SteV Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 hours ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: This is so easily solvable. Allow owners to inject extra cash to subsidise ticket prices. If Newcastle are charging £40 for a ticket and say Fulham were the most expensive equivalent ticket at £120 the owner can put in £80. Then what’s to Newcastle (or anyone) charging 10 grand a ticket and the owners putting in £9660, and massively inflating ticket revenue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, SteV said: Then what’s to Newcastle (or anyone) charging 10 grand a ticket and the owners putting in £9660, and massively inflating ticket revenue? That’s not what he’s saying. The equivalent highest price would be the price the fans actually have to pay. So if the fans at Fulham actually are paying £120, that becomes the marker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, Shearergol said: That’s not what he’s saying. The equivalent highest price would be the price the fans actually have to pay. So if the fans at Fulham actually are paying £120, that becomes the marker. Surely the owners of Fulham (or whoever was the most expensive) would say it’s not fair that other owners are allowed to invest additionally and they aren’t? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, SteV said: Surely the owners of Fulham (or whoever was the most expensive) would say it’s not fair that other owners are allowed to invest additionally and they aren’t? They're already getting the extra investment by having prices that high in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 9 minutes ago, SteV said: Surely the owners of Fulham (or whoever was the most expensive) would say it’s not fair that other owners are allowed to invest additionally and they aren’t? What @Pixelphish said Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Pixelphish said: They're already getting the extra investment by having prices that high in the first place. Yes exactly. It's saying as a club we believe that we could change x amounts for tickets. Our demand is such that people will pay. But We do not want to screw our fans or be forced to to be competitive. Therefore we will charge them less and add the difference ourselves. This payment would be allowed ontop of the 130million permitted losses. edit: Also to allow this to happen the game must be sold out. Edited May 28 by KetsbaiaIsBald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 8 minutes ago, Pixelphish said: They're already getting the extra investment by having prices that high in the first place. Hmm, OK, I see the point that you’re trying to artificially level ticket income. But if Fulham only have a 30k capacity and we have 52k, if we can input further revenue for those additional seats, is that fair? Ultimately it probably just ends up being another vehicle for the big clubs to get further away from the smaller clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 10 minutes ago, SteV said: Hmm, OK, I see the point that you’re trying to artificially level ticket income. But if Fulham only have a 30k capacity and we have 52k, if we can input further revenue for those additional seats, is that fair? Ultimately it probably just ends up being another vehicle for the big clubs to get further away from the smaller clubs. Fulhams matchday income was £15m. Ours was £38m(2023 figures) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 21 minutes ago, SteV said: Hmm, OK, I see the point that you’re trying to artificially level ticket income. But if Fulham only have a 30k capacity and we have 52k, if we can input further revenue for those additional seats, is that fair? Ultimately it probably just ends up being another vehicle for the big clubs to get further away from the smaller clubs. No not artificially level ticket income. St James will sell out. It will sell out at higher prices. Demand is huge. But people should not be priced out of a ticket due to FFP meaning all commercial revenue must be maximised. This is about saying I can demonstrate that the ticket would sell for this amount if I charged it. But I do not want to sell it at this amount as it prices out fans. I also do not want to be punished as a club for making decisions that are positive for or fans. In terms of the capacity the point that you can only do this if the ground is sold out. So capacity does not matter. I would not see it as widening the gap. Clubs are increasing the ticket prices. People are getting priced out and it's only going to get worse as demand is so high. Our income will go up from tickets either way. Its just about whether we pay for it or the owners do. I also think it would force owners to be honest. It is too easy for them to say we have to up prices due to FFP. If there is this option they cannot hide behind that. If they are upping prices it is for profit nothing else. Edited May 28 by KetsbaiaIsBald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 6 minutes ago, Fezzle said: Fulhams matchday income was £15m. Ours was £38m(2023 figures) There you go. So ultimately, the likes of us and the other big teams just pull further away from the likes of Fulham. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 6 minutes ago, SteV said: There you go. So ultimately, the likes of us and the other big teams just pull further away from the likes of Fulham. I would be all for everyone in the league being allowed to spend the same amount as the club with the highest revenue. That to me feels like the best way to level the playing field. But does not work for owners looking to make a profit out of football. The ticket price subsidy is a suggestion in the world that we are in where the amount you can spend is based of revenue. It is not a fix for everything that is wrong with FFP. Its a small tweak so fans are not punished. Edited May 28 by KetsbaiaIsBald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: No not artificially level ticket income. St James will sell out. It will sell out at higher prices. Demand is huge. But people should not be priced out of a ticket due to FFP meaning all commercial revenue must be maximised. This is about saying I can demonstrate that the ticket would sell for this amount if I charged it. But I do not want to sell it at this amount as it prices out fans. I also do not want to be punished as a club for making decisions that are positive for or fans. In terms of the capacity the point that you can only do this if the ground is sold out. So capacity does not matter. I would not see it as widening the gap. Clubs are increasing the ticket prices. People are getting priced out and it's only going to get worse as demand is so high. Our income will go up from tickets either way. Its just about whether we pay for it or the owners do. I see your point from the pov of reducing the financial burden falling on the individual fan to maximise FFP revenue. But ultimately if Newcastle are charging the same ticket prices as Fulham (wherever the final revenue for each ticket comes from) then we’re just going to increase the gap in ticket revenue and move further away from them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 2 minutes ago, SteV said: I see your point from the pov of reducing the financial burden falling on the individual fan to maximise FFP revenue. But ultimately if Newcastle are charging the same ticket prices as Fulham (wherever the final revenue for each ticket comes from) then we’re just going to increase the gap in ticket revenue and move further away from them. We cross posted. I kind of responded to that in my previous post. Its true but will happen either way. Edited May 28 by KetsbaiaIsBald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: I would be all for everyone in the league being allowed to spend the same amount as the club with the highest revenue. That to me feels like the best way to level the playing field. But does not work for owners looking to make a profit out of football. The ticket price subsidy is a suggestion in the world that we are in where the amount you can spend is based of revenue. It is not a fix for everything that is wrong with FFP. Its a small tweak so fans are not punished. Agree with the first sentence there. Dunno how we get there like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 1 minute ago, SteV said: Agree with the first sentence there. Dunno how we get there like. Unfortunetly I don't think we ever do as the clubs with the most power and influence do not want it. They want the advantage and have fought for years to protect and extend it. Edited May 28 by KetsbaiaIsBald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Crystal Palace co-owner Textor has instructed people to sell his 45% share of Crystal Palace, so he can buy Everton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Wonder if Saudia have a similar “deep commitment” to the North East market? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 13 minutes ago, SteV said: Wonder if Saudia have a similar “deep commitment” to the North East market? Related fair market sponsorship a thing in La Liga? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 14 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Hahaha Couldn’t make it up could ya? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 What the fuck is that wanker at Palace playing at they’re clearly doing someone else’s bidding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) Non paywall that please someone. Surely it can't be as nakedly biased against us as the headline seems ? Edited May 28 by madras Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 I thought that was good news? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: I thought that was good news? That's what I was thinking. What are people complaining about?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, Scoot said: That's what I was thinking. What are people complaining about?? A new rule to show clubs in Europe to spend more, just as we're confirmed as not being in Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now