Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by sammsky1, Jan 2, 2010.
Must have missed the part where I said it was...
EDIT: Nope... definitely not there...
So how does inflation account for us now having more expensive tickets relative to other clubs?
EDIT: Nope... it doesn't.
Here are Liverpool's prices: Ticket Prices - Liverpool FC
Category A games: Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Manchester United, Manchester City, Tottenham Hotspur, Aston Villa
Category B games: Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Newcastle United, QPR, Sunderland, Norwich City, Fulham
Category C games: Swansea City, WBA, Stoke City, Wigan Athletic, Wolverhampton Wanderers
Main Stand, Centenary Stand, Paddock Enclosure & Anfield Road -
£48.00 for Category A
£44.00 for Category B
£42.00 for Category C
Kop Grandstand -
£45.00 for Category A
£42.00 for Category B
£39.00 for Category C
Liverpool are much more expensive than us. We have 4,500 tickets available at £28 for every game and a further 32,000 tickets available at prices ranging between £34 and £38 for every game. We're also miles better than Liverpool when it comes to concessionary tickets. Junior members can get into any game at Old Trafford for £10 whilst there are no junior tickets available at Anfield other than in an expensive combined child-adult ticket package in the Anfield Road stand. Our over 65s and 16-17 year olds never pay more than £20 for a ticket whereas at Liverpool they pay between £30 and £36 depending on the category of game.
What, like Liverpool for example?
Liverpool don't have a 75,000 seat stadium either. To remain even remotely competitive they have to amp up their pricing.
I don't really get the whole "well we're cheaper then Team A" argument either. Football is unlike most other industry in that you can't just switch to a competitor if you're unhappy with your current product. Customer loyalty is premium, and ultimately, your club should be trying to do what is right by you, their loyal fan and customer, and not concerning themselves with what other people are doing.
Also, a comparison with Liverpool is quite a friendly thing to do... as they have the most expensive "cheapest" ticket in the country at £39! Still, our most expensive seat at £55 is still more expensive then their most expensive seat at £48 ... so there you go.
I'll requote myself again... ultimately, I still don't think you can justify this:
I know what you are saying but that is not entirely true, as we well know there were some disgruntled fans who chose to switch from MUFC to FCUM - I also know people who remain United fans but choose to goto local lower league clubs for the live football experience.
Plus the real competitor product in the UK is Sky and the option of watching the match in the pub or your armchair (it is not the same of course, but many fans do make that switch) - this wasnt really an option in the past as relatively few matches were televised, nowadays every United game is live on TV somewhere in the world.
Anyway if you are really talking about affordability of tickets then surely it is the cheapest end of the price scale rather than the most expensive that makes all the difference? As I said earlier:
I agree and this shows us that all clubs operate in accordance with the same basic supply and demand economic theory.
Well why bother posting that ''research'' in the first place then? You're the one trying to make out that United are offering a terrible deal relative to other clubs. Liverpool is pretty much the most effective comparsion that can be made between ourselves and another club in the Premier League. I've just shown you that United offer considerably better value for money than Liverpool do (thanks to our much larger capacity).
If you're expecting our prices to be at a similar level to Wigan and Blackburn then I think you need to take a step into the real world mate.
Please stop saying this as it makes you look ridiculous when quite clearly you do have a good knowledge of accounting principles.
The ONLY figure that matters in terms of investment into the team is the NET figure. Stop spinning the numbers.
£17.74m is the REALISTIC REPRESENTATION of the level of investment that has been put in the team.
Hopefully this low level of investment means SAF has a bit of a surplus to work with this summer.
I agree. I have no problem with the ticket prices. I think that they are more or less exactly what they would be under a PLC ownership.
That said, I am wholeheartedly against the leveraged buyout that we suffered from the Glazers. The only winners in it are in Florida, the biggest loser is the UK taxman.
I believe we will be re-floated in full within 3-5 years anyways. Just got to rough it out.
Rough what out? We're a great team winning trophies constantly. There's nothing to rough out. Wait it out is more apt.
I'm not sure whether this is a thing you do regularly, skip over posts, but if you go back and try to actually read it, you'll see it as a contributing factor amongst other things and not a sole reason. Thx.
I think those "most expensive" numbers are just standard seats in the North and South Stand... but I'd have to check that.
Why are Liverpool our most effective comparison?? On what grounds?? And why shouldn't we be offering similar levels to Wigan and Blackburn?? 7 years ago our prices were comparable with Bolton, Blackburn, Villa and the such... and now are prices have increased at a greater rate then any of those clubs... so what's changed in the last 7 years??
My research was to point out that, the Glaziers hike in ticket prices hasn't been comparable or in-line with most Premiership teams, and on that basis, I would venture that ticket prices wouldn't have been as high today if we had remained a PLC, I still don't see why that is not the case.
Hang on, let me understand... you said something else that may not have been as ridiculous, so I'm not allowed to question the part that clearly is? Right.
So back to the original point - How can it be a contributing factor? There's absolutely no way that you can say inflation plays any part in a change in the relative price of tickets between clubs. It's just nonsense.
Like all other Premier League clubs.
If you bother read the post you'll see that Zarlak said that inflation was a contributing factor in us rising up the Premier League "league table" of ticket prices.
Whereas anybody with half a brain cell can see that can't be true.
Your cherry-picking of clubs that suit your argument is a totally different point that I've not been involved in discussing in this thread.
There is absolutely no way that tickets to see football games has inflated in the last 10 years? Really? That's what you're trying to tell me?
Prices for football tickets have inflated naturally, as more money has come into the game. Mixed with success, our prices have risen even more. It's common sense. It's not the sole factor as I already explained.
EDIT: I apologise if you misunderstood what I typed to mean inflation in the sense of CPI and RPI, I trusted that to quote your good self, anybody with half a brain cell would know this wasn't what I was referring to as the figures clearly don't match.
What on earth are you on about? Have you not bothered read the earlier posts (including your own) or are you just really slow? Of course I'm not denying there's been inflation, where have I said that?
I'll recap for you - it's very simple:
You claim that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices now being more expensive than they were relative to other clubs.
I'm pointing out the trivially obvious point that this makes no sense - inflation will hit all clubs equally. The relative rise in prices must be entirely down to other factors, not inflation.
(If you still don't understand the word "relative" you cold always Google it)
Th problem is, you are trying to make call on what a "reasonable" / "fair" etc price is for our tickets, which is very subjective.
Whereas AN and others are making a much simpler and easily demonstrable point: Prior to the Glazers, we had pretty cheap tickets relative to other clubs, but this is no longer the case, at least to anywhere near the same degree.
One of the many ways that the Glazers have maximised our revenue is to push ticket prices to the most the market can take. So going back to the point which I believe started all this, it's perfectly valid to talk about how the missing £500m could have been "spent" on cheaper tickets.
If you can find where in my posts, I said that inflation is a contributing factor in our ticket prices being relative to other clubs then you win, but I suspect you won't find that, mainly because I never said it.
So let me recap for you - it's very simple:
I claimed that inflation of prices in football have led to an inflation of our own prices - this is true. You've accepted this by saying it hit all clubs, (including our own) therefore it is a factor. - check.
On top of this, other factors such as our own success, which is not relative to other clubs because they haven't enjoyed the success we have, have also contributed to an increase in our ticket prices. - check.
Of course if you had just read the original post properly rather than smacking a gazebo on the end of my post that I didn't put there originally, none of this confusion would have come about.
Oh, come on Zarlak...
This is exactly what I quoted in my very first post on the matter. Talk about wasting time...
Well done for once again not reading something, are you going for a world record?
Show me where I said 'relative to other clubs' which is what you claim I said.
Oh wait, you can't. Because I didn't say it at any point. The only one wasting time here is you, trying to pretend I said something I didn't because you didn't read my post properly. I said that our price rise is natural, because of a.) and b.). Nowhere did I mention other clubs, or that our price rise was relative to theirs, or that inflation in Manchester was more than anywhere else, or that inflation has affected us more so than other clubs. You're just making shit up. I said that our price rise was a result of a.) inflation of prices, which it is partly, you've conceded this yourself, and b.) our success on the pitch and a result of our stature icnreasing which has bolstered it even more.
You were replying to A.N's post, it's there for everybody to see.
Don't accuse people of making shit up when it's there in black and white on the previous page, it makes you look daft.
At best you didn't read the post you were replying to, which is pretty dumb in itself.
I was replying to ANs post about our price rise. The fact that I didn't mention something, means I wasn't talking about it.
You said, plain and simple, that I said something I didn't.
No I didn't, and you're quite right, it's black and white and clear for all to see. At no point, in any of my posts, did I include what you have said I claimed. For me to claim it, I have to have said it, because I haven't said it, I haven't claimed it. I'm not sure how much further you can twist this in order to come out of it without just admitting that I never claimed what you said I did.
So yeah, if you make shit up and say that I said things I didn't, then I will say to you that you're making shit up, problem with that? Don't make shit up then. Address what I actually typed, rather than a part of what somebody else typed, that I didn't mention.
The longer you drag this petty squabble out, the funnier it becomes. You know clearly what I meant, because I've now explained it to you multiple times, you know clearly that I didn't even say what you claim I said, this exchange is pointless.
This is a waste of time, you're either incredibly thick, or pretending to be to try and avoid the point.
A.N's post is entirely, 100% about relative prices. What part of the following is about across-the board increases in ticket prices, rather than the relative price of ours against other clubs?:
Well… if you consider that in 2005, when the Glazers started their tenure, we had the 8th cheapest seat in the Premier League house and the 12th most expensive seat. Both around the middle but crucially in the top half for cheapest and bottom for most expensive.
Now though, we have the joint 14th cheapest seat in the League, and the 4th most expensive seat.
Bit of a dramatic turnaround if you ask me, but ya’ll can make your own minds up.
Maybe you should steer clear of the "reply" button if you're going to deny that your post is about the one you're replying to?
That's true. I'm prepared to accept the fact people may think I'm being a little petty and wasting my time - it's you they'll be really laughing at for desperately trying to defend a load of rubbish and not being prepared to admit you just got it wrong
Very ironic, when you replying to me, has been post after post pretending I've said stuff I've never said.
I get it, you didn't read my post. You don't need to keep confirming that to me or anybody else in this thread with each subsequent reply. The person I was replying to understood perfectly well my post, it seems only you are having difficulty.
Let's put this to bed once and for all. The line I was replying to in his post was 'Bit of a dramatic turnaround if you ask me'
Bit of a dramatic turnaround, that once we were cheap and now we are more expensive, the 4th most expensive, as opposed to one of the most cheap.
I replied, saying that this is natural that our prices have risen so, considering a.) the increase in inflation which has hit all clubs as you said yourself therefore higher prices, plus the success we have achieved that other clubs have not, which has pushed our premium up as logically, it should and has.
He didn't have this incredible difficulty you seem to be having comprehending my post, nor did he reply with shite remarks like 'I didn't realise inflation was higher in Manchester than anywhere else' or retort to pretending I said things that I didn't, he read my post and replied properly to it. Nor did he focus on the inflation part, as it wasn't as major a part of my post as you're pretending it is.
So yeah, since you're the only one having difficulty with this, maybe you should take your own advice.
Oh my God, tell me you didn't just post that?
OK, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere here, you're just too thick. I shall take my leave of this quarrel and leave it here for everybody to laugh at.
I'll just leave you with this though -
something having, or standing in, some relation to something else
I'm perfectly aware of what the word you think I was talking about, but in actual fact I never once mentioned, means.
Now you comprehend the post that everybody else had no trouble understanding, about why I think our rise in prices (do you need me to remind you that I'm talking about just our price rise, and nothing to do with other clubs?) is justified, we can go back to talking about what everybody was talking about before you stumbled in confused. Unless you want to just keep this merry go round going about relative to other clubs which I've already told you over and over I'm not talking about. Why you can't just accept that and move on rather than revisiting it I've got no idea.
Oh wait, you're taking your leave. Score.
Our prices were cheap, we were lucky. In fact I have pointed out in the past that our cheap ticket prices was actually one of the major factors that attracted the Glazers to buy the club, the PLC realised this late on and tried to raise prices to protect against them but it was too late.
The figures show that the average annual price rise for the past 5 years has been around the same as it was for the previous 5 years under the PLC. The main difference is the ACS.
So we have not changed much in ticket price policy, I suppose other clubs have not been able to get away with the same increases over the years due to lack of demand.
And when the Glazers go, so will GCHQ......... funny that!
I'm still getting emails asking me to buy a season ticket, for the remaining quarter of a season.
How stupid I feel now for not understanding the great Season Ticket Waiting List Debate.
The waiting was them waiting for me, not the other way round.
I don't disagree with the core of your points Rood, just want to throw a couple of points in the mix.
The PLC consistently underpriced the tickets at OT, that was one of the problems. If you remember when the Glazers started their takeover the PLC (which opposed them) hiked ticket prices in order to take some value out of that revenue stream and get that value into the share price, making it harder for the Glazers to finance the share purchase. The low ticket prices under the PLC were one of the main reasons United was such a good target for a leveraged takeover.
Ticket prices pretty much hit the ceiling under the Glazers since (if I remember correctly) we were seeing some less than capacity attendances so they held ticket prices the past few years.
Best case for ticket prices would have been the Sky takeover going through.
Yes I already made the point that our overly cheap ticket prices were one of the main reasons that attracted the Glazers.
Fans who talk about how cheap prices were under the PLC dont seem to accept that it was a big mistake to underprice our tickets in those days, it made us very vulnerable to takeover.
The point is true that low ticket prices made us attractive, but I don't know if you can call it a mistake. Was it also a mistake to win lots of trophies? I can't see the Glazers having been nearly as keen on buying if we'd just been relegated...
It's like saying having lots of nice possessions is a mistake, as you might get robbed.
No its not like that at all.
In hindsight I believe it was a mistake, I certainly wasnt complaining at the time though. The PLC also realised it and jacked up prices in their last season, Im sure if they had their time again they would have done it sooner.
and you couldnt be more wrong about the trophies and relegation - business vultures like the Glazers would love to buy a club like ours when times are bad and you can get it on the cheap. e.g. See Liverpool.
Are you including figures for players bought before the Glazers took over, but that had to be paid for (in part) afterwards? If so I'd say that's a bit of a false figure, given that who knows if the Glazers would have sanctioned deals made before they took over.
I make it around £10m a year net spend on players since their takeover, meaning we should have around £100m to spend if Fergie feels it necessary.
And that surplus is there precisely because we sold one player for a world record £80m transfer fee.
There hasn't been a low level of investment. Average gross spend since the Glazers bought the club has been £45m per season. There has been a £48m net cash outflow on transfers in the current financial year. Our wage bill continues to show double digit growth year on year. The fifth highest in Europe only behind two sugar daddy funded clubs and two clubs with their own individual TV deals.
I think your problem is that you compare our transfer activity with an extremely select group of clubs that we can't reasonably be expected to compete against in the market. If you're ever able to accept that as a fact of life then I think your mood will improve considerably.
It got lost in the LOL's of Robben's winner, but I wonder how much Fraizer Campbell made for United today by making his England debut. His fee was apparently 3.5m rising to 6m, and surely a large chunk of that would have been playing for England.
I figure the finances thread would be as good a thread as any to speculate.
I'm including c. £15m relating to the Rooney and Ronaldo transfers that was paid out in the 2005/06 financial year. I don't see why that shouldn't be included in the figure for the post-takeover expenditure. It obviously should. Gill said at the time Rooney was bought that the transfer would affect the club's ability to sign players in the following financial year. Thanks to the Glazers of course we were still able to sign Evra and Vidic in January 2006. I doubt whether the PLC would have sanctioned those signings.
The average net cash spend on transfers since the takeover has been £17.7m per year. That's from the independently audited accounts and not, with the absolute greatest of respect, from your back of the fag packet calculations.
Separate names with a comma.