YATESY Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 "There were empty seats in the home end, never mind the away end," Allardyce said after the scoreless draw "They'll all go out and have a moan again about how much it is, but it's no dearer here than anywhere else." Sorry BSA I do not often disagree with you but on this occasion I must. For example, didn't we only pay ??27 at City 3 weeks ago to watch the same two teams?
Guest Biff Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Sorry BSA I do not often disagree with you but on this occasion I must. For example, didn't we only pay ??27 at City 3 weeks ago to watch the same two teams? You pay more to watch the same film at the Empire, Leicester Square than you do at your local multiplex.
HomerJay Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 You pay more to watch the same film at the Empire, Leicester Square than you do at your local multiplex. at city you sit behind the goal for ??27, i beleive at the reebok you pay ??28, yes?
HomerJay Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 everton is also ??28 even for the shit games, were ours drop to ??21
jayjayoghani Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/mostpopular...poff_claims.php BOLTON Wanderers have hit back at claims that they priced Manchester City fans out of attending Saturday's Reebok derby. Many Blues' supporters announced in advance that they would boycott the game in protest at the ticket price of ??36 compared with the ??27 Bolton fans were charged when the teams met at Eastlands on December 23. Sam Allardyce said the empty spaces resulted in a lack of atmosphere, which affected the team's performance. But he was less concerned with the drop in numbers in the City section than he was with the Wanderers' turnout. Advertisement continued... The City contingent in the crowd of just 22,334 was around 1,800 - 1,000 down on the number attending last season's fixture. But Wanderers revealed today that some Blues' fans could have paid as little as ??28, if City had taken the full allocation of tickets they were offered. They also pointed out that those who did buy tickets paid ??3 less than they were charged last season, because the match had been re-categorised in the pricing schedule from A+ to A. "City were offered 2,800 tickets but only decided to take 1,800 which, because of our policy over segregation had to be in the upper tier of the South Stand," said communications manager Danny Reuben. "Had they taken the extra 1,000, they would have been in the lower tier and would have only cost ??28, which would have been more or less on a par with what City charged our supporters at Eastlands last month. "But the tickets they had were still cheaper than last year - ??3 cheaper - because we lowered the category of the fixture." Nevertheless, Wanderers are growing increasingly concerned that, like many other Premiership clubs, they are suffering an attendance slump. Saturday's gate figure was more than 4,000 down on last season's corresponding game and 5,000 down on the 2004-05 fixture. "There were empty seats in the home end, never mind the away end," Allardyce said after the scoreless draw that took the Whites up to fourth in the Premiership for a couple of hours before Arsenal won at Blackburn. "It's not their responsibility to come here, it's our responsibility for our fans to come here and support the players. "I continually tell them about the atmosphere and there wasn't any on Saturday, like there normally is. That detracts from the players' performance, I can't keep emphasising that enough. "They'll all go out and have a moan again about how much it is, but it's no dearer here than anywhere else." Wanderers, who announced last week that they were offering season ticket holders a chance to buy additional tickets for friends and relatives at ??5 for the forthcoming home games against Charlton and Fulham, say they are constantly reviewing their pricing policy. "Obviously the crowd on Saturday was disappointing and that's something we need to address," Reuben added. "That's why we've offered the cheaper tickets for the next two home games."
Burndens Bogs Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 " It's not their responsibility to come here,it's our responsibility for our fans to come here and support the players" - Big Sam. Say again?
Ani Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 I pay to watch every game. the players get paid ??000s to play the game. but if there is a bad game it is my fault ?????????????????????????? i am getting the words fcuk off you cheeky cunts.
Horwich Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 BSA - Having a go at the atmosphere again. He's alright, he can stand up for 90 minutes if he wants.
Zico Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 so whilst acknowledging that we are, like other clubs, concerned at dropping attendances, alladyce points out that we're no more expensive than other clubs not sure he's got the point there
HomerJay Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 so whilst acknowledging that we are, like other clubs, concerned at dropping attendances, alladyce points out that we're no more expensive than other clubs not sure he's got the point there hmmm, you sure? somebody do some research, i cant be arsed...
Carlos Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 hmmm, you sure? somebody do some research, i cant be arsed... Having a pop at the stay away fans makes a change from having a go at those who bother to go. However, I fail to see either his point or what he is trying to achieve. BSA = Bigmouth Strikes Again.
top_boy_84 Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Allardyce's argument is, basically, as most other clubs are ripping off their fans then it's okay for the Wanderers to be ripping us off!
Casino Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Allardyce's argument is, basically, as most other clubs are ripping off their fans then it's okay for the Wanderers to be ripping us off! is it ripping us off if it goes to pay the players/run the club? ripping us off suggests somebody is pocketing it that doesn't appear to be the case 'til player wages come down, this pricing is here to stay allardyce is a bit of a dick - check his quotes of the last few weeks and you'll see he changes his opinion more regularly than undies changes his keks
Zico Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Allardyce's argument is, basically, as most other clubs are ripping off their fans then it's okay for the Wanderers to be ripping us off! aye, but what is he arguing against? it clearly says that we like other teams are concerned about attendances that are dropping so to counter that he says "we're as expensive as everyone else" but that's not an argument, he's just fuelling the point as to why attendances are dropping his argument may have some sort of point if other teams in general had attendances that are not dropping, but outside the top 4 this is not the case
YATESY Posted January 15, 2007 Author Posted January 15, 2007 Will be interesting to read his comments after the next two home games. It might well be category C and 'bring a mate for ??5' for Charlton and Fulham but IMO the attendances will be no better than v City and most probably lower. That will really light BSA's fire!
Zico Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 It might well be category C and 'bring a mate for ??5' for Charlton and Fulham but IMO the attendances will be no better than v City and most probably lower.That will really light BSA's fire! in which case for once i'd agree with him, if he moaned about it I'd like to hear the excuses of those who don't go when it's a fiver or is price below location in "the reasons not to go to the reebok top 10"?
cbwfcd Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Will be interesting to read his comments after the next two home games. It might well be category C and 'bring a mate for ??5' for Charlton and Fulham but IMO the attendances will be no better than v City and most probably lower. That will really light BSA's fire! I really hope we get nearly full capacity for home fans for these two. Then the board will know that the support is there for the right price and we will see more offers or reduced prices next year. (hopefully). For a fiver though there is no excuse.
YATESY Posted January 15, 2007 Author Posted January 15, 2007 I really hope we get nearly full capacity for home fans we will see more offers or reduced prices next year Do you honestly believe what you have typed?
bristol_wanderer Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 I would say that BSA is more aware of the fans than any manager we have had since I started going in 1978. He says some things that are amibguous or not thought through but he appears to genuinely and passionately want a full house of noisy supporters creating a good atmosphere. Dont we all? If you look at this objectively, then if you judge a clubs fans on loyalty, noise, size of crowds, we are pretty crap. Crowds are significantly down despite a price freeze, despite more money being spent in the summer than ever, and despite our best team in 47 years, if not in our history. Some clubs, who we think we are bigger than, would have far better support and enthusiasm in our position. We don't appear to value success. The reasons such as cost, kick off times etc. only partly explain it, for those factors have been there for the last two seasons. There is no more that can be done by the chairman or the manager, yet crowds drop, and people appear to moan incessantly or boo about the odd bad game, whilst appearing to ignore the fact that the majority of games are decent. If BSA was genuinely having a go at supporters, and I dont think he was, then whilst we would all be pissed off and no doubt moan even more, he would have a point.
Casino Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 to be fair, allardyce isn't having a go at the supporters hes having a go at folk who don't attend games still say he needs to sort his story out though a few weeks back he was saying prices are too high
MickyD Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Here's my analogy: I go out for a posh meal expecting to pay ??35 per head and enjoy the meal and the experience. This is value for money. I go out for the same meal at the same price but end up eating a Big-Mac Meal. This is NOT value for money. Likewise, if I'm paying Premier League prices I expect entertaining at a Premier League standard!
george Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 The Charlton and Fulham games wont be anywhere near sold out.If the ??5 tickets were on open sale the home section would be full but what they have done will put 3,000 on the gate being optimistic. Season ticket holders were allowed to buy tickets for ??15 against West Ham and it hardly affected the gate.The reason being season ticket holders couldnt be bothered buying tickets for other people. I am waiting for them to say that the poor gates against Charlton and Fulham show that ticket prices have no effect on the crowd.
Ani Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 makes me laugh that someone says sam is in touch with the fans. how can he be ? who does he talk to ? he has never been to the reebok and seen what you get for your money as a paying supporter. anyone who runs football and sits away from the fans and mixes with the 'royalty' that are the players will never understand. football is a business, like any business it sets it price and then people choose to buy the product or not, when people do not buy the product, you change it, sell it to other people or reduce the price. why the fcuk does a business balme people for not buying their product ? imagine Tesco have a slump in sales, in response to this they get a store manager to say he is surprised that more people do not shop there, and then wait for the rush ??? people can argue about the great team etc etc but at the end of the day people are not buying the product, not just at bolton but every where. these businesses have they can make more money then they ever dreamed of because of Sky and have adjusted the product because of it, in terms of price of the product and how easy it is to buy, such as kick off times so now people who might have bought in the past are nt doing so. Business might not like this fact but dont blame customers either new present or old. it realy fucks me off when the club balmes anyone but themselves loads of extra sky money next year we hear the game is in crisis with falling attendances so where will the money go ? to deal with the crisis or to pay higher wages, john terry ??150k per week ? that is ??7.5m per year, so say 30 home games ??25000 per game 50000 people at a home game so they are paying ??5 each just for john terry !! i know chelsea are an extreme but the point is the same on a different scale for all clubs. fans do not pay the wages sky does. if the fans are so important to the succes of bolton wanderers why the fcuk do nt they pay us to help make the club more succesful ? sam should stick being a great manager and shut the fcuk up about things he is not qualified to talk about
Guest Biff Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 And to continue the Tesco analogy, can you imagine Tesco paying their check out operatives more than they take in the tills. Yet that is what most football clubs do. Reduce the wages and then reduce the prices.
Recommended Posts