|
MrBling posted:I think the worst thing Joe Lewis has done was that bit of currency speculation back in 92. The only bad thing about Joe Lewis is his relative anonymity. This allows Spurs fans to never shut up about their incredible financial prudence when they've had Sugar daddies longer than anyone. poo poo, the only reason nobody calls them on it is they never win anything.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:My point is that even if success is the biggest factor, clubs who are successful and treat their local fans well are more appealing to most international fans than clubs who are successful but have their fans protesting in the stands every game. Either way I'm not exactly sure when Roman has abused his local fanbase. All he's done is bought them trophies. Indeed, and to be fair Chelsea's ticket prices are the same as they were 5 years ago. That's certainly not true at the clubs with profit-taking Americans. TyChan posted:So from what I remember reading, Chelsea really owe Abramovich a ton of money in the form of low interest loans which he has made to the club, correct? I guess if anyone else wanted to buy Chelsea from him, depending on the state of his own finances, he could just take a bath on those loans he has made? That WAS the situation. Now they really owe nothing. The difference is semantic since obviously as any sole owner of a business can (and Roman owns all but 1 share), he can theoretically Glazer the club whenever he wants. Jollzwhin posted:I support my club, I don't support the club's owners. I didn't support the owners even when it was Wardle and the rest of the old regime who were really pretty harmless. I don't like Thaksin and I'm not a huge fan of the Sheikh. However I am a fan of Manchester City. Well exactly this, you won't get a defence of anything Roman's done outside Chelsea from me. I do however appreciate that outside of trophies and the er "interesting" way he got there, Roman era Chelsea has managed to avoid fan gouging and has sanctioned reasonably cool stuff like the current "Stamford runs the London marathon" charity campaign and free or heavily subsidised group travel to away matches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 10:13
|
|
|
I wonder how bad Leeds' owners are that they want to remain anonymous so badly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 10:21
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:The only bad thing about Joe Lewis is his relative anonymity. This allows Spurs fans to never shut up about their incredible financial prudence when they've had Sugar daddies longer than anyone. Funnily enough it goes back to Alan Sugar who, while reviled by some supporters, basically ensured Spurs wouldn't do a Leeds. We've been run by a rich business man, but he's treated it like a business. Feel free to prove me wrong, but we've been one of the best run teams in the PL for quite a while. (economically speaking).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 11:38
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Indeed, and to be fair Chelsea's ticket prices are the same as they were 5 years ago. That's certainly not true at the clubs with profit-taking Americans. Ahahahaha. "Yes, our ticket prices are almost double what United's and Liverpool's are, but theirs are much worse, because they're going up"
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 12:10
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Ahahahaha. If by double you mean 5 pounds extra than can be attributed to running a club in the middle of London, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 12:29
|
|
|
Chelsea were gouging fans before gouging fans was invented. When I was a kid, a United season ticket cost £300. A season ticket to Chelsea cost £600. And they were poo poo then. Like, more poo poo than now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 12:36
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Chelsea were gouging fans before gouging fans was invented. Well given the disparity is now closer to 100 quid (again, the cost of having to run a business in London) I guess we can conclude that Chelsea are making tickets more affordable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 12:48
|
|
|
I suppose you could conclude that if the currency to purchase Chelsea season tickets was Manchester United season tickets and not, say, pounds sterling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 12:49
|
|
|
Scikar posted:I suppose you could conclude that if the currency to purchase Chelsea season tickets was Manchester United season tickets and not, say, pounds sterling. My point is, FLJ is full of poo poo. Chelsea's ticket prices are only ever so slightly higher than that of the other clubs, which is more than reasonable since we have the lowest capacity, and have to operate out of the more expensive London instead of Manchester or Liverpool. I freely admit we will bleed you loving dry on hospitality / corporate seats though, but if you're rich enough to afford them in the first place, I doubt you give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 12:52
|
|
|
Rhgr posted:My point is, FLJ is full of poo poo. Chelsea's ticket prices are only ever so slightly higher than that of the other clubs, which is more than reasonable since we have the lowest capacity, and have to operate out of the more expensive London instead of Manchester or Liverpool. Just because everyone else is getting cuntier does not mean you are getting less cunty hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 12:54
|
|
|
Vando posted:Just because everyone else is getting cuntier does not mean you are getting less cunty hth Champions League group tickets are half the price they were then, so yes, actually they are, admittedly only after the Rosenberg embarrassment but still it's more than a lot of clubs have done (Blackburn was trying to get £40 for a Carling cup match last I looked). In fairness I should mention Arsenal for this, who were offering very decently priced tickets for the Carling cup match I saw there, even if their organisation (which involved allocating about 5 minutes for 20,000 people to pick up tickets from the box office and then not delaying the match when it didn't work) was hilarious. Regardless I mentioned it merely as a point that, from the point of view of the guy who actually goes to the odd game *REAL FANS*, then actually the regimes had its benefits compared to those elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
Scikar posted:I suppose you could conclude that if the currency to purchase Chelsea season tickets was Manchester United season tickets and not, say, pounds sterling. If we're going to be horribly pedantic. Static ticket prices in an environment where the average wage rises means that actually, yes, they are. (I've no idea if the season ticket prices are static but the post you quoted just said tickets)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 13:23
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Champions League group tickets are half the price they were then, so yes, actually they are, admittedly only after the Rosenberg embarrassment but still it's more than a lot of clubs have done (Blackburn was trying to get £40 for a Carling cup match last I looked). In fairness I should mention Arsenal for this, who were offering very decently priced tickets for the Carling cup match I saw there, even if their organisation (which involved allocating about 5 minutes for 20,000 people to pick up tickets from the box office and then not delaying the match when it didn't work) was hilarious. Rosenborg
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 13:27
|
|
|
http://www.chelseafc.com/page/TicketPrices/0,,10268,00.html http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7B9B60BA99-3E87-4FBC-8CD8-010E3CA3A129%7D This isn't rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
The Mash posted:Rosenborg Damnit, that's what I thought and then I let the spell check correct me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
Now begins a semantic argument as to whether £48 is "nearly double" £38, £60 is "nearly double" £44 and £35 is "nearly double" £25 and I don't care. I will point out, the champions league group prices at Chelsea are the same as the FA cup ones and the Carling cup £5 less, they've been removed from that page as those competitions are over. I don't know if Utd offers different prices for those events.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
Dudley posted:Now begins a semantic argument as to whether £48 is "nearly double" £38, £60 is "nearly double" £44 and £35 is "nearly double" £25 and I don't care. The issue was not the semantics or the mathematics of it, the issue was the absurdity of claiming that Abramovich not ramping up ticket prices makes him significantly better than the Americans while completely ignoring the fact that even with the ramped ticket prices, it still costs far more to go see Chelsea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
People in London are richer than northerners so it makes sense that tickets cost a bit extra. The average yearly income in London is around 30k while if you are from Wigan or something you'll be lucky to earn enough to pay tax.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:The only bad thing about Joe Lewis is his relative anonymity. This allows Spurs fans to never shut up about their incredible financial prudence when they've had Sugar daddies longer than anyone. He hasn't really been a sugar daddy in the common sense though. ENIC owns Spurs and ENIC is just one company in Lewis' Tavistock group which own a ton of different things. ENIC is run by Levy and Lewis has nothing whatsoever to do with the club and doesn't really put any money into it. He doesn't even care about football. Levy does though, and so long as Spurs is making money for ENIC then Joe Lewis is happy to let Levy do what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
Flayer posted:People in London are richer than northerners so it makes sense that tickets cost a bit extra. The average yearly income in London is around 30k while if you are from Wigan or something you'll be lucky to earn enough to pay tax. But people in London are the ones who go to United games, so the price comparison is totally fair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
Yeah, if you make £30k in London, you're not going to the football. You'll be lucky to be able to go outside. I've covered this before, it's a complete excuse, and it's propagated by people who think that the north is full of polar bears and dirt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
I don't get the point about arguing which owner has been better while only looking at ticket prices. Thats like saying that Hicks and Gillett are the best owners going by entertainment value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
I was listening to the BBC World Service this morning and they had a bit about the Red Knights. They interviewed a couple of "international" fans about what they think of the Glazers, and while they unanimously hated them, they couldn't come up with any better reason to depose them other than "Anything is better than them!". Of course, one from Austria, one from Russia and one from Malaysia, so it was pretty ridiculous to begin with. They all referred to Manchester United as "Manchester" as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Yeah, if you make £30k in London, you're not going to the football. You'll be lucky to be able to go outside. It's grim oop north! GravityDaemon posted:I was listening to the BBC World Service this morning and they had a bit about the Red Knights. They interviewed a couple of "international" fans about what they think of the Glazers, and while they unanimously hated them, they couldn't come up with any better reason to depose them other than "Anything is better than them!". No doubt they cherry-picked some idiots, not that that is particularly hard as most football fans are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:It's grim oop north! When I went to Sunderland with Everton, it was hilarious how everyone kept going on about how grim it was and why would anyone want to live in this poo poo hole. Apart from it coming from the mouth of some pretty poor looking scouses, we hadn't actually been anywhere apart from the motor way and the stadium. Love an indoctrinated stereotype
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Adnar posted:When I went to Sunderland with Everton, it was hilarious how everyone kept going on about how grim it was and why would anyone want to live in this poo poo hole. Apart from it coming from the mouth of some pretty poor looking scouses, we hadn't actually been anywhere apart from the motor way and the stadium. Love an indoctrinated stereotype It's a tiered system, at least Manchester/Liverpool have some culture etc, Birmingham is wasteland and don't even mention the north-east. Basically every area of Britain hates every other area, generally for poo poo reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
Adnar posted:When I went to Sunderland with Everton, it was hilarious how everyone kept going on about how grim it was and why would anyone want to live in this poo poo hole. Apart from it coming from the mouth of some pretty poor looking scouses, we hadn't actually been anywhere apart from the motor way and the stadium. Love an indoctrinated stereotype Sunderland honestly is a poo poo hole, although I accept what you're saying. It coming from scousers though is pretty funny considering Liverpool is as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
Adnar posted:When I went to Sunderland with Everton, it was hilarious how everyone kept going on about how grim it was and why would anyone want to live in this poo poo hole. Apart from it coming from the mouth of some pretty poor looking scouses, we hadn't actually been anywhere apart from the motor way and the stadium. Love an indoctrinated stereotype It's not even that, as much. There are plenty of poo poo towns full of nothing that are just bland and horrible and you would never want to live there. But people there don't wash their clothes with a loving mangle. I mean, really, people in Wigan don't earn enough to pay tax? The tax cutoff is about £6,000 a year. If you're working full-time at minimum wage, you're making £12,000 a year. What you tend to find, though, is that in those towns there's a limit on how much you can actually achieve without moving away. That doesn't mean that everybody who lives there survives off discount brand spaghetti shapes and assorted tinned meats. That's what the Irish are for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
Flayer posted:People in London are richer than northerners so it makes sense that tickets cost a bit extra. The average yearly income in London is around 30k while if you are from Wigan or something you'll be lucky to earn enough to pay tax. Yes but please note that that average income is inflated like gently caress by cunts in the City. Who also buy up all the living space so THAT becomes super expensive, so companies have to pay more than elsewhere in salary so that their employees can actually live locally. Said employee then still only has the same disposable income as any other fucker, so why does he have to pay more for his ticket to see his football team?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Yeah, if you make £30k in London, you're a Brentford fan. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
Vando posted:Said employee then still only has the same disposable income as any other fucker, so why does he have to pay more for his ticket to see his football team? Does he though? Doesn't he have to spend more to eat out, drink out or do anything? I have only been to London but saying that someone in one of the most expensive cities in the world has the same disposable income as someone elsewhere seems counter-intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
Depends what he wants to do. There's plenty of stuff to do and food to eat and drinks to drink that won't cost you an arm and a leg.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
willkill4food posted:Does he though? Doesn't he have to spend more to eat out, drink out or do anything? I have only been to London but saying that someone in one of the most expensive cities in the world has the same disposable income as someone elsewhere seems counter-intuitive. London does not have to be expensive. Sure there are lots of expensive places to go out, but remember the aforementioned City dudes with scads of cash can support jacked up prices. It's still not relevant regarding Chelsea ticket prices though. Unless your argument is going to be they're catering to the richer demographic in which case wait hang on yes they are cunts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
The only really expensive thing in London is property/rent. Apart from that just avoid toff and tourist hangouts and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Flayer posted:The only really expensive thing in London is property/rent. Apart from that just avoid toff and tourist hangouts and you'll be fine. Things like transport are a lot more expensive though, no?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:Things like transport are a lot more expensive though, no?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
Flayer posted:Probably. It's 1.20p for a bus ticket now. I guess it's like 50p or something in the north. gently caress off it costs me £2.20 to get into the centre of Bristol 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
Transport in London costs a loving bomb. I hate it when you realise you need to get a taxi home, so a night out now costs an additional £30. On a day to day basis, a couple of tube rides will cost you about £5/£6, but if you use an Oyster it'll be capped at that. I have no idea if it's more or less than elsewhere though, aside from Brighton which is only a bit cheaper, but it's within the commuter belt, so it isn't really fair comparison. Totally agreeing with what everyone else says about money too. I have no idea how people on or near minimum wage work and live in London. As far as tickets go, isn't it also worth taking into account the size of stadiums and demand? Wigan may be cheap compared to Arsenal, but it's not like they're turning people away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
bigfatspacko_uk posted:gently caress off it costs me £2.20 to get into the centre of Bristol With bin bags full of remains?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:28
|
|
