season ticket prices

[eddie]

What you should really be saying is that if ticket prices had gone up by £40 per season for SOME over 5 years ,then many of the rest might not even bat an eyelid.

It's also worth pointing out that tickets that go up by £40 a year over 5 years, compared to one that goes up by £200 in year one, represents a comparative saving over the 5 years of £400 compared to the poor sap who got clobbered with the increase on day 1.

[CumbrianRam]

Bet that chap in the paper article wasn't moaning when he had a free season ticket for all those years

I'm sure he'd also prefer not be reliant on a carer and live an independent life.

Have personal experience of autism and it isn't a barrel of laughs, but sadly some of society still panders to alot of myths about the condition and thinks they should be locked up and never seen again like in Victorian times.

People just want to be accepted for who they are, many people with Autism/Asperger's have skills and abilities to hold down a "normal life" like having a job, going to uni, living in their own home and having their own family etc, but they need initial support to get there and many people are cut off from the support which can help them get this help. These people don't want a cure, they just want acceptance, help and equal opportunties.

Some people with the condition will be unable to do these things, but these family carers save the tax payer a lot money and these offers and disabilty/carer allowances try to plug some of the gap of this full time 24/7 job.

[davenportram]

How about the kids too?

The Under 12 "free ticket" that you had to previously pay £25 to be a member of the Rams Club in order to qualify for – has now gone up to £30 – a 20% increase

I'm in a dilemma because our East Stand seats have been unfathomably re-categorised from C to B - so an increase from £390 to £425 to sit in the same seat I've always sat in. I wouldn't mind if they'd changed the view, or installed a huge sun visor on top of the West Stand, but it makes no sense.

With the £30 under 12 ticket it means my renewal cost is £455 - rather than last years £415

OR I can move to the South Stand for £230 - that's HALF the cost. Trouble is it means I'll have to stop taking my son, as I'm sure there will be a lot of standing.

Thanks Sam Rush you massive goatee tosspocket

move to NE corner it will be £330 and not much standing either. We are kn the back row and my eight year old doesn't have a problem

[ramblur]

Neither know, nor care to be honest.

Just saying that most things go up in price over time regardless of quality.

I have noticed absolutely no improvement to my milk, bread, petrol, electricity or gas but am probably being charged 2 or 3 times more than I was paying 5 years ago. Should I complain to the suppliers and say that unless they reduce their prices I am going to refuse to use them?

Rather a bit of a difference there,because you're talking about everyday essentials,as opposed to leisure.The suppliers of the items you mention can,subject to any goverment regulation,do what they like with prices within the boundaries of remaining competitive against their peers.

On the other hand,any normal business with a poor product would have to address this issue,irrespective of inflation.Any attempt to pass inflation on without tackling the underlying problem would merely make the situation worse.

I wonder what your stance would have been if you (and some others) had been the one/s faced with a £200 price hike,whilst the vast majority had suffered no increase?

[ramblur]

It's also worth pointing out that tickets that go up by £40 a year over 5 years, compared to one that goes up by £200 in year one, represents a comparative saving over the 5 years of £400 compared to the poor sap who got clobbered with the increase on day 1.

Not sure I've grasped the point you're making there,eddie,which could well be down to my failure to grasp something.I won't yet reply,therefore,but merely restate the point I was trying to make (if that helps).

In my eyes,the £200 increase now would be the equivalent of paying an extra £40/year ,starting 5 years ago.There would be differences-the former would be easier to manage,but would possibly be more expensive,as £40 then would be worth more than £40 now (or to put it another way,if someone had put £40/year in an interest bearing account 5 years ago,they'd have more than £200 now).

I could see the £400 if you were suggesting that someone paid £200 extra 5 years ago,to be followed by 5x£40 ?

[ramblur]

I think there has to be an element of acceptance that a Football Club is not like a normal business.

....the major difference being that the football business enjoys a far higher degree of customer loyalty.Now it's one thing to appreciate this loyalty,but quite another to overstretch,or take undue advantage of it.

[ramblur]

Just had a thought (happens every now and again), if by some miracle we sneaked into the top six by the end of the season and won the three game lottery, would the club have to honour the renewal prices? Is there a 'promotion surcharge' clause in the small print?

Who knows,Cornwall.I've seen it suggested that S/T rises should fund losses.I suppose that if you applied the same principle to a profit making Prem season (as the last one was,in terms of both cash and headline result),then you should see price reductions?

[eddie]

Not sure I've grasped the point you're making there,eddie,which could well be down to my failure to grasp something.I won't yet reply,therefore,but merely restate the point I was trying to make (if that helps).

In my eyes,the £200 increase now would be the equivalent of paying an extra £40/year ,starting 5 years ago.There would be differences-the former would be easier to manage,but would possibly be more expensive,as £40 then would be worth more than £40 now (or to put it another way,if someone had put £40/year in an interest bearing account 5 years ago,they'd have more than £200 now).

I could see the £400 if you were suggesting that someone paid £200 extra 5 years ago,to be followed by 5x£40 ?

No, G STAR RAM suggested that if the club had put the price up by £40 a year annually for 5 successive years, then the disabled fans would probably not have moaned, and it would have been 'no different' to just whacking £200 on all at once. Obviously there is a huge difference.

<albert mode>

Season ticket holder A and Season ticket holder B both paid x in year 0.

If season ticket holder A's price was increased by £40 per year per year, then over the next 5 years they would pay

x+40, x+80, x+120, x+160, x+200 which would be a total of 5x+600

If season ticket holder B's price was increased by £200 in the first year, they would pay x+200 per year, or 5x+1000 over the 5 year period.

The difference between the two is obviously (5x+1000) - (5x+600) = 400.

</albert mode>

[davenportram]

No, G STAR RAM suggested that if the club had put the price up by £40 a year annually for 5 successive years, then the disabled fans would probably not have moaned, and it would have been 'no different' to just whacking £200 on all at once. Obviously there is a huge difference.

<albert mode>

Season ticket holder A and Season ticket holder B both paid x in year 0.

If season ticket holder A's price was increased by £40 per year per year, then over the next 5 years they would pay

x+40, x+80, x+120, x+160, x+200 which would be a total of 5x+600

If season ticket holder B's price was increased by £200 in the first year, they would pay x+200 per year, or 5x+1000 over the 5 year period.

The difference between the two is obviously (5x+1000) - (5x+600) = 400.

</albert mode>

your quite right they would pay more over the 5 years if the increase had been put on fan B at the start. However the argument isn't that.

if a disabled ticket had been increased by £40 a year drip feed over the past 5 years then the increases would have been small and not caused as,much uproar as now. However the fans would have paid more over the 5 years than they would do if the increase was saved until the fifth season.

fan A with the £40 a year for 5 years pays 5x + 600

where as fan B who's ticket was increased in the last year (not the start year as you have used) would pay 5x + 200

so over the 4 years of fixed prices then a big increase costs less than 5 years of smaller increases.

[eddie]

I was going to calculate the second scenario to show that it worked both ways but I couldn't be arsed because it was pointless.

Because the club didn't put in a stealth increase over the last 5 years - they whacked the lot on this week.

Incidentally, I don't know of one disabled fan who has renewed yet.

[davenportram]

I like doing maths so for example a ST holder in the Northwest corner over the past 4 seasons would have paid

£760 (taken it as £190 per year)

if they then renew at the new price of £300 it comes to £1060 for the past 4 years and next. (the £300 comes from info posted on another thread)

if the club had increased prices by a modest £20 per season starting 4 years ago the same fan would have paid

£190+210+230+250+270=£1150

that would have seen almost a full £100 more revenue for the club than fixing prices and adding £110 to the season ticket in year 5

[davenportram]

I was going to calculate the second scenario to show that it worked both ways but I couldn't be arsed because it was pointless.

Because the club didn't put in a stealth increase over the last 5 years - they whacked the lot on this week.

Incidentally, I don't know of one disabled fan who has renewed yet.

i know of one that is - have you seen my thread on the new revised arrangements - head on over

[ramblur]

No, G STAR RAM suggested that if the club had put the price up by £40 a year annually for 5 successive years, then the disabled fans would probably not have moaned, and it would have been 'no different' to just whacking £200 on all at once. Obviously there is a huge difference.

<albert mode>

Season ticket holder A and Season ticket holder B both paid x in year 0.

If season ticket holder A's price was increased by £40 per year per year, then over the next 5 years they would pay

x+40, x+80, x+120, x+160, x+200 which would be a total of 5x+600

If season ticket holder B's price was increased by £200 in the first year, they would pay x+200 per year, or 5x+1000 over the 5 year period.

The difference between the two is obviously (5x+1000) - (5x+600) = 400.

</albert mode>

Ah,apologies.By £40/year I was meaning putting the price up by £40 in year one and maintaining that price for the five years.My wording should have been better.At least I can see now where the £400 came from (which had been worrying me,because I've not had one of my better days health wise)!

But of course my £40 back 5 years only covers the £200 for this year (a point I should also have made) and not future years.

[G STAR RAM]

Rather a bit of a difference there,because you're talking about everyday essentials,as opposed to leisure.The suppliers of the items you mention can,subject to any goverment regulation,do what they like with prices within the boundaries of remaining competitive against their peers.

On the other hand,any normal business with a poor product would have to address this issue,irrespective of inflation.Any attempt to pass inflation on without tackling the underlying problem would merely make the situation worse.

I wonder what your stance would have been if you (and some others) had been the one/s faced with a £200 price hike,whilst the vast majority had suffered no increase?

As already stated my price has gone up £75 in two seasons.

Can't say I would be happy if my price went up £200.

There again if I had been paying £200 less than other people for the past 15 or 16 years I would realise that I had paid circa £3k less than they had paid for tickets in the same ground.

[ramblur]

As already stated my price has gone up £75 in two seasons.

Can't say I would be happy if my price went up £200.

There again if I had been paying £200 less than other people for the past 15 or 16 years I would realise that I had paid circa £3k less than they had paid for tickets in the same ground.

I'm sure a 5/6 year old that supported the Rams through to 21 years would have paid considerably less,but it's hardly the point.

[G STAR RAM]

I'm sure a 5/6 year old that supported the Rams through to 21 years would have paid considerably less,but it's hardly the point.

Not really sure what the point is then. It appears to be that my price increase and the fact I have constantly paid at the higher end of the scale is less important because I am not old or disabled?

Whatever happened to equality?

[ramblur]

Not really sure what the point is then. It appears to be that my price increase and the fact I have constantly paid at the higher end of the scale is less important because I am not old or disabled?

Whatever happened to equality?

I'm sure a lot of the seniors and disabled may well have spent a long period of their own support in your category.You may even grow old or disabled yourself.If you don't think any concessions should be given out,then why aren't you attacking those given to the young? I've seen some take the dispassionate view that if you can't afford to attend a match,then tough.In that case,if a parent couldn't afford to bring a child at full price ,then tough (according to that viewpoint).

I must point out that I'm not against concessions for the young.

[eddie]

Not really sure what the point is then. It appears to be that my price increase and the fact I have constantly paid at the higher end of the scale is less important because I am not old or disabled?

Whatever happened to equality?

A person interested in actually debating the issue, as opposed to just being deliberately confrontational, would have spotted the fact that as far as you seem to be concerned, a disabled fan has no right to criticise the club about their increase of over £200, yet you don't appear pipe up one jot in order to criticise children for their cheap admission - free in some cases, as little as £60 in others.

Whatever happened to equality indeed?

[davenportram]

Just to reiterate the club has recategorized the NW corner (the disabled corner) Cat D so the increase is not £200 for those in that area, or indeed for those in other Cat D areas.

[G STAR RAM]

A person interested in actually debating the issue, as opposed to just being deliberately confrontational, would have spotted the fact that as far as you seem to be concerned, a disabled fan has no right to criticise the club about their increase of over £200, yet you don't appear pipe up one jot in order to criticise children for their cheap admission - free in some cases, as little as £60 in others.

Whatever happened to equality indeed?

Ok, I'll debate it with you. I believe that senior and disabled prices have been too cheap in the past. Maybe the increases have been disproportionate but if it brings prices into line with our competitors, as DCFC state, I don't think there is much room for complaint. Discuss.