Proof positive that Rangers fans are being ripped off

[Norris Cole 0]

I've just heard that Chelsea are charging �£25 for their Champions League games.

 

While Rangers fans have to fork out �£38 to watch a team they hadn't heard of this time last year.

[Union City Blue 0]

I've just heard that Chelsea are charging �£25 for their Champions League games.

 

While Rangers fans have to fork out �£38 to watch a team they hadn't heard of this time last year.

 

Chelsea is a fashion-accessory club for a lot of their fans. Beyond their core support of say 35,000 they simply don't have the strength in depth of Rangers. They have had shit crowds in the past for early rounds for this reason - even against quite good teams. So they've gone through this learning curve and realised they need to drop their prices or the place will be embarrassingly empty.

 

That said, Rangers have priced it wrongly this time round. They've made a mistake and misjudged the market. The proof is in the ticket sales - it is 100% clear evidence. So yes, you could say that we are being ripped-off but I do genuinely believe it's down to a mistake. Not excusing it in the slightest btw, it's poor decision-making and not what we should accept from the club.

[calscot 0]

I've just heard that Chelsea are charging �£25 for their Champions League games.

 

While Rangers fans have to fork out �£38 to watch a team they hadn't heard of this time last year.

 

Chealsea don't need the income from these games the same way as we do. Charging 35k fans another 15 quid makes about half a million income or 1.5M for three games. That's a drop in the ocean for their turnover and with the fantastic amounts that they get from the CL just for being there as well as TV money, will cover their losses.

 

However, the 750k extra we can earn from 40 quid a ticket for a guaranteed 50k fans instead of 25 quid comes out at 2.25M - money we really need. It pretty much matches what we get from TV and is about 5% of our turnover.

 

We're a different type of club where our money mainly comes from the fans, with TV/sponsorship is just a small bonus. With Chelsea it's the other way around.

 

If we want to compete with Celtic is the only way we can go.

 

What I find really ironic is that the biggest critics of the team and the biggest critics of how little money we spend on players, are also the biggest critics of the club when they try to raise money to improve the funds to the manager.

 

Some people have to make up their mind what they want. Cheap tickets means a cheap team. Chelsea just don't have that problem.

[Gazza_8 233]

Paying �£38 to watch dross is a joke!

[chilledbear 16]

[However, the 750k extra we can earn from 40 quid a ticket for a guaranteed 50k fans instead of 25 quid comes out at 2.25M - money we really need]

 

Doubt there will be anything near a full attendance.

[Union City Blue 0]

Chealsea don't need the income from these games the same way as we do. Charging 35k fans another 15 quid makes about half a million income or 1.5M for three games. That's a drop in the ocean for their turnover and with the fantastic amounts that they get from the CL just for being there as well as TV money, will cover their losses.

 

However, the 750k extra we can earn from 40 quid a ticket for a guaranteed 50k fans instead of 25 quid comes out at 2.25M - money we really need. It pretty much matches what we get from TV and is about 5% of our turnover.

 

We're a different type of club where our money mainly comes from the fans, with TV/sponsorship is just a small bonus. With Chelsea it's the other way around.

 

If we want to compete with Celtic is the only way we can go.

 

What I find really ironic is that the biggest critics of the team and the biggest critics of how little money we spend on players, are also the biggest critics of the club when they try to raise money to improve the funds to the manager.

Some people have to make up their mind what they want. Cheap tickets means a cheap team. Chelsea just don't have that problem.

 

I agree we need the money much more than Chelsea - the context is entirely different.

 

To be fair too, some of the biggest critics are also people who can't afford to actually buy a ticket at these prices plus the people who reluctantly buy them out of pure loyalty but feel over-charged. Also, I can see a flaw in the statement I highlight above!

[gisabeer 409]

Chealsea don't need the income from these games the same way as we do. Charging 35k fans another 15 quid makes about half a million income or 1.5M for three games. That's a drop in the ocean for their turnover and with the fantastic amounts that they get from the CL just for being there as well as TV money, will cover their losses.

 

However, the 750k extra we can earn from 40 quid a ticket for a guaranteed 50k fans instead of 25 quid comes out at 2.25M - money we really need. It pretty much matches what we get from TV and is about 5% of our turnover.

 

We're a different type of club where our money mainly comes from the fans, with TV/sponsorship is just a small bonus. With Chelsea it's the other way around.

 

If we want to compete with Celtic is the only way we can go.

 

What I find really ironic is that the biggest critics of the team and the biggest critics of how little money we spend on players, are also the biggest critics of the club when they try to raise money to improve the funds to the manager.

 

Some people have to make up their mind what they want. Cheap tickets means a cheap team. Chelsea just don't have that problem.

 

As a paying fan i have every right to question the prices at Ibrox. you only have to look at the empty seats at the last game to see that it is right to question them. Over charging the punters has left the club with egg on their faces given the fact that they probably took in less money than they would have charging say 30 a ticket.

 

and then they charge you 9.60 for two hot dogs and two cokes!

 

It wasnt the fans who put the club in the financial mess that it finds itself in, it was our manager who caused it with his inept money managing skills and his over rating of his squad after the Uefa cup final and a chairman who gave him the opertunity to bugger it up again.

 

So go rant at them mate, not the fans who actually put their hard earned cash over the turnstiles every other week.

[Super_Ally 0]

I think it's a case of both Cal and Norris being right. MF will hate that, he only deals in absolutes, black and white. :fish:

 

It depends on perspective. Norris is right in that a better quality team are charging less than us to watch CL games.

 

However Cal is right that 1) the club are only working to the business principal of supply and demand (though as UCB states they've got it a little wrong this time). 2) We need the money more, it is a greater percentage of our overall income and we cannot afford not to seek to make the most of it especially if we want to be competitive home and abroad. We can't invest in the team without money and this is one way to increase our income.

 

Doesnt make it feel any better overall though.

[Gazza_8 233]

Doubt there will be anything near a full attendance.

 

Which is why we should lower the price of a ticket.

[Super_Ally 0]

Which is why we should lower the price of a ticket.

 

They got it wrong in trying to maximise the income from tickets.

 

They banked on our loyalty meaning that we'd get a full house. Normally the club get it about spot on. They perhaps didn't factor in the credit crunch and the quality of opposition.

 

That said 40k at �£38 =�£1,520,000

 

50k at �£30 =�£1,500,000

 

Disagrees with Gisa's assertion.

 

So the club got it wrong in that we didn't have a full house. Yet we still got the same amount of money.

 

Had they pitched them at �£30 and more than sold out the stadium, the individual who set the price would get his balls toed. From a financial point of view the club will be happy they got nothing wrong.

 

I think we'll see more tickets bought on an individual basis anyway, increasing turnover and hence getting the club more money, which is what they want.

 

Being able to rationally analyse the process as Calscot has, with an understanding of business, is not the same as ranting at fans and his point about contradictory arguements is fair, even if that annoys us.