Topic: FSG (*)

[vblfc]

Just an observation - The idea our "youth" supporting a team like in the 70's or 80's isn't going to happen.  anyone with teenage kids know that they cant survive for 10 mins without their facebook/mobile/digital native thing going.  We are dreaming if we think that these kids will pile into Anfield the "old way".  that's just the way of the modern world. 

Anyway - Maybe the way to sort this all out is to divide Anfield into a number of different areas/Zones  Put the OOTs all together, the auld Arses, the kids, the singers, the grumpy locals who wont sing, TC zone,   (oh and maybe the away fans).- sort of an Anfield Game of Thrones. 

[Graham Smith]

So by that is it safe to assume the vast majority of season ticket holders are local? Given only a small proportion of them have been sold since 2005 and will all of gone to pre-2005 registered on the waiting list.

So what proportion of the ground at ST's currently?


Edit - Genuine question before you come back with a sarky reply.

I've been told that the ground is about 40% non-local (an hour from Anfield).

[CraigDS]

I've been told that the ground is about 40% non-local (an hour from Anfield).

Interesting stat that ta, and you said before that you think it should be around 70% local - so up about 10% from where it is?

[Graham Smith]

In what golden age was the Kop a scouse only, all singing paradise, though? I remember plenty of Scottish, Irish, Yorkshire and other accents around me in the late 70s and 80s (as well as mine). And they knew - and sang - every song. Took quite a while to learn Scouser Tommy .

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but the problem for the Kop is following seating - the older generation doesn't move on to the Main Stand as it used to. This obviously dilutes the young, noisy core of the Kop. I think it has little to do with place of birth.

And in simple mathematics, a reduction of the number of premium 'tourist' tickets would mean an increase, not a decrease, in prices for locals to maintain the same overall revenue.

You're right about the age profile and the fact that the old option of maturing into the Kemlyn and Main Stand isn't three anymore as FSG aren't solving the ground problem sufficiently.

But reclaiming touted tickets and making some move to making a proportion of tickets available for the young locals is possible - but FSG have to accept a dent in ticket revenues, which currently they won't countenance.

[Igor Zidane]

Interesting stat that ta, and you said before that you think it should be around 70% local - so up about 10% from where it is?

With a much bigger capacity .

[Graham Smith]

I personally think you need to have a clear distinction between "local" and "local youth" when I get to Anfield I've been with some other lads from Manchester, we've sang every song, chanted all game.. We often get told to shut up by the moaning auld "local" farts who do nothing but criticise our players.. Which would you rather have? I know which I would.

Half the problem is the wrong locals having the tickets, sitting in the kop and not lending their voice to support.

FSG do need to bring in some sort of incentive for local lads, 15-21 and get them all together in the kop somewhere, kick the aul fellas into the main stand and allow like minded people to sit together (i.e. the ones who want to sing.)

It's not "local" support you need, it's the "right" support - doesn't matter if you travel in from America every single game if you get the ethos and soul of the club and finish the match with not a breath in your body, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Sorry, not having that - this is Liverpool FC from Liverpool. It has to reflect, warts and all, the local community.

Your approach leads to supporter competitions and the best and loudest getting in - that's not the point - this is a local Club, it isn't there to be diluted by a preponderance (and I'll stress, a preponderance) of visitors.

[Graham Smith]

I've found it to be okay because of Twitter resources. Something locals have just as much access to if not more since a lot of the pick ups are arranged locally.

Eh John, remember though, apparently we're part of the problem. Lid.   Clearly, offering the opportunity for this at-cost exchange (along with a ferocious intolerance of touting) isn't assisting anyone cos like yer know we're all bad wools and OOTs and OOCs.......

I know you won't do that as RAWK has ti be seen as super inclusive and super diverse. And of course none of the traded tickets would get to visitors.

[Zeb]

Sorry, not having that - this is Liverpool FC from Liverpool. It has to reflect, warts and all, the local community.

Your approach leads to supporter competitions and the best and loudest getting in - that's not the point - this is a local Club, it isn't there to be diluted by a preponderance (and I'll stress, a preponderance) of visitors.

In what way 'diluted'? Your definition of local is one hour's drive from Anfield?

[24/7]

I've been told that the ground is about 40% non-local (an hour from Anfield).

Graham, it's clear that there's a growing sense of unease about the imbalance you highlighted earlier in the thread and it's also clear it's a volatile subject, as evidenced by some of the more hot-headed elements in the discussion. My interest in this is to a) promote healthy debate and b) facilitate where possible something towards a compromise on the imbalance.

Part of the problem is that it's a perceived imbalance, lacking any reliable empirical evidence from an impartial source, so here's an idea off the top of my head.....if it can be agreed that one way to tackle the imbalance is to 'prove' it, so to speak (there's no denying it exists but the old saying applies here of "If it's not written down, it may as well not exist!")

Commission a survey in town over a period of time.
Target people of a particular age bracket, say 16-24 (in my view gender is irrelevant).
Establish if they are LFC fans.
Establish if they live within an approximated one hour's travelling distance of Anfield.
Establish if they actually go der game lid or don't.
Capture reasons why (predefine them and tick the one that is most relevant to the participant's perception, i.e. "Tickets too expensive, Can't get one, Too many OOTs in the ground, etc, etc)

If the supposition is correct, then the evidence of the survey will lean towards a clear belief that a) a substantial proportion of the people interviewed, having fulfilled criteria of age, support and geographical vicinity, believe b) the situation at Anfield would be better addressed if tickets could be made more readily available at an affordable price.

Present those findings to the club and propose some kind of subsidised scheme for young locals to apply for that provide 'x' number of tickets at 'y' price provided criteria are met and absolutely no 'trading' even.

You could maybe get the sociology departments of any of the Universities interested in running the survey.

If this is a daft idea that will never get off the ground, I sincerely apologise - I offer it merely in the interests of looking for a way to address the issue.

[Graham Smith]

Just an observation - The idea our "youth" supporting a team like in the 70's or 80's isn't going to happen.  anyone with teenage kids know that they cant survive for 10 mins without their facebook/mobile/digital native thing going.  We are dreaming if we think that these kids will pile into Anfield the "old way".  that's just the way of the modern world. 

Anyway - Maybe the way to sort this all out is to divide Anfield into a number of different areas/Zones  Put the OOTs all together, the auld Arses, the kids, the singers, the grumpy locals who wont sing, TC zone,   (oh and maybe the away fans).- sort of an Anfield Game of Thrones. 

I'll have a guess you're not local - because if you were you'd know the passion that exists in the city for football and the young people who want to get in the ground.

[Igor Zidane]

In what way 'diluted'? Your definition of local is one hour's drive from Anfield?

That's the clubs definition .

[24/7]

If you bought from a tout then you are part of the p
Up the process and take a bit more control and offer the tickets to locals first and then anything not taken goes to visitors.

I know you won't do that as RAWK has ti be seen as super inclusive and super diverse. And of course none of the traded tickets would get to visitors.

I can't determine RAWK policy and would never pretend to have anything near to the level of influence required to make that work - but at least it's a suggestion and in a debate all suggestions (where reasonable enough) should be looked at. I would love to see some stats though that indicate the proportion of locals benefitting from the exchange - practically impossible to achieve though unfortunately - unless we tried to measure it by taking one game in isolation as a kind of thought experiment.......

[Graham Smith]

Interesting stat that ta, and you said before that you think it should be around 70% local - so up about 10% from where it is?

No, there's little that can be done about the season tickets for obvious reasons.

My 70% (and I only said that because I suspect my real wish of 90% would be derided and isn't realistic) related to general admissions which I suspect is possibly more like 70/30 against locals. I'd reverse that completely.

[Graham Smith]

In what way 'diluted'? Your definition of local is one hour's drive from Anfield?

That's a pretty reasonable starting place - the one hour by the way was the Club's measure, not mine.

[Graham Smith]

Graham, it's clear that there's a growing sense of unease about the imbalance you highlighted earlier in the thread and it's also clear it's a volatile subject, as evidenced by some of the more hot-headed elements in the discussion. My interest in this is to a) promote healthy debate and b) facilitate where possible something towards a compromise on the imbalance.

Part of the problem is that it's a perceived imbalance, lacking any reliable empirical evidence from an impartial source, so here's an idea off the top of my head.....if it can be agreed that one way to tackle the imbalance is to 'prove' it, so to speak (there's no denying it exists but the old saying applies here of "If it's not written down, it may as well not exist!")

Commission a survey in town over a period of time.
Target people of a particular age bracket, say 16-24 (in my view gender is irrelevant).
Establish if they are LFC fans.
Establish if they live within an approximated one hour's travelling distance of Anfield.
Establish if they actually go der game lid or don't.
Capture reasons why (predefine them and tick the one that is most relevant to the participant's perception, i.e. "Tickets too expensive, Can't get one, Too many OOTs in the ground, etc, etc)

If the supposition is correct, then the evidence of the survey will lean towards a clear belief that a) a substantial proportion of the people interviewed, having fulfilled criteria of age, support and geographical vicinity, believe b) the situation at Anfield would be better addressed if tickets could be made more readily available at an affordable price.

Present those findings to the club and propose some kind of subsidised scheme for young locals to apply for that provide 'x' number of tickets at 'y' price provided criteria are met and absolutely no 'trading' even.

You could maybe get the sociology departments of any of the Universities interested in running the survey.

If this is a daft idea that will never get off the ground, I sincerely apologise - I offer it merely in the interests of looking for a way to address the issue.

The Club will have all of that already - remember the famed but never released feasibility study that everyone trots out saying that "the study won't support a larger ground".

[Draex]

Sorry, not having that - this is Liverpool FC from Liverpool. It has to reflect, warts and all, the local community.

Your approach leads to supporter competitions and the best and loudest getting in - that's not the point - this is a local Club, it isn't there to be diluted by a preponderance (and I'll stress, a preponderance) of visitors.

Sorry but you are living in a fantasy world, how do you expect our club to compete if you lower tickets so only locals can get in? You won't achieve anything, would you rather be sat in Division 1 and be all locals or be competing at the top? You can't have both.

[vblfc]

I'll have a guess you're not local - because if you were you'd know the passion that exists in the city for football and the young people who want to get in the ground.

Not local mate if I understand your definition of local.  But been a red since 1960's with more passion than you could imagine and I'm ok not to be a local. 
I was having a laugh with my post.  I still stand by my point - When/if the youth get in, they will have a different approach to the match experience from when I was a kid, and why would that be a surprise?.  Pretty sure its not just non-local kids that are the facebook generation.

[wemmick]

No, there's little that can be done about the season tickets for obvious reasons.

My 70% (and I only said that because I suspect my real wish of 90% would be derided and isn't realistic) related to general admissions which I suspect is possibly more like 70/30 against locals. I'd reverse that completely.

Out of curiosity, did the the Liverpool City Council know about the ticket allocation when it signed off on the stadium expansion? I suspect it did because the Anfield Project is largely predicated upon attracting external (non-local) monies. How does your position on ticket allocation correspond to the redevelop plans for the area? I've seen a number of posts suggesting that general economic depression is one of the reasons locals cannot afford tickets, but if 70% of tickets are allocated to locals, how does that affect the redevelopment of the area? It's seems like a Catch-22. You want LFC to be for locals, but the economic math doesn't work if it is. How do you hope to reconcile that? (I mean these questions sincerely. I'm uncertain about your position, but I'm not closed minded about it.)   

[DonkeyWan]

Interesting stat that ta, and you said before that you think it should be around 70% local - so up about 10% from where it is?

What does 'local' mean anyway? Born in sight of the ground? Do you have to have lived in Liverpool all your life? What about people who born in Liverpool, work in Liverpool but have moved outside? Are the tickets for those who have just moved to Liverpool? There are so many variables, do you give priority to those who are born in Liverpool, live near the ground, but only want to go to the occasional game with friends for a day out because they prefer cricket or rugby? Do they get preference to someone who has travelled from Australia for a game because their parents were Liverpudlians who moved abroad when they were young and thye have always supported Liverpool from afar?

I find it all very strange, how do you define 'local'?

[Trousers]

Sorry but you are living in a fantasy world, how do you expect our club to compete if you lower tickets so only locals can get in? You won't achieve anything, would you rather be sat in Division 1 and be all locals or be competing at the top? You can't have both.

How did we achieve our success without you?
So you want a successful club but without the people being able to watch it?
Why not just make the KOP executive boxes imagine how much money they'd pay to have one there.
Then we could be successful forever.

[Graham Smith]

Sorry but you are living in a fantasy world, how do you expect our club to compete if you lower tickets so only locals can get in? You won't achieve anything, would you rather be sat in Division 1 and be all locals or be competing at the top? You can't have both.

It's the same old tired cliches.

Do you think say £3m a year on a reduction in ticket prices means we end up in "Division 1"?

Or we make tickets for international fans more expensive and we throw another tenner on all the lounge tickets.

[Gedo]

What does 'local' mean anyway? Born in sight of the ground? Do you have to have lived in Liverpool all your life? What about people who born in Liverpool, work in Liverpool but have moved outside? Are the tickets for those who have just moved to Liverpool? There are so many variables, do you give priority to those who are born in Liverpool, live near the ground, but only want to go to the occasional game with friends for a day out because they prefer cricket or rugby? Do they get preference to someone who has travelled from Australia for a game because their parents were Liverpudlians who moved abroad when they were young and thye have always supported Liverpool from afar?

I find it all very strange, how do you define 'local'?

Having a purple bin for starters

 

[Graham Smith]

Out of curiosity, did the the Liverpool City Council know about the ticket allocation when it signed off on the stadium expansion? I suspect it did because the Anfield Project is largely predicated upon attracting external (non-local) monies. How does your position on ticket allocation correspond to the redevelop plans for the area? I've seen a number of posts suggesting that general economic depression is one of the reasons locals cannot afford tickets, but if 70% of tickets are allocated to locals, how does that affect the redevelopment of the area? It's seems like a Catch-22. You want LFC to be for locals, but the economic math doesn't work if it is. How do you hope to reconcile that? (I mean these questions sincerely. I'm uncertain about your position, but I'm not closed minded about it.)   

As said above there is plenty of wealth around within the Club to make ticket prices more affordable for locals and mean we continue our triumphant march to fifth place.

[Graham Smith]

What does 'local' mean anyway? Born in sight of the ground? Do you have to have lived in Liverpool all your life? What about people who born in Liverpool, work in Liverpool but have moved outside? Are the tickets for those who have just moved to Liverpool? There are so many variables, do you give priority to those who are born in Liverpool, live near the ground, but only want to go to the occasional game with friends for a day out because they prefer cricket or rugby? Do they get preference to someone who has travelled from Australia for a game because their parents were Liverpudlians who moved abroad when they were young and thye have always supported Liverpool from afar?

I find it all very strange, how do you define 'local'?

Residence within half an hour of the ground.

That's my opening bid.

[DonkeyWan]

Residence within half an hour of the ground.

That's my opening bid.

Walking? Or by car?
Does that include rented residence?
Does that include someone who just moved into the area?
Does that include someone who works in Liverpool and has a residence there 4 days a week?

[Graham Smith]

Walking? Or by car?
Does that include rented residence?
Does that include someone who just moved into the area?
Does that include someone who works in Liverpool and has a residence there 4 days a week?

Car

Yes

Yes

Yes

See. it's easy.

[Gnurglan]

Agree 100%.

That's why I used the term self imposed salary cap in the TAW piece.

For the record, I think Liverpool spend enough on both transfers and wages to have a team that can challenge in the top four and, when the stars align, have a good go at the major honours. It's how the money is spent. Under FSG we follow a similar model to what they employ in their core business, the club spreads its risk. Instead of going bollocks out on three quality players and concentrating the risk, they spread it over seven, eight or nine players and we end up with maybe two alright ones, a few duds and a very occasional world beater.

That really is what underpins the article. The over cautious, almost timid approach to everything in a football sense is affecting every level of the club.

Lose one million off the gate revenue after landing a bumper tv deal, we can't do that. Pay two or three top players the going rate for top players and cut out the hedging on potential or potential bargains, no way. Take a punt on the 100,000+ registered members actually wanting to go to the match, or more than 25,000 of the half million locals, or any of the tourists or business visitors, no siree that's our ROI equation compromised.

So, all the talk of wanting a sugar daddy, wanting FSG to spend their own money or wanting the club to go into unsustainable debt is bollocks. It's about being bold in the use of the not insignificant resources that the club has at its disposal.

I guess the question is then, if we believe FSG are the ones responsible for buying lots of players, or if it's our TC or even the manager. I honestly don't know, but I feel it's easy and 'safe' to say it's FSG's fault. And I don't think it's their model.

When I recall what investors I have been exposed to have said, they don't say keep every asset and see how it goes. They say get rid of the ones not performing. Don't be sentimental. Therefore, I'm not so sure it's a thought out strategy to keep a big squad of players and loan them out. It's likely to be something an investor wants to avoid. If you tie up all money, you can't act if there's a new opportunity. For me, keeping a lot of players is rather something a cautious, indecisive manager would want to do. In case something happens, it would be nice with an extra option. Or, which is my take on it, the problem is we have a rather lazy team surrounding our manager. Why? Because it's not their money and it's not primarily their heads that will roll. It's the manager who will be under fire.

I say this because for years I have complained about our transfer policy. We never seem to get anything done and we always hide behind lack of resources and/or we say it's so difficult to get things done. And we end up there, despite everyone knowing what we should do, months in advance.

[DonkeyWan]

Car

Yes

Yes

Yes

See. it's easy.

So car... how fast can the car drive?
Rented residence - does that include someone who is an Arsenal student studying in Liverpool that fancies going to a game?
Someone who just moved to the area - does that include a Chelsea supporter who wants to see his team at Anfield and only his team?
Someone who works in Liverpool 4 days a week... what about someone who stays in a  hotel in Liverpool 4 days a week for work purposes, do they get preference?

Here's a scenario for you. Scenario #1 An extremely important Derby is on in Liverpool. Its to decide the 1st and 2nd in the league on the final day. The club decides to prioritise does resident in Liverpool only... 10,000 Everton fans, who qualify for the tickets by your system, decide to buy home tickets. Do they still deserve the tickets over OOTers who will support Liverpool?

Scenario #2. A season ticket comes up for sale. A young Liverpool fan who is 31 minutes away from the ground by car loses out to a Londoner who works in Liverpool 4 days a week and has a residence there. After 6 months he decides he can't do this at weekend anymore and gives his season ticket to his son. His son Lives in Norway and now makes an incredible trek every weekend to Liverpool... to see Liverpool St helens, huge fan. He sells the season ticket outside the ground and uses the proceeds to go to the rugby.

Scenario #3. A house of students get access to the tickets due to renting in Liverpool. They decide to turn up and cheer whoever is winning on the day, they are not truly invested in the side, they just want to enjoy a good game.

All of these according to you deserve to get their tickets over OOTers.

[L666KOP]

I've been told that the ground is about 40% non-local (an hour from Anfield).

So, up until I moved 7 weeks ago, living near Burnley made me local ?

[Graham Smith]

So car... how fast can the car drive?
Rented residence - does that include someone who is an Arsenal student studying in Liverpool that fancies going to a game?
Someone who just moved to the area - does that include a Chelsea supporter who wants to see his team at Anfield and only his team?
Someone who works in Liverpool 4 days a week... what about someone who stays in a  hotel in Liverpool 4 days a week for work purposes, do they get preference?

Here's a scenario for you. Scenario #1 An extremely important Derby is on in Liverpool. Its to decide the 1st and 2nd in the league on the final day. The club decides to prioritise does resident in Liverpool only... 10,000 Everton fans, who qualify for the tickets by your system, decide to buy home tickets. Do they still deserve the tickets over OOTers who will support Liverpool?

Scenario #2. A season ticket comes up for sale. A young Liverpool fan who is 31 minutes away from the ground by car loses out to a Londoner who works in Liverpool 4 days a week and has a residence there. After 6 months he decides he can't do this at weekend anymore and gives his season ticket to his son. His son Lives in Norway and now makes an incredible trek every weekend to Liverpool... to see Liverpool St helens, huge fan. He sells the season ticket outside the ground and uses the proceeds to go to the rugby.

Scenario #3. A house of students get access to the tickets due to renting in Liverpool. They decide to turn up and cheer whoever is winning on the day, they are not truly invested in the side, they just want to enjoy a good game.

All of these according to you deserve to get their tickets over OOTers.

Let's convert half an hour's drive into 40 miles

Yes

Yes

No, hotel staying isn't good enough

Scenario One: They'd have to be registered members so it wouldn't happen.

Scenario Two: Season tickets aren't supposed to be sold. Tighten the ownership of tickets and Scenario Two is avoided.

Scenario Three: Price we have to pay for the scheme I'm afraid. At least their resident.

See, it really is easy.

Next....

[Graham Smith]

Out of curiosity, did the the Liverpool City Council know about the ticket allocation when it signed off on the stadium expansion? I suspect it did because the Anfield Project is largely predicated upon attracting external (non-local) monies. How does your position on ticket allocation correspond to the redevelop plans for the area? I've seen a number of posts suggesting that general economic depression is one of the reasons locals cannot afford tickets, but if 70% of tickets are allocated to locals, how does that affect the redevelopment of the area? It's seems like a Catch-22. You want LFC to be for locals, but the economic math doesn't work if it is. How do you hope to reconcile that? (I mean these questions sincerely. I'm uncertain about your position, but I'm not closed minded about it.)   

Arsenal's planning conditions had a provision about locals to the new ground (I think it was Islington resident's actually) getting priority access to tickets when they launched their new ground.

[Graham Smith]

So, up until I moved 7 weeks ago, living near Burnley made me local ?

According to the Club it did.

Not sure my definition would include you.

[L666KOP]

Let's convert half an hour's drive into 40 miles

Yes

Yes

No, hotel staying isn't good enough

Scenario One: They'd have to registered members so it wouldn't happen.

Scenario Two: Season tickets aren't supposed to be sold. Tighten the ownership of tickets and Scenario Two is avoided.

Scenario Three: Price we have to pay for the scheme I'm afraid. At least their resident.

See, it really is easy.

Next....

42 miles I travel, and I'm 6 miles from Burnley.

I'll stick up for you now mate. Rather than time/distance, why not say discounted seats if you have a purple bin. It's just easier.

[wemmick]

As said above there is plenty of wealth around within the Club to make ticket prices more affordable for locals and mean we continue our triumphant march to fifth place.

Perhaps, but you didn't answer my questions. The redevelopment of Anfield is predicated on attracting external monies. How does the club absorbing some of the ticket cost for locals, and expanding the tickets available to locals, replace the revenues displaced by fewer OOTs spending money in the area? As far as I know this is part of the purpose of the corporate boxes and Thomas Cook packages. It's an easy way for the club and city to funnel OOT monies into the area around Anfield. In fact, I would go so far as to argue the ticket allocation is to some extent an economic partnership between the club and the City of Liverpool. If the club lowered ticket prices for locals and expanded the local share, as you have suggested, and the the City accepted it, they would need locals in an economically depressed area to share a greater burden of funding the redevelopment project so that passionate, poor young Liverpool supporters could have lower prices and a more pure club culture. A Catch-22. It's all right if you are willing to accept that, mate, but it's worth being clear about. It's not as simple as just trying to keep the club "local."

[Graham Smith]

42 miles I travel, and I'm 6 miles from Burnley.

I'll stick up for you now mate. Rather than time/distance, why not say discounted seats if you have a purple bin. It's just easier.

Loads of ways of doing it, here's another - window sales, allied to a new Local Membership and tighter link between ticket and person but whatever is suggested the mood is shifting and visitors days are numbered in the numbers they are coming per game.

[wemmick]

Arsenal's planning conditions had a provision about locals to the new ground (I think it was Islington resident's actually) getting priority access to tickets when they launched their new ground.

I think that's a great provision, to be honest, but how many tickets is that in total, and what percentage of total tickets is it, even on average?

[DonkeyWan]

42 miles I travel, and I'm 6 miles from Burnley.

I'll stick up for you now mate. Rather than time/distance, why not say discounted seats if you have a purple bin. It's just easier.

I dunno, I can see the value of it. If he extended it to 50 he could fill the place with Manchuvians. You could have 10,000 extra manchester supporter who signed up for the ticketing scheme at the beginning of the year (that would be £30 well spent!) and who come down for the day to support United at Anfield. That will deffo cockblock all the travelling Norwegians and Irish! Those Manc fans could join the 10,000 students who like to turn up for a piss-up and to jeer the ref, that will really, really improve the atmosphere.

[Graham Smith]

Perhaps, but you didn't answer my questions. The redevelopment of Anfield is predicated on attracting external monies. How does the club absorbing some of the ticket cost for locals, and expanding the tickets available to locals, replace the revenues displaced by fewer OOTs spending money in the area? As far as I know this is part of the purpose of the corporate boxes and Thomas Cook packages. It's an easy way for the club and city to funnel OOT monies into the area around Anfield. In fact, I would go so far as to argue the ticket allocation is to some extent an economic partnership between the club and the City of Liverpool. If the club lowered ticket prices for locals and expanded the local share, as you have suggested, and the the City accepted it, they would need locals in an economically depressed area to share a greater burden of funding the redevelopment project so that passionate, poor young Liverpool supporters could have lower prices and a more pure club culture. A Catch-22. It's all right if you are willing to accept that, mate, but it's worth being clear about. It's not as simple as just trying to keep the club "local."

Read one of Retro's posts earlier in the thread, visitors don't supply some vast wealth you think they do to the local economy, there's studies on it.

And the redevelopment is not predicated on attracting external money - it is about building a ground with a long term investment that allows you to build it and make tickets more affordable. All achievable.

[Graham Smith]

I dunno, I can see the value of it. If he extended it to 50 he could fill the place with Manchuvians. You could have 10,000 extra manchester supporter who signed up for the ticketing scheme at the beginning of the year (that would be £30 well spent!) and who come down for the day to support United at Anfield. That will deffo cockblock all the travelling Norwegians and Irish! Those Manc fans could join the 10,000 students who like to turn up for a piss-up and to jeer the ref, that will really, really improve the atmosphere.

A student who has committed three years to the city and is contributing to the economy and community is preferable to someone who has loved the Club from Australia say over 40 years , knows the songs, has all the shirts and wants to come once a year.

Sorry.

An again I'd be happy for a level of membership that was say just L postcodes (the purple bin point).

Sorry again.

[Graham Smith]

I think that's a great provision, to be honest, but how many tickets is that in total, and what percentage of total tickets is it, even on average?

I don't know how it worked but there was definitely something like that in it.