less matches a season. I dont want to see us cut our ticket prices at the expense of our ability to compete and we already have to find 50m more from other sources to compete financially with the rags.

The fight has to be with the football authorities to help cut the price of watching the game, perhaps allowing clubs to use the football TV money they receive how they want might be a start or mandating that x percentage of the new TV money has to be spent on reducing ticket prices.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You also left out Everton's wage bill.

Everton's wage-to-turnover ratio is about the same as ours but match-day revenue is a slightly higher proportion of overall income (14.5% v 12%). So reducing prices impacts them slightly more than it would impact us. Their match-day receipts are also far lower than ours (£18M v £43M).

It's really quite simple. Ticket revenue from non-premium seats was around 7% of our total turnover last season. Next season our income will increase by around £50M thanks to the new Sky/BT deal alone. Reducing the ticket prices for those non-premium seats by 10% for next season would impact our turnover by about 0.5%. One extra sponsor could cover that.

 

[moenchengladbach blau]

'I have always refused to "go Platinum". The club wouldn't know loyalty if it sat up and gave them a haircut. I've had a season ticket since 1993 but am well down the pecking order for tickets. So be it. It's a game I refuse to play.'

Same here and I have watched people disappear into the distance with their double point haul, and then made worse as they then get to the away matches I cannot qualify for. I wonder how many those Platinum card holders are now protesting about the PSG tickets? Interesting point.

The club like any business will charge what they can get away with and will only change policy when they know they can NOT get away with it.

I can afford the PSG ticket although it has almost doubled from the Kiev match. I can afford to pay the Platinum surcharge. The difference is I will (sorry have) paid the PSG ticket price but will not pay to be in a more privileged positions than others by paying for points. I feel badly treated by the club but when City are at home there is only one place to be, certainly not increasing BT coffers on an armchair.

I am hoping that the club will see the loyalty of me and others as a reason to keep prices down and not the opposite by taking my support for granted.

But I am not holding my breath.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

That aside, this is also about continuing season ticket and matchday ticket price rises. I admit the club made a very good gesture by releasing £299 season tickets via the expanded South stand, but in the same breath they hammered level 2 fans, even though they and we knew those massive season ticket price rises were coming in to attract the corps, but they also *price tiered the blocks*, which from my point of view was digustung. It was another clever and calculated way to increase season and match ticket prices. Why should one City fan pay more or less because they are sat one row further forward, or further back? As a club we have never price tiered blocks.

Specifically regarding ST prices for 2015/2016 and for factual balance the following is something I posted a few weeks back:

"As part of the stadium expansion, City introduced c4500 season tickets in the price range £299-£380. I was amazed that the £299 seats in the SS weren't snapped up in the renewal window. It means that the overwhelming majority of existing ST holder voluntarily opted to pay a higher price based on location in the ground alone. The £380 seats (the ones lower down in SS) did sell out early but even then they were available for a few days.

For this season City introduced the new pricing bands on a highly differential basis and the stadium is split into 178 sections:

37 sections were for new seats and all priced extremely competitively i.e cheap
43 sections were priced the same or lower than the season before
56 sections had price increases of no more than £20
42 sections (less than 25% of the total number of sections available) only saw signifcant increases

Based on this the club, IMO, did not take the piss for 15/16. My bet is that for 2016/2017 we will see a price freeze"

To add to that, my view is it is fair to criticise the club (and football in general) for the hefty ST increases prior to last years renewal window but last year wasn't a problem. You might disagree with a differential pricing strategy but the other side of that strategy is that the club have used it to overall provide a very high number of competitively priced seats based on PL average ST prices.

I'll further add that IF there is an increase to ST prices this time, I will protest loudly.

 

[jrb]

City's matchday revenue currently stands at £47.1m when you compare that to the club's with whom we are trying to compete:

Rags £86.7m
Arsenal £100.4m
Chelsea 70.8m
Dippers 57.1m

So we are not far off half the revenue of 3 of our main rivals and behind Liverpool and Chelsea who average less in attendances than we do by several thousand seats a game.

What does that tell you? Quite simply that from a ticket price perspective we compare very favourably to all our rivals. Clearly arsenal and the rags get higher gates but certainly not double our average.

So basically you are asking our club to make that gulf in revenue even bigger. When you take into account the fact that the TV revenue is restricted in terms of spending on players transfers and wages it is matchday revenue and sponsorships that allow the club to compete financially.

What this also highlights is that ticket prices are certainly not an MCFC problem they are a FOOTBALL problem so stop hammering the owners who have invested currently far more than they have taken out off this club in order to put us where we are today. They always stated that eventually they wanted the club to operate financially on its own merits which is the right model for the long-term sustainability of the club.

If you want to attract the best managers like pep gaurdiola and the best players you have to fund that and maximise every revenue aspect of the club.

If you want to cut what you pay to watch a match then it's inevitable the product you watch has to reduce in quality. I would rather see the MCFC be successful and go to less matches a season. I dont want to see us cut our ticket prices at the expense of our ability to compete and we already have to find 50m more from other sources to compete financially with the rags.

The fight has to be with the football authorities to help cut the price of watching the game, perhaps allowing clubs to use the football TV money they receive how they want might be a start or mandating that x percentage of the new TV money has to be spent on reducing ticket prices.

Going out for a bite to eat. Will reply later on. Apologies.

 

[M18CTID]

The fight has to be with the football authorities to help cut the price of watching the game, perhaps allowing clubs to use the football TV money they receive how they want might be a start or mandating that x percentage of the new TV money has to be spent on reducing ticket prices.

And that's the exact message that the Football Supporters Federation - in conjunction with fan groups up and down the country - has been communicating. What planet have you been on to not know that this has been going on for months, years even? We've already campaigned for cheaper away tickets and succeeded. Did you know there was a weekend of action back in October where fans of all 20 PL clubs joined forces, along with the fans of some lower division clubs? Did you know that on that weekend, fans of City, Newcastle, Liverpool, and Evertom gathered on the bridge prior to our match with Newcastle complete with banners in the name of each club supporting cheaper away tickets? Did you also know that the weekend of action was the brainchild of a City fan? Did you also know that City and Newcastle fans were allowed to bring our respective banners into the ground, and were also allowed to display them? Did you know that the FSF and representatives of Liverpool's Spirit Of Shankly fan group had meetings with the No.2 at Barclays to express their concerns over away ticket prices amongst other things and that as a sponsor of the Premier League the guy at Barclays concurred with most of what was being said?

But as has been pointed out to you time and time again, when it comes to home tickets the fans have to lobby their clubs individually and that's exactly what has been happening. It's not just City fans doing this - it's happening up and down the country. The FSF are doing a great job in getting the message out there that the new TV deal can be used to give a bit back to the fans but they can't be expected to do everything. No-one's talking about bringing in banners calling everyone at the club a bunch of cunts, more a simple message that if prices continue to rise it will be detrimental not just to the fans but also the club.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

City's matchday revenue currently stands at £47.1m when you compare that to the club's with whom we are trying to compete:

Rags £86.7m
Arsenal £100.4m
Chelsea 70.8m
Dippers 57.1m

So we are not far off half the revenue of 3 of our main rivals and behind Liverpool and Chelsea who average less in attendances than we do by several thousand seats a game.

Arsenal & Chelsea are in London and therefore have a huge catchment area, plus a wealthier demographic. The rags and dippers have huge fan-bases and therefore higher demand. We haven't got anywhere near that demand yet. We may say games are sold out but that's only because thousands of tickets are essentially given away to third parties (uni's, schools, NHS, Co-Op, other groups) which is why there are empty seats at most games.

But let's look at the rags in more detail. They played 21 home games last season and have 75,000 capacity so doing a simple calculation means that revenue per seat per game is £53. Doing the same calculation for us on your figures (£47.1m, 44,000 capacity last season and 27 games) gives about £40. But there are factors that make their seat revenue a little higher than ours.

One is that they have a much higher number of premium seats. On 2014/5 capacities they had at least 4 times as many as us in a ground that had a capacity two-thirds higher. So their revenue mix is completely different. We'd probably have to make the second tier East & Colin Bell all premium to be comparable. Another factor is that they charge a set price per game, regardless of the opposition. Those adult prices are from £31-£53. For Stoke, our prices are from £37-£43. A seat behind the goal in SS2 is £39 for Stoke and is £40 in the equivalent area of the Stretford End. It'll be higher at our place for Arsenal, whereas their prices will be the same. Finally, they played two FA Cup home games last season but they force all their S/T holders to buy tickets for those. So they got 150,000 for those games whereas we'd need to play 4 games to get those sorts of numbers. When you factor that in, that £53 comes down to £48. So we're really very comparable to them. In fact I'd say that our seat per game revenue for the ordinary seats is probably even higher than theirs.

And checking prices at other clubs for their game against Stoke, which is Category B at those clubs, compared to our £37-43 shows:

London:
Arsenal - £36.50-55.50
Chelsea - £36-65
Spurs - £37-58
West Ham - £45-65

North-West:
Liverpool - £41-53
Everton - £38-45

So we aren't that much out of line.