Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Football Finance’ Category

Cheerio Cheerio Cheerio

So ‘JG’ was sacked yesterday after a poor run of form. Defeat to Mansfield being the last straw.  The decision was never going to be popular.  A West Brom representative has posted on Facebook that it was an understandable, but not necessarily right, move.  Oldham supporters on the same forum are saying that they cannot believe that County have removed their equivalent to ‘Joe Royle’.

Whilst, I’ve not always applauded his every move.  He certainly was a fans favourite. 

But in County there’s more wrong than just Jim Gannon.  I never thought I’d say it but I’m rapidly falling out of love with the set-up.  I’ll always be a County-fan (and will not stray to other teams apart from taking my Son to watch the ‘reds’).  Just lost faith in the people running our club.

Confidential data is still leaking out of Stockport County.  Meetings still going on behind officials’ and shareholders’ backs.  I’m pleased to report I’m not involved in any and have indeed resigned from the Stockport County Supporters’ Co-operative.  A new CEO has been appointed.  I’ve met him once and he was pleasant enough and well-connected. The fear is that he might not have the experience and strength to be anything other than a ‘mouthpiece’ for Spencer Fearn.  As a top journalist said to me tonight: “where now for the club?”

As to me, I’m working on projects with a focus in the main around sponsorship and licensing including for some of the top brand names and football clubs in the World (a million miles from Edgeley and its’ woes!) as defined in the Deloitte’s “Football Finance Report” and Brand Finance’s “Sporting Brands 2012” intelligence.

Just the ticket

I’ve never resorted to guest posts before but a meeting with Rob Allen led me to change tact.  Herewith a reproduction of an article, first aired in STAND.

“Pile ‘em high. Seldom cheap.

What do Charlton Athletic, Dundee, Stockport County and FC Halifax Town all have in common? Football’s forensic scientists might find more obscure and, perhaps more interesting links between them, but for the purposes of this discussion they’re linked by the fact that, in the opening months of the 2012/13 season, they all discounted their ticket prices to entice fans into their grounds. Whether it was ‘kids for a quid’ or ‘football for a fiver’, all of them have reached out to their communities and sought to make the cost of going to a match more bearable.

Creative pricing, usually coupled with a concerted marketing push, is a growing trend up and down the leagues. West Ham United pumped out limited numbers of walk-up tickets to under-16s for the opening game of the Premier League season for a measly £1. It’s a price that’s hard to beat, and an admirable gesture from the club on the face of it. But, where do all those young football fans go for the next game, when the price of their seat is back up to £21, apart from going back to experiencing the game via Sky Sports?

Discounting football tickets makes one big assumption: that people likely to attend football matches are motivated by price. Maybe there’s an element of truth in that in the modern age, but no sooner are those words printed on the page than the next question comes: who are ‘the people likely to attend football matches’ these days? Looking from the clubs’ perspective, there are plenty of clues to lead us to just who they are most keen to entice. West Ham drove down prices for their home game against Wigan Athletic in a day of ‘family friendly football’ and Stockport County delivered 20,000 leaflets to schools. The aim, it seems, isn’t to entice what might be perceived as the ‘traditional football supporter’ to make the most of a fairer priced match ticket.

County’s energetic vice-Chairman, Spencer Fearn, was happy to tell STAND what the club’s aims were in offering £5 tickets for two games last season, and the Ebbsfleet game this September. He said: “(We want) to engage more fans and give those for whom football is not affordable the opportunity to attend a live game. A family of four can attend for £14 and there are not many activities a family can do for that price. By offering this incentive we can give more people the opportunity to watch live football.”

It’s difficult to argue with Fearn’s rationale and, with gates peaking for their final game of the 2011/12 season at 6,393, up from 3,199 for the game prior, there are a few thousand people who are willing to take him up on his offer. The figures show that a few thousand more people did experience live football, instead of watching the results come in on television. Whether families found their £14 ‘day out’, including a one-nil defeat, good value is for them to decide. However, if club’s like County are to use ticket pricing as a way to ensure sustainability, doubts about this particular method start to creep in. The first gate of this season dipped again to 3,448, with a similar pattern of disinterest after the initial boom of a discounted game happening for other clubs.

It’s perhaps coincidence that the chairman of County’s most-recently discounted match opponents, Jessica McQueen, was called upon to address criticisms from her own support over ticket pricing in her programme notes prior to their Edgeley Park visit. The Ebbsfleet chief wrote: “If we reduce admission prices, will it really bring in lots more supporters? Those who have supported the club through the lean and not so lean times, will I am sure tell you, loads of incentives have been tried. We have had vouchers; we have had Kids for a Quid. None really worked.”

It isn’t to criticise clubs doing what they can to boost attendances, but ticket ‘fire sales’,  gimmicks and Groupon vouchers might not be the way to secure the game’s longevity outside, and maybe within, the Premier League. You don’t have to look too far for proof. At FC Halifax Town a recent promotion brought only 100 extra people through the turnstiles and Dundee United’s ‘Bring a friend for a fiver’ for their Hearts match in April (down from the lowest adult price of £22) saw an increase on the gate of around 350, not taking into account Hearts’ away support. It’s something, but is it enough? Can clubs not find, or be helped to find ways of ensuring more consistent take up amongst communities priced out of the ‘top flight’ game?

Tim Baker, of Baker Richards, is an expert in the science of ticketing, working with the entertainment industry to fill seats. Although he agrees that the peaks in attendance that Stockport County experienced shows that something is working, he feels that the plan has fundamental holes in it. He told STAND: “The lower you make the offer price, the higher you’re likely to find initial uptake, but there is usually less retention that way because the gap between the promotional price and the normal price is too large. Its basic psychology – if you make the same ticket £5 one week, and £16 the next, people are unlikely to buy again. It’s only good if people keep coming.”

According to Baker, more effective offers might be to offer less extreme discounts or commit fans to a reduced price package, and season tickets make more sense to him than ever. Step forward Dundee, offering under-12’s tickets for six games for a fiver this season – that’s 83p per game as an incentive to keep going. Also see FC United offering their ‘pay what you can afford’ season tickets and many clubs doing ‘early bird’ reductions for renewing season tickets before the season gets underway. Looking back to clubs like County and Charlton Athletic, pricing a couple of games at a fiver for adults and a quid for children, twice a season, are likely to cost them money by also discounting regulars who would otherwise pay top price. But how many might attend more regularly and long into the future, if a ticket was always a reasonable £10?

The Football Supporters Federation’s (FSF) Michael Brunskill is one of many who recognise the issues faced by clubs fighting against a dwindling fan base. He told STAND: “We wouldn’t say discounts are a bad thing, but is it a short-term patch up? We sympathise with smaller clubs as they rely totally on gate receipts because there’s no fair distribution of TV rights from the top. A club like Gateshead has little chance of attracting Newcastle United fans who might be disillusioned with going to St James Park, because they still have to charge £14. For that, fans might as well stick with the Premier League.”

The FSF is one hundred per cent behind a redistribution of TV money, and make no qualms about sounding the death knell on the professional English game’s 5 tier depth if reform doesn’t happen. Stockport County confirm that is it purely running costs that stop them reducing prices more frequently, and help from other sources is in short supply. It’s vital that people play a more regular role in supporting their local teams and if paying £5 once or twice a season helps, then so be it.

But, if it all turns out to be a pointless exercise, perhaps clubs should consider the longer term gains to be had from giving more traditional football supporters the opportunity to watch more football locally, as well as children and families. Putting loyalty, as well as price, back into the equation could help; after all, it’s a currency that supporters have been trading in for more than a century.”

Spondulas

A new report states that the average cost of admission (adult) has rocketed in the top four divisions of English football by a startling 11.7% in the past 12 months – more than five times the rate of inflation.  Good job some signs of the recession being curtailed. 

At least County has tried some promotions in BSP to address sales promotion, recruitment of the next brethren and support for disadvantaged. The BBC Sport Price of Football study illustrated a rise in the mean (literally!) £19.01 to £21.24. I would be surprised that a similar added value could be witnessed in supporters’ benefits.  Bet you didn’t know the most expensive away fixture for ‘pie eaters’ is Kidderminster.  Some interesting stats are apparent for benchmarking.

The PKF Football Industry Group’s Leagues Apart Survey has been published recently also.  This showed: “Two out of every three English and Scottish clubs (sample 62 FDs)  face significant cash-flow difficulties with a majority preparing to sell players or seek support from a benefactor before the end of this season.”

More money coming in – particularly daunting futures.  All in all suggests a somewhat ‘leaky bucket’! Given the background it’s not strange to learn, as we did today, that Arsenal will not be competitive untill another two years have lapsed.  First things first – financial viability and sustainability are an imperative. Let’s await the emergence of Fair Play.

Greek tragedy

As Turks look across the Aegean to Greece, you would not blame them for thinking “so this is what Europe brings”.  Forget it!  Fresh from their own financial irregularities the economic status of football in their neighbour’s Country is poor too.

Most of the top teams have hardship, the knock on effect from an economy out of control.  Austerity measures prevail meaning big signings are a thing of the past.  Apparently, Super League clubs have reduced spending on players’ contracts this season by circa 50%.  The biggest, AEK Athens and PAOK Thessaloniki have needed more draconian measures to enable survival.

The financial situation was actually so bad that the League nearly didn’t start back in August. Ironically, some good may come of the necessity to change as ‘home grown talent’ appears the only way forward. The Greek hierarchy has commented: “the days of overspending on high-profile foreign players like Rivaldo, Djibril Cisse, Gilberto Silva and Eidur Gudjohnsen are over”.