Topic: LFC Ticket Prices 2016/17

[Graham Smith]

A massive oppotrtunity missed. Interested to know what my main stand season ticket will be next season then, I'm 10 rows behind the directors box!

What do you expect to pay?

[Graham Smith]

Five years ago when the prices started to get hiked we made the point that people who contributed to the atmosphere most were being priced out of the game and it would result in the 'event' that was a home game being affected.

Does anyone think that ticket prices hasn't been the biggest contributor in that loss of atmosphere?

Tomorrow isn't a revolution, it's just another point marking a further step down the path to ordinariness.

Don't lose that in the noise of what is being said about prices - it is a march away from what makes the match, the match.

[paddysour]

Paddy power is loaded and going to pay us all in.

Haha no chance, I live in a council house mate 

I just can't see how SOS and FSG are different here, the theory of both their strategies is literally the exact same.

[grahamlfc]

I recently wrote this piece below in my column in the Liverpool Echo and that was before I have just heard about the disgraceful completely unjustified proposed increases in ticket prices for next season 2016/17.  I ended the piece on the Echo by saying "I want my club back" and after hearing this latest news about ticket price increases it only reiterates further what I have been saying about the American owners.  Absolute disgrace.


"Finally the truth is out and Brendan Rodgers confirmed at the weekend what all LFC fans thought but were unable to prove, and what I have been saying for two years in my Echo column, that the manager never had the final say on incoming transfers and it was, he confirmed, a transfer committee decision who came in to the club.

Brendan went on to say that it is LFC club policy to buy young players with the view of moving them on for a profit - what an absolute disgraceful way to run a club of Liverpool's world standing.

Just to remind Messrs John Henry & Chairman Tom Werner and transfer committee members consisting of the transfer committee manager Mike Gordon, Chief executive Ian Ayre, Head of Recruitment Dave Fallows and Mike Edwards - we are Liverpool , a world renowned club, five times European Cup winners, the most successful club in the history of English football, not just some tin pot club with no history at all.

As the man who built the club, Bill Shankly once stated, we exist to win trophies, nothing more, nothing less, we should not exist to groom young players to sell on to so-called bigger clubs for a handsome profit, because to enlighten the members of the committee, there are no bigger clubs in world football than Liverpool Football Club.

Their long term policy should be to bring in the best possible players to return Liverpool FC to the top of English and ultimately European football. The flawed money obsessed "Moneyball" policy has proven an unmitigated disaster, as have the decisions of the failed "transfer committee" which should be disbanded forthwith.

Their policy of buying flops like Balotelli, Lambert, Borini & Lovren amongst many many others and selling top class players like Suarez and probably Coutinho next summer is a recipe for disaster which has resulted in just one Capital One cup success (2012) during their reign.

Franchise, Moneyball & Profit are all words you associate with the current owners of Liverpool Football Club who make no mistake, are not here as good Samaritan's but to make as much money as they possibly can before selling on at a future date to the highest bidder.

The true owners of any club are the fans, the owners are only custodians, "supposedly" to adhere to the true values of the club. I, like thousands of others want my club back".



http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-fans-jury-reds-10770669

[Graham Smith]

Haha no chance, I live in a council house mate 

I just can't see how SOS and FSG are different here, the theory of both their strategies is literally the exact same.

I'll try again.

FSG are using the ticket revenues and are robbing Peter to pay Paul (and picking Paul's pocket at the same time too) - they are moving ticket revenue around among the matchgoers while at the same time (on a like for like basis as £40m of extra new revenue hoves into view) they are going to make even more out of tickets. More - not the equivalent of this year on a like for like basis, more over and above what they can expect from having more seats.

What the supporters' groups are saying is that the Club's overall revenue should be used to reduce the income produced from ticket sales making tickets cheaper. Not just using the ticket revenue and moving it around.

[plasterered]

I'm out.

Have been for a while now. Prices are going in the wrong direction faster than I can justify. Hardly get to go as it is but I think I'm gonna give up. Probably take my lad to the odd token "day out" in the future just to let him experience match day but the dream of taking him all over the place watching the Reds is dead.

[paddysour]

I'll try again.

FSG are using the ticket revenues and are robbing Peter to pay Paul (and picking Paul's pocket at the same time too) - they are moving ticket revenue around among the matchgoers while at the same time (on a like for like basis as £40m of extra new revenue hoves into view) they are going to make even more out of tickets. More - not the equivalent of this year on a like for like basis, more over and above what they can expect from having more seats.

What the supporters' groups are saying is that the Club's overall revenue should be used to reduce the income produced from ticket sales making tickets cheaper. Not just using the ticket revenue and moving it around.

Why mention 70% then? You keep ignoring it but there's no reason to mention it if you didn't mean the other 30% should be charged a different price.

If FSG stick to their original strategy then everyone wins - the club makes bigger profits so we can spend more on players, the working class man isn't priced out, local youth get in cheaply, and those who are prepared to pay a premium do so. All groups interests are covered, I can't understand the opposition to that idea. The club needs to make money, local youth need the chance to go, the everyday punter deserves to watch the team he loves. Their idea allows all that (assuming they stick to their original idea, which I hope they do)

It's pie in the sky stuff to demand that the club purposefully loses money (and therefore competitiveness) or that 30% of match going fans should be rinsed to cover the other 70%.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Five years ago when the prices started to get hiked we made the point that people who contributed to the atmosphere most were being priced out of the game and it would result in the 'event' that was a home game being affected.

Does anyone think that ticket prices hasn't been the biggest contributor in that loss of atmosphere?

Tomorrow isn't a revolution, it's just another point marking a further step down the path to ordinariness.

Don't lose that in the noise of what is being said about prices - it is a march away from what makes the match, the match.

not just ticket prices but it's near impossible to get 3/4 seats together these past few years which is also a factor

[Graham Smith]

Why mention 70% then? You keep ignoring it but there's no reason to mention it if you didn't mean the other 30% should be charged a different price.

If FSG stick to their original strategy then everyone wins - the club makes bigger profits so we can spend more on players, the working class man isn't priced out, local youth get in cheaply, and those who are prepared to pay a premium do so. All groups interests are covered, I can't understand the opposition to that idea. The club needs to make money, local youth need the chance to go, the everyday punter deserves to watch the team he loves. Their idea allows all that (assuming they stick to their original idea, which I hope they do)

It's pie in the sky stuff to demand that the club purposefully loses money (and therefore competitiveness) or that 30% of match going fans should be rinsed to cover the other 70%.

Ok, here we go - I'll try again.

The 30% are not being asked to subsidise the 70%. There are plenty of people who want to pay top whack for seats in the middle of the best stands and that will contribute to revenues.

The point that is being made is that the Club's overall revenues are large enough (and growing) that over a period of time you can achieve reasonable prices without losing competitiveness, a competitiveness by the way that their strategy over the last five years has failed to deliver more than fleetingly.

[Smudgester]

Why mention 70% then? You keep ignoring it but there's no reason to mention it if you didn't mean the other 30% should be charged a different price.

If FSG stick to their original strategy then everyone wins - the club makes bigger profits so we can spend more on players, the working class man isn't priced out, local youth get in cheaply, and those who are prepared to pay a premium do so. All groups interests are covered, I can't understand the opposition to that idea. The club needs to make money, local youth need the chance to go, the everyday punter deserves to watch the team he loves. Their idea allows all that (assuming they stick to their original idea, which I hope they do)

It's pie in the sky stuff to demand that the club purposefully loses money (and therefore competitiveness) or that 30% of match going fans should be rinsed to cover the other 70%.

I don't know why you bother paddypower.

[Graham Smith]

not just ticket prices but it's near impossible to get 3/4 seats together these past few years which is also a factor

Welcome to the FSG Sweet Spot -  a ground small enough to milk demand but not large enough to deliver things like convenience and value. Never mind more than the the fleeting sniff of success.

[Smudgester]

Ok, here we go - I'll try again.

The 30% are not being asked to subsidise the 70%. There are plenty of people who want to pay top whack for seats in the middle of the best stands and that will contribute to revenues.

The point that is being made is that the Club's overall revenues are large enough (and growing) that over a period of time you can achieve reasonable prices without losing competitiveness, a competitiveness by the way that their strategy over the last five years has failed to deliver more than fleetingly.

But unless EVERY club in the League do what you are proposing - and they won't as they have no need to as demand outstrips supply - then the club would lose competitiveness.

As such then you should be taking your complaints to the PL and not one particular club

[Graham Smith]

But unless EVERY club in the League do what you are proposing - and they won't as they have no need to as demand outstrips supply - then the club would lose competitiveness.

As such then you should be taking your complaints to the PL and not one particular club

Ha ha ha ha. Really?

So starting with £1m a year (2.5% of the new TV deal, 0.3% of turnover, a player on £20k a week) means we'll miss out on the CL?

I know you won't agree but the money is so vast and continuing to be so that the small amount needed to make a difference to young, local people wouldn't turn us into Hull City.

[the BIG fella]

What do you expect to pay?

I assume they will go up, becasue once the posts are moved I'll have a prime position, so about a grand I would say

[Smudgester]

Ha ha ha ha. Really?

So starting with £1m a year (2.5% of the new TV deal, 0.3% of turnover, a player on £20k a week) means we'll miss out on the CL?

I know you won't agree but the money is s vast and continuing to be so that the small amount needed to make a difference to young, local people wouldn't turn us into Hull City.

Who is talking about qualifying for the CL?

We are talking about being competitive - by  definition, a team with more costs can not be as competitive as one with less.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Welcome to the FSG Sweet Spot -  a ground small enough to milk demand but not large enough to deliver things like convenience and value. Never mind more than the the fleeting sniff of success.

how does that make it harder to get tickets together especially as the capacity remains constant?

[plasterered]

I assume they will go up, becasue once the posts are moved I'll have a prime position, so about a grand I would say

u still have 100 plus year old seats crammed, hard and uncomfortable. If u stay seated for 90 that is.

Will they change the seats from front to back too ? Be a shame to see the wooden ones removed

[Narwin Dunez]

So would you be happy with £100 tickets if it meant we won the league?

I fucking wouldn't. I also wouldn't trust the TC to spend that money properly.

Disagree with a lot Graham has to say but £1m to assist the working class fan getting to the game is a drop in the ocean that wouldn't be missed. Wouldn't be the difference between a league place, it would be one less speculative punt or under 18 player.

[Graham Smith]

Who is talking about qualifying for the CL?

We are talking about being competitive - by  definition, a team with more costs can not be as competitive as one with less.

Leicester City.

Stoke City.

West Ham.

In recent seasons Tottenham.

Further back Everton. The list goes on and on. The team with most money doesn't always win everything.

While I agree the correlation generally I am talking the matter of degrees - not suggesting making it free to get in and splurging half the turnover on the supporters - minor percentages that wouldn't harm competitiveness in any well run, well managed and football focussed business.

[Smudgester]

how does that make it harder to get tickets together especially as the capacity remains constant?

You are on a forum where the club was getting slated for even considering moving to a new ground ( with more seats ) to now being slated for not moving. LOL

[Graham Smith]

how does that make it harder to get tickets together especially as the capacity remains constant?

Eh?

Try and get four together on general admission.

[cox3100]

We know absolutely nothing about what is going on with ticket prices and won't find out until tomorrow so most of the thread could be bollocks,we have one side of the story,and I'm not saying Graham is lying but there are 2 sides to every story and we should read/hear what the club have to say before slating FSG.

[MichaelA]

Ok, here we go - I'll try again.

The 30% are not being asked to subsidise the 70%. There are plenty of people who want to pay top whack for seats in the middle of the best stands and that will contribute to revenues.

So if the 30% are not being asked to subsidise the 70%, who is subsidising the 70%? Who are the plenty of people who want to pay top whack?

And how were you proposing to use the £1 million that you have mentioned? How did you see the five year journey progressing,  and how much would the club be paying for the journey in the fifth year?

[Graham Smith]

We know absolutely nothing about what is going on with ticket prices and won't find out until tomorrow so most of the thread could be bollocks,we have one side of the story,and I'm not saying Graham is lying but there are 2 sides to every story and we should read/hear what the club have to say before slating FSG.

I'm not saying anything other than the Club didn't listen close enough to the supporters they invited into a thirteen month consultation.

The story of the consultation will be show how they operate when seen in the context of the new prices tomorrow.

And I have said it isn't all doom and gloom - they have listened on some things, things which again where raised by supporters and not brought to the table by them.

[plasterered]

Who is talking about qualifying for the CL?

We are talking about being competitive - by  definition, a team with more costs can not be as competitive as one with less.

The owners have other policies that see we are less competitive without revenue loss.

There could be a question of what are you getting for your money? Top four/title challenging ticket prices world class quality players on display. I'm not sure    can we be competitive with our other current policies

[Graham Smith]

You are on a forum where the club was getting slated for even considering moving to a new ground ( with more seats ) to now being slated for not moving. LOL

Never suggested that.

See my dealings with Peter McGurk - we are no allies, far from it - but he suggested staying at Anfield almost ten years ago with plans very different to what we are seeing now (but this isn't a stadium thread).

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Eh?

Try and get four together on general admission.

im talking about members sale, used to be able to get 3 together quite easily when it was £36 or so,but bloody difficult at £50 or so

[Hij]

Yes because we're well fucking competitive at the current prices.

The competitiveness argument is total bollocks.

[Graham Smith]

Here's a stat.

If we moved tickets for 70% of the ground to £30 next season - the lost revenue would move us down the Deloitte ratings. Right down. We'd be hammered as we plummeted down this important league table.




From 8th richest Club in the world by turnover to 9th. And thats without trying a bit harder to replace the lost revenue.

(And no one has ever suggested moving the prices that low that quick).

[KOTP]

dont know why everyone is shocked or angered by this the club have stopped seeing us as supporters and started seeing us as customers long before FSG, prices have been going up for years and will continue to do so clubs dont care who goes in the stadium as long as people are they will charge what they can get away with until people stop going paying it, simple business supply and demand, its tough for us fans but the clubs wont listen and dont really care

[CONFIAMOS]

Staggered at how people can belittle the work of SOS.

For me, it's finished. Too many geg ins it's now easy pickings for our owners to divide and conquer the lot. And for those who still go and have done for years it's a sad state of affairs to see the masses who have barely set foot in L4 to be siding with franchise fred who's only arsed about ripening the club up for a quick sale. These owners are a notch smarter than the last but no different by nature. Let's not kid ourselves about that.

They'll squeeze the $$ out of the mugs that continue to pay then walk on to their next investment.

SOS have done a fantastic job but once again, enough is enough.

[KOTP]

Here's a stat.

If we moved tickets for 70% of the ground to £30 next season - the lost revenue would move us down the Deloitte ratings. Right down. We'd be hammered as we plummeted down this important league table.




From 8th richest Club in the world by turnover to 9th. And thats without trying a bit harder to replace the lost revenue.

(And no one has ever suggested moving the prices that low that quick).

why are they gonna sell 70% of tickets for £30 though when they can sell them for £60-70 if i was running  a business i would charge the top price for my product that anyone is willing to pay

[MichaelA]

WEST HAM (cue ignoring them as they are financially doping of course.......):

West Ham United are delighted to announce major price cuts across the board for Season Tickets for the first season at the Club’s magnificent new home on Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

The key details are as follows:

Every Season Ticket price band will see a reduction as the Club uses increased broadcast revenue to offer dramatically cheaper tickets to its supporters

A new entry-level Band 5 adult Season Ticket will cost just £289 – the cheapest in the Premier League

All Season Tickets for Under-16s will be cut to just £99 – the equivalent of only £5 per game

A family of four can buy a Season Ticket for just £776 – the equivalent of £41 per match

West Ham United Joint-Chairmen David Sullivan and David Gold and Vice-Chairman Karren Brady have long been champions of trying to make football more affordable for supporters.

Completely specious comparison, they need to sell almost 20,000 tickets more to fill their new ground. They're doing something very very different from what you're proposing.

[Jay_Mc]

Here's a stat.

If we moved tickets for 70% of the ground to £30 next season - the lost revenue would move us down the Deloitte ratings. Right down. We'd be hammered as we plummeted down this important league table.




From 8th richest Club in the world by turnover to 9th. And thats without trying a bit harder to replace the lost revenue.

(And no one has ever suggested moving the prices that low that quick).

That's not true. We are ninth currently.

We could make every single ticket in the ground £30 and still stay ninth. But the extra money made by these plans, won't be the difference in whether we made eight or higher. That will all be down to hospitality money and other revenues.

[Graham Smith]

That's not true. We are ninth currently.

We could make every single ticket in the ground £30 and still stay ninth. But the extra money made by these plans, won't be the difference in whether we made eight or higher. That will all be down to hospitality money and other revenues.

Lies, damn lies and statistics 

[robygerrard]

Leicester City.

Stoke City.

West Ham.

In recent seasons Tottenham.

Further back Everton. The list goes on and on. The team with most money doesn't always win everything.

While I agree the correlation generally I am talking the matter of degrees - not suggesting making it free to get in and splurging half the turnover on the supporters - minor percentages that wouldn't harm competitiveness in any well run, well managed and football focussed business.

In all cases....... winning without winning?

[scouse and proud plc.]

Anyone spouting the 'but we need to charge these pries to compete financially' nonsense can fuck right off. I'd rather get relegated down to League 2 than price local people (and particularly kids from going the match.)

I'm done now anyway, I will be going to watch City of Liverpool next season, the LFC pyjama gimps on here are welcome to the franchise.

[redprodigal]

why are they gonna sell 70% of tickets for £30 though when they can sell them for £60-70 if i was running  a business i would charge the top price for my product that anyone is willing to pay

For fucks sake

[Smudgester]

why are they gonna sell 70% of tickets for £30 though when they can sell them for £60-70 if i was running  a business i would charge the top price for my product that anyone is willing to pay

Cos LFC is apparently a charity which exists solely for the benefit of the local community

[MichaelA]

Tickets should generally be around the £30 point

Says who?

I think it's optimistic to think that the club will make a deliberate choice to reduce match day revenue. That's the polite version.

The only way that I can see you achieving your goals of greater access for local youths, and seeing lower ticket prices is by beginning the process of lobbying for safe standing.

I appreciate and understand that there are strong feelings around that proposal, but I honestly don't see how else capacity and revenue issues can otherwise be reconciled. If the supporters of Liverpool Football Club backed and lobbied hard for the FSF proposals I think it would bring other fans from other clubs on board, and would be an enormously powerful message to the regulators of the game, and the legislators who would have to listen.