scottr

I suspect that, for once, you are correct.

I've also noticed that when he makes those runs Hammell seems very reluctant to pass to him....

Another brilliantly expressed argument. Congratulations on your continuing disregard for reality....

No, the message we're hearing is that it's not a choice of one or the other - the clubs need both to survive in their current form. Losing a big chunk of the income generated by the OF in terms of TV money and away support would cause even larger budget cuts than we are already facing. That's called reality. If you choose to hear a different message to suit your own agenda, that's up to you.....

Was that the fiasco that Brown wouldn't sign a contract, and we couldn't force him to? Would you rather we'd ditched him because of it, or would you have been complaining because a successful management team were shown the door instead of being allowed to continue their good work while contract negotiations continued?

They were probably there just the same, but he had no money to spend.

It has - it was the second post in this very thread.....

Well, if those are the things that are most important to you.....

What "standard" are you referring to when you call SPL football "sub-standard"? A standard that would cost even more to achieve? It costs a certain amount to run the club and that is the biggest factor in determining the amount of revenue required. If all you want is cheaper tickets then you'll have to accept the possibility of an even lower standard. What if the club cut the prices by 10%? Some people would be complaining it's still not enough, and there is no evidence to suggest it would actually bring in any more supporters long term. So the playing budget gets cut by 10% and the standard drops even further? Trying it for one season as an experiment is all very well, but what if that experiment ends up with an even bigger financial loss and relegation? Downward spiral begins, and before you know where we are we're Morton. As for football being too expensive, compared to what other comparable form of entertainment? Plenty of music/comedy gigs cost upwards of £30, and they won't give you the same excitement, involvement and passion that watching your team can, especially in the type of exceptional circumstances of the other night. Of course, if people are comparing it to sitting on their backside watching telly with a beer then yes, it's expensive....

It does say in the article that he was linked with Celtic last month, so old news. Also, he mentions European football being guaranteed every season - not if Scotland's coefficient (and Celtic's squad) keeps going the way it is!!

Agreed.

As has been mentioned, reducing prices is all very well, but what is the effect on the quality of player we can afford? If you think the quality at £25 a head is mediocre, what would it be like at £15 a head? Don't pretend we have enough fans who would magically appear from nowhere at those reduced prices to make up the difference in revenue, because they don't. Demanding reduced prices without anything to compensate is suicide - obviously, the most important factor in defining what to charge for something is what it costs to supply, and the club is already making a loss on current figures. What are you prepared to sacrifice in return for a price cut? Reducing the prices and costs at Fir Park would put us at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the SPL, so would we accept giving up on being in the SPL? Then when we get relegated even more cuts would be necessary because of lost TV revenue, so the quality would reduce further, and would people then demand to pay £10? Would even that be too much to watch the likes of Queen of the South and Morton? Would fewer people turn up because they feel it is too expensive? Do we then reduce costs further and find ourselves in the second division? Even if the rest of the SPL agreed to reduce wages in line with reduce admission prices, the quality would still suffer because any half-decent players just wouldn't come to (or stay in)Scotland. Reducing prices, forcing a reduction in playing budgets, is just the start of a downward spiral that will lead to lower status for the club, SPL and Scottish football. The only answer would be if the reductions were implemented on a European scale. The only way to make lower prices work is to guarantee more paying fans coming through the door, so that a reduced price can bring in the same (or higher) revenue. This could then begin an upward spiral of more revenue meaning a higher budget, better players and more people willing to pay what it costs. Any suggestions on how that could be achieved will, I think, be of more use than simple demands for reduced admission.

They're not the only ones....

By referring to "gate prices", I meant the individual match prices, rather than season ticket prices. Your arithmetic is right, and even with the added costs of stewarding and having even more people unable to get to the catering without missing large chunks of the game, but my only reservation would be whether we would get another 2000 season ticket holders willing to commit up front, even at that price reduction. Any less than that, and by your own figures the club loses out. In response to the earlier comment about not having price reductions in place for long enough, did we not try a reduction for the last chunk of the season a few years back (I remember some season ticket holders weren't happy), and it didn't have a huge effect on the attendances. The fact remains that the club can't just cut prices without either cutting costs or making up that income from elsewhere, and there's no real evidence to suggest there would be enough of a sustainable boost in attendances to compensate, especialy not in the current economic climate. Supporting your team doesn't seem to be as big a factor as it might have in the past - given the choice between being there in person and sitting in comfort with a few beers watching it on TV for roughly the same cost, a lot of people would choose to go to the pub. For that reason, I think the admission for televised games should be reduced drastically (e.g. £10) in order to improve the atmosphere and maybe encourage a few TV viewers to come along next time, but again you hit the problem of reduced income.

Some really interesting ideas here, but there's one thing I can never understand, and that's how people think they can demand a lower price and still expect the same (or higher) standard of product. You might think that what's on offer at the moment isn't worth the money - fair enough, but that's what it costs to provide that standard of product. It's not as if the club are making loads of profit, so to say we want better football, better facilities, better catering and all the rest of it, but want to pay less, is maybe a bit unrealistic? I agree that it's very expensive these days, but how are we going to improve the standard of players if we are saddled with a lower budget? Or do we just accept a lower standard and find a level down in the first or second division where the prices are more reasonable? If gate prices are reduced, where does the money come from to make up the shortfall? Experience suggests it won't come from extra bodies coming through the gates, as that has never seemed to work to the extent needed. I suppose all clubs could be forced to reduce their admission prices, but also to reduce their playing budget by the same proportion, to keep everyone on a level playing field (not FP then!). Then all that would happen is any decent players would either leave Scotland or not come here in the first place......