Rangers Announce Match Pricing

[Hildy 0]

I don't see the issue here.

 

Yes, it's expensive but there's always a slight premium when it comes to comparing with season ticket price.

 

With regard to the price point in a general sense, football may be getting more expensive but so is everything else and cost is just one part of the decision we make. It's just up to RFC to offer value for money.

As you say, it's expensive, but are Rangers really offering value for money? This will be Scottish second division football and Rangers are already difficult to watch due to the unsophisticated way they approach the game.

 

When something is expensive, people tend to be more hesitant and thoughtful before making a purchase.

 

If football truly is the people's game, we have to ask ourselves, should it be 'expensive' to attend? Can Rangers really afford to price people out of going? People will go less or not at all once they lose the habit.

 

This is an issue - not just for the present unpopular regime - but for football in general and Rangers in particular - whoever is in charge.

[Frankie 8,562]

As you say, it's expensive, but are Rangers really offering value for money? This will be Scottish second division football and Rangers are already difficult to watch due to the unsophisticated way they approach the game.

 

When something is expensive, people tend to be more hesitant and thoughtful before making a purchase.

 

If football truly is the people's game, we have to ask ourselves, should it be 'expensive' to attend? Can Rangers really afford to price people out of going? People will go less or not at all once they lose the habit.

 

This is an issue - not just for the present unpopular regime - but for football in general and Rangers in particular - whoever is in charge.

 

Generally speaking, I think £20 for 90mins entertainment isn't too bad, all in all.

 

Is the product worth it? Hmmm, I'm not sure but it's the going rate so not a surprise.

 

Could RFC be more innovative by say halving the prices? Possibly but I doubt the crowds would double so they're probably offering the price-point they think will maximise return. C'est la vie.

 

I think what they could and perhaps should do is offer cheaper family ticket prices and look to hand out 5000 tickets to schools for some home matches.

[Hildy 0]

Generally speaking, I think £20 for 90mins entertainment isn't too bad, all in all.

 

Is the product worth it? Hmmm, I'm not sure but it's the going rate so not a surprise.

 

Could RFC be more innovative by say halving the prices? Possibly but I doubt the crowds would double so they're probably offering the price-point they think will maximise return. C'est la vie.

 

I think what they could and perhaps should do is offer cheaper family ticket prices and look to hand out 5000 tickets to schools for some home matches.

Many would argue that Rangers are not providing 'entertainment'. That's why they arrive late, leave early and spend much of their time at Ibrox chatting, eating or checking their phones.

 

I've seen season tickets offered to Rangers-minded folk - free of charge - for games at Ibrox and few are interested. Those who go usually return content that they gave up on the match-going habit, often with comments like: ' How can you watch that every week? It's awful'. (This is the watered-down less colourful description).

 

Take loyalty out of the equation and there is very little to get excited about watching Rangers. It may be bracketed as entertainment but many don't feel entertained at all.

 

When Rangers fans return from Ibrox feeling shortchanged after watching Rangers for free, something is badly wrong.

[calscot 0]

I think there is sometime the impression that if you half the ticket prices you will get twice the attendance, but it rarely works that way. There will be a curve in a graph of income against price in the shape of a hill and a maximum around a certain point where the board will be aiming for. Where that maximum is, is obviously dependent on what people are prepared to pay.

 

Obviously, the more income the club brings in, the more spending they can do on the team and other stuff. At the moment we're making a loss and so whether on not you think you're getting enough entertainment for your money, the bills still need to be paid regardless.

 

We need to remember we're not paying Cowdenbeath's bills, it's ours we have to worry about and they don't reduce with lesser opposition. Usually the maximum in the curve moves up the price axis when a more attractive game comes along, which is why there are premium prices for the Edinburgh sides, but I think it would be to complex to have a different price for every game.

 

Prices of all sports and entertainment have gone up hugely as we have a high disposable income and with the likes of football seem to enjoy the pyramid scheme of giving all our money to a rich few. We can't exactly complain that we're not as good as top English sides and then baulk at paying tickets at about half the price.

 

Olympic games tickets seem to start at about £50 and I can see the Commonwealth games not being cheap. While £20-£30 is quite a bit to pay for a couple of hours where you may or may not be entertained - I doubt the Brazilians were against Germany, it's not really that expensive compared to a lot of other alternatives, like seeing a headline band or something like the Monty Python show which can start at about £100.

 

My main point is that while it's not cheap, it's not exactly outrageous when you look around. I suppose in the end you pays your money and takes your choice.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

I don't see the issue here.

 

Yes, it's expensive but there's always a slight premium when it comes to comparing with season ticket price.

 

With regard to the price point in a general sense, football may be getting more expensive but so is everything else and cost is just one part of the decision we make. It's just up to RFC to offer value for money.

 

Last season all STs in our rsc were more expensive than match to match for the same section. It can only be a handful at most this season.

[Frankie 8,562]

Last season all STs in our rsc were more expensive than match to match for the same section. It can only be a handful at most this season.

 

Really that's bizarre...

[calscot 0]

I think we have to remember that when paying to watch a sport, we are not paying to be entertained by the participants, we are there to witness it and be entertained by our perception of it. In motor racing, many people are entertained by crashes but that doesn't mean that F1 should encourage more of it - however you can go and see banger racing instead.

 

There were a lot of people not entertained by the top of the game - the semifinals and final of the World Cup with a good example being the Brazil vs Germany game - whether you enjoyed it depended on your perception. If you were Brazilian it wasn't just not entertaining, a lot of the home crowd were totally devastated by it - what price for that? Conversely, if you were German, you had the time of your life. As a neutral you were probably highly amused and entertained. The other semi and the final were generally pretty boring for neutrals. So you can't guarantee an entertaining game from the top players in the world...

 

The only real way to make a sport more entertaining in itself, is to change the rules in a way that encourages this. Otherwise, you will always have participants doing what they can to win and stuff the entertainment. In fact, I don't think many successful sportsman think about being entertaining at all. If they are super entertaining, it's just a natural part of their personality rather than a concious effort.

 

Sometimes the spectators change their perceptions and learn to like what was formerly boring - like snooker. Steve Davis took the safety game to new excruciating levels, but now the crowd appreciate a safety battle and realise it needs to be done rather than a player going gung ho. You don't get Higgins type players in the game any more, they are far more like Davis, but the crowd have moved on. The same can be said of tennis with all the baseline play instead of serve and volley.

 

In the golden age of Schumacher F1 became a lot more boring and they were losing viewers, so the governing body changed the rules and we now have KERS and DRS and other innovations, as well as the removal of refuelling. How they show the sport has also changed. Tennis brought in electronic refereeing which sounds dull, but they made it into an entertaining spectacle.

 

I really doubt that there are any teams in Scotland that people would find entertaining to watch every week and so maybe it's the rules that need to be changed - which have happened before, like the pass back rule. Now there was an old tactic that bored me to tears.

[Darthter 542]

I think we have to remember that when paying to watch a sport, we are not paying to be entertained by the participants, we are there to witness it and be entertained by our perception of it. In motor racing, many people are entertained by crashes but that doesn't mean that F1 should encourage more of it - however you can go and see banger racing instead.

 

There were a lot of people not entertained by the top of the game - the semifinals and final of the World Cup with a good example being the Brazil vs Germany game - whether you enjoyed it depended on your perception. If you were Brazilian it wasn't just not entertaining, a lot of the home crowd were totally devastated by it - what price for that? Conversely, if you were German, you had the time of your life. As a neutral you were probably highly amused and entertained. The other semi and the final were generally pretty boring for neutrals. So you can't guarantee an entertaining game from the top players in the world...

 

The only real way to make a sport more entertaining in itself, is to change the rules in a way that encourages this. Otherwise, you will always have participants doing what they can to win and stuff the entertainment. In fact, I don't think many successful sportsman think about being entertaining at all. If they are super entertaining, it's just a natural part of their personality rather than a concious effort.

 

Sometimes the spectators change their perceptions and learn to like what was formerly boring - like snooker. Steve Davis took the safety game to new excruciating levels, but now the crowd appreciate a safety battle and realise it needs to be done rather than a player going gung ho. You don't get Higgins type players in the game any more, they are far more like Davis, but the crowd have moved on. The same can be said of tennis with all the baseline play instead of serve and volley.

 

In the golden age of Schumacher F1 became a lot more boring and they were losing viewers, so the governing body changed the rules and we now have KERS and DRS and other innovations, as well as the removal of refuelling. How they show the sport has also changed. Tennis brought in electronic refereeing which sounds dull, but they made it into an entertaining spectacle.

 

I really doubt that there are any teams in Scotland that people would find entertaining to watch every week and so maybe it's the rules that need to be changed - which have happened before, like the pass back rule. Now there was an old tactic that bored me to tears.

 

Some very valid points in there....

 

If you want entertainment, try the WWE.

Football is a competition 1st & foremost - the teams are trying to win. Yes it would be nice to see a more enjoyable product on the park but at the end of the day, it is the result that is important. Would fans be happy if we played wonderfully entertaining football & got beaten???

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Some very valid points in there....

 

If you want entertainment, try the WWE.

Football is a competition 1st & foremost - the teams are trying to win. Yes it would be nice to see a more enjoyable product on the park but at the end of the day, it is the result that is important. Would fans be happy if we played wonderfully entertaining football & got beaten???

Terrible argument. The better the team perform (ie playing better football with higher passing completion rate, more creative attacks, dynamic play etc) the more successful they will likely be. Teams that cannot pass a ball are never going to be very successful.

 

Has a side ever won the Champions League that plays horrific football, is poorly organised, struggle to maintain possession for more than 2 passes at a time etc? Do you think Germany would have won the world cup were they not so good at maintaining possession and creative in the final third?

 

Not sure why performance and results are seen as mutually exclusive by some.

 

And when I go to Ibrox, yes I want to see the team perform and be capable of retaining possession. If route 1 football was good the top sides would be playing it.

 

PS - Perhaps if we were capable of performing better and actually attempted to play football, we might not have had so many embarrassing results under Ally.

 

It's such a bizarre, ill founded, dated Scottish attitude to have.

 

'Winning is all that matters' - Aye that's all well and good until we get embarrassed and out passed year after year in Europe and in international tournaments by far better drilled, organised and informed foreign sides.

[Darthter 542]

Terrible argument. The better the team perform the more successful they will likely be. Teams that cannot pass a ball are never going to be very successful.

 

Has a side ever won the Champions League that plays horrific football, is poorly organised, struggle to maintain possession for more than 2 passes at a time etc? Do you think Germany would have won the world cup were they not so good at maintaining possession and creative in the final third?

 

Not sure why performance and results are seen as mutually exclusive by some.

 

And when I go to Ibrox, yes I want to see the team perform and be capable of retaining possession. If route 1 football was good the top sides would be playing it.

 

PS - Perhaps if we were capable of performing better and actually attempted to play football, we might not have had so many embarrassing results under Ally.

 

Arsenal have been long credited with being an attractive, passing team - what have they won in recent years???

 

There were a few games last season where we generally played well, yet failed to get a good result - maybe just scraping a win or at least a draw. Playing attractive passing football means absolutely nothing if you don't win the game.

2008 - we played some terrible football, yet still got to a European final.

 

The most important thing in ANY football match is scoring more than the other team - anything else is a bonus.