Who Should Pay For The Rising Price Of Football?

[Gribz 850]

I wasn't saying anything regarding 'arm-chair fans' - just asked the question as to who should be paying more - the people who follow their clubs everywhere, or the fans whom, for whatever reason, watch the games in the comfort of their house. Before the introduction of live football, me and my friends would regularly go to local games if and when Rangers weren't playing, or playing on a Sunday. In those days, it was cheap enough for us to do this - we would go to see the Shire, Falkirk, DAFC, Hearts, Hibs, Stenhousemuir, Alloa etc.

 

Take Boro in Europe last season - there was a story of the 100 or so fans who had travelled to all the games, home and away and it had cost them in the region of �£10,000 each. Now, I seen most of the Boro games in the UEFA Cup for nothing - doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Now, take Arsenal - they are charging over �£1000 per season ticket from their new stadium - season ticket holders getting ripped off IMO.

 

IMO, the 'arm chair fans' should be the fans that the club charge the most for the simple reason that they aren't actively following the club and the fans who do go week in, week out shouldn't have their loyality rewarded with huge and over priced ticket prices.

 

I could watch all Rangers away games on Sentanta (plus shit loads more football) for �£180 per year - but I prefer to go and watch the game live. For that chose I get charged �£36 at Parkhead, �£25-28 pounds at Easter Road and Tynecastle and over �£20 for every other away ground.

 

IMO the ticket prices should be lowered and the price for watching the game on Sentanta increased. This *may* actually force more people to get out and watch the games putting more money into the game that smaller clubs really need.

 

And, if the prices for tickets were lower, then the attendences would increase. I can not remember the last time I was at a Rangers away game and there wasn't loands of tickets from sale outside the ground (for the home end as well as the away end).

 

As I said, this wasn't questioning whether the 'armchair fans' were any less of a fan than someone who doesn't miss a game - it was about who should pay more for the privilage of watching football.

 

Cammy F

 

Good post Cammy. It kind of elaborates more from your first post.

 

I think it comes down to the fact there are far far far more armchair fans, who are actually paying, so TV companines are rolling in it despite it not costing the average armchair fan much.

 

I think almost everyone is an armchair fan in a way. You go to Ibrox on a saturday and might watch the EPL on a sunday afternoon, same as a Chesterfield season ticket holder goes on a saturday and watches sky on a sunday! Most pay Sky Tv 40 a month for the EPL coverage and Sky are raking in the cash as it is.

 

TV companies would lose out if they bumped up the prices as people wouldnt be bothered about not missing out on a game between West Brom v Bolton unless they supported that teams.

 

I think the only way round it would be to only have the right to your clubs matches on your own tv (i.e. each club to own the rights to there own games) then pay the same amount as those going to games, however thats purely impossible as Tv compaines loose out on money, clubs loose out and football fans in general dont get to watch games.

 

I certainly think match admission fees put people off aswell. For instance who would pay 22 quid to go to pittodrie and watch Aberdeen v Livingston on a wet saturday afternoon? Now drop that to a tener and give deals to schools and the attendance would rise and income might even be on par.

[juffery 0]

Hearts have kinda piloted that idea with the move to Murrayfield for their European games - they've cut prices in an attempt to get 40000 people paying a tenner rather than 20000 paying tenty quid. And it should work - if I was still living in Edinburgh I would defintely pop along at those prices.