Accounts - June 2023

- Ticketing up £0.3m
A ticket price hike that I am sure had real negative impacts to people, but barely a rounding error increase on the revenue
 
Last edited:
USCherry said:
Define cheap
Click to expand...

That's the point I'm making really - you could use the same argument to say they were too expensive anyway and that the club should morally have cut ticket prices. Do the club owe supporters subsidised tickets? Any price point is expensive to someone and cheap to someone else.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
That's the point I'm making really - you could use the same argument to say they were too expensive anyway and that the club should morally have cut ticket prices. Do the club owe supporters subsidised tickets? Any price point is expensive to someone and cheap to someone else.
Click to expand...
But my point was, raising the price impacted people at a time when inflation was out of control, and people were feeling the pinch. However it really did not impact the clubs bottom line. So, was it the right time to increase prices?

I never mentioned cheap.
 
I am so depressed. Like all premier league teams we are no longer a football club, we are now a business. Profit, loss, income, expenditure, prices, costs etc.
 
USCherry said:
But my point was, raising the price impacted people at a time when inflation was out of control, and people were feeling the pinch. However it really did not impact the clubs bottom line. So, was it the right time to increase prices?

I never mentioned cheap.
Click to expand...

So the club should have cut ticket prices to ease the cost of living crisis for people then? It wouldn't have impacted their bottom line much. My point is that it's not for a football club to solve the cost of living crisis for supporters.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
So the club should have cut ticket prices to ease the cost of living crisis for people then? It wouldn't have impacted their bottom line much. My point is that it's not for a football club to solve the cost of living crisis for supporters.
Click to expand...
Maybe not but you could argue that it’s for the good of the community to make the game accessible to all. That, of course, would imply that our club cares about the community as much as it cares about generating income.
 
stanthevan said:
Maybe not but you could argue that it’s for the good of the community to make the game accessible to all. That, of course, would imply that our club cares about the community as much as it cares about generating income.
Click to expand...

Do they not do loads for the community then? Dont the do cheap/free access to development squad and women's games?

www.afcb.co.uk

Community Sports Trust

Community Sports Trust
www.afcb.co.uk www.afcb.co.uk
 
stanthevan said:
I am so depressed. Like all premier league teams we are no longer a football club, we are now a business. Profit, loss, income, expenditure, prices, costs etc.
Click to expand...
8kj2te.jpg
 
stanthevan said:
Maybe not but you could argue that it’s for the good of the community to make the game accessible to all. That, of course, would imply that our club cares about the community as much as it cares about generating income.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of angles that could be argued. Expecting club to lay on cheap tickets, particularly given our silly small ground, is totally unrealsitic imo.

I may contact Ferrari later and ask them to reduce their prices, so everyone has a chance to own one...
 
Back to the Jackson debate..... Bill Foley is trying to create a sustainable business model, and with a team of our type the money making side of the model comes from buying players cheaply and selling for a profit.

It doesn't come from shirt sales, or 60,000 season tickets, or lucrative sponsorship deals, as we aren't fishing in the same pond as the top 6 or top 8 clubs.

In order to achieve his aims, Bill needs to sign lots of top up and coming players and sell them for a profit.

Jackson fit the bill perfectly, and it's also why it was imperative we signed a like for like replacement to Solanke.

Bill is no mug, and currently Solankes stock is high, with several suitors, namely Weat Ham.

I fully expect Solanke to be sold in the summer, and Jackson is, or was, a much more like for like replacement than Unal will ever be.

The fans think about football from entirely a fans perspective, Foley probably has an eye on making money.

Theres a huge difference between what the owner wants, and what the fans want.

The only common denominator is success on the pitch, and that comes with making the right player acquisitions and selling them when at their prime value.

Not saying Jackson is better than Solanke at all, but had we signed him we could have cashed in on Solanke, had a like for like replacement and a circa 40 million tick in next years balance sheet.
 
dragonm8 said:
Back to the Jackson debate..... Bill Foley is trying to create a sustainable business model, and with a team of our type the money making side of the model comes from buying players cheaply and selling for a profit.

It doesn't come from shirt sales, or 60,000 season tickets, or lucrative sponsorship deals, as we aren't fishing in the same pond as the top 6 or top 8 clubs.

In order to achieve his aims, Bill needs to sign lots of top up and coming players and sell them for a profit.

Jackson fit the bill perfectly, and it's also why it was imperative we signed a like for like replacement to Solanke.

Bill is no mug, and currently Solankes stock is high, with several suitors, namely Weat Ham.

I fully expect Solanke to be sold in the summer, and Jackson is, or was, a much more like for like replacement than Unal will ever be.

The fans think about football from entirely a fans perspective, Foley probably has an eye on making money.

Theres a huge difference between what the owner wants, and what the fans want.

The only common denominator is success on the pitch, and that comes with making the right player acquisitions and selling them when at their prime value.

Not saying Jackson is better than Solanke at all, but had we signed him we could have cashed in on Solanke, had a like for like replacement and a circa 40 million tick in next years balance sheet.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not sure anyone predicted Solanke's stock would rise so much.

It was only a few months back, half the board thought Solanke would never be particularly potent at PL level. Perhaps those at the club knew better though.

If Solanke was to leave in the summer, and theres a solid chance that willl transpire, we'd need to enter the market for two strikers. So could be Unal and someone else, or two totally fresh faces for next season.

Asgood as Solanke has been, AI may not be overly concerned, and may be quite at ease with losing Dom and replacing him with slightly lower workrate strikers, but better in other areas. Not to say he'll be happy at losing someone who's scored so many goals, but if it happens, may not be end of world. Still have reservations though around clubs being prepared to offer over 50 mill for Dom at this tage, unless he gets well into 20+ goals for the season.
 
dragonm8 said:
Back to the Jackson debate..... Bill Foley is trying to create a sustainable business model, and with a team of our type the money making side of the model comes from buying players cheaply and selling for a profit.

It doesn't come from shirt sales, or 60,000 season tickets, or lucrative sponsorship deals, as we aren't fishing in the same pond as the top 6 or top 8 clubs.

In order to achieve his aims, Bill needs to sign lots of top up and coming players and sell them for a profit.

Jackson fit the bill perfectly, and it's also why it was imperative we signed a like for like replacement to Solanke.

Bill is no mug, and currently Solankes stock is high, with several suitors, namely Weat Ham.

I fully expect Solanke to be sold in the summer, and Jackson is, or was, a much more like for like replacement than Unal will ever be.

The fans think about football from entirely a fans perspective, Foley probably has an eye on making money.

Theres a huge difference between what the owner wants, and what the fans want.

The only common denominator is success on the pitch, and that comes with making the right player acquisitions and selling them when at their prime value.

Not saying Jackson is better than Solanke at all, but had we signed him we could have cashed in on Solanke, had a like for like replacement and a circa 40 million tick in next years balance sheet.
Click to expand...

We didn't sign Jackson. Maybe time to move on.
 
dragonm8 said:
Back to the Jackson debate..... Bill Foley is trying to create a sustainable business model, and with a team of our type the money making side of the model comes from buying players cheaply and selling for a profit.

It doesn't come from shirt sales, or 60,000 season tickets, or lucrative sponsorship deals, as we aren't fishing in the same pond as the top 6 or top 8 clubs.

In order to achieve his aims, Bill needs to sign lots of top up and coming players and sell them for a profit.

Jackson fit the bill perfectly, and it's also why it was imperative we signed a like for like replacement to Solanke.

Bill is no mug, and currently Solankes stock is high, with several suitors, namely Weat Ham.

I fully expect Solanke to be sold in the summer, and Jackson is, or was, a much more like for like replacement than Unal will ever be.

The fans think about football from entirely a fans perspective, Foley probably has an eye on making money.

Theres a huge difference between what the owner wants, and what the fans want.

The only common denominator is success on the pitch, and that comes with making the right player acquisitions and selling them when at their prime value.

Not saying Jackson is better than Solanke at all, but had we signed him we could have cashed in on Solanke, had a like for like replacement and a circa 40 million tick in next years balance sheet.
Click to expand...
:off:
Maybe stick this on the Jackson thread? So far Unal and Foley threads are being taken off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;