My boys ar both eventon fans as well as being valley season ticket holders and they normally pay 35-38 each for gladish street end with I think is good value compared to championship prices? Especially 32 to sit in a wooden hut at palace!
Joke but then planty of tourists will go to Arsenal and they will fill it so if the real supporter loses out who cares we can have another passionless nobody who no one will even realise was there clicking away at his camera for 90 minutes. The sooner it goes bang the better
In the good old days it was cheap to get into Highbury and you could pay on the gate. The atmosphere was still shit. They might as well charge the plums for the privelige of sitting quietly mumbling.
Hope Spurs have the decency to charge Arsenal £62 for the return fixture
We wont but we should do.
The games are graded as follows:
Cat A | Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, West Ham United Cat B | Aston Villa, Everton, Fulham, Newcastle United, Norwich City, Queens Park Rangers, Southampton, Sunderland Cat C | Reading*, Stoke City*, Swansea City*, West Bromwich Albion*, Wigan Athletic*
Park Lane lower: A = £48, B = £37, C = £32 Park Lane upper: A = £54, B = £41, C = £37
You have to wonder how much them prices will go up once the new stadium is built!
Strange that Fulham are a Cat B! Disgusting prices as well. I remember being outraged at paying £27 for a Park Upper ticket!
There was a Man City fan on talk sport last night talking about game categorisation. His point was a valid one, wherever he goes it's always a Cat A game because it's Man City, so over a season he reckons he's paying anything up to double what a fan following Norwich away would for example. They play QPR this week, Cat C is £35, Cat A is £53.
The point he made was that categorisation shouldn't apply to away fans. It's pure profiteering as the bigger clubs will sell out no matter what. He claimed that at Man City that there was a flat rate for away fans, and categorisation only applied to home areas. I would assume that means away fans play the lowest categorisation price in order to fulfil league rules on pricing.
Of course clubs aren't going to turn down what is essentially free money, but maybe the should be forced to. Categorisation is done to match pricing to demand. As the away demand is fairly constant, then the categorisation simply become preferential pricing. So QPR will charge Norwich fans less than Man City fans purely on the basis of who those fans support, both will comfortably sell out the away end, so there is little difference in the demand.
There was a Man City fan on talk sport last night talking about game categorisation. His point was a valid one, wherever he goes it's always a Cat A game because it's Man City, so over a season he reckons he's paying anything up to double what a fan following Norwich away would for example. They play QPR this week, Cat C is £35, Cat A is £53.
The point he made was that categorisation shouldn't apply to away fans. It's pure profiteering as the bigger clubs will sell out no matter what. He claimed that at Man City that there was a flat rate for away fans, and categorisation only applied to home areas. I would assume that means away fans play the lowest categorisation price in order to fulfil league rules on pricing.
Of course clubs aren't going to turn down what is essentially free money, but maybe the should be forced to. Categorisation is done to match pricing to demand. As the away demand is fairly constant, then the categorisation simply become preferential pricing. So QPR will charge Norwich fans less than Man City fans purely on the basis of who those fans support, both will comfortably sell out the away end, so there is little difference in the demand.
Don't agree with the last paragraph, there will always be bigger demand for away tickets from the bigger clubs as they tend to have more supporters.
After Norwich have been in the prem a few years they'll stop selling out away games if they are being charged high prices, other "category c" teams already don't take a full allocation and charging everyone the same (and that would just be the category a price btw) would further reduce demand.
In addition it seems correct that a ticket for Man City v QPR costs more than QPR v Norwich, wherever you sit in the stadium.
Rather than try and have a uniform price for all teams, which I think is wrong, I think it's the price that the tickets are set at which needs to be addressed. Arsenal should be embarrassed to charge £62 to sit in the worst seats in their stadium, but they probably aren't.
Why does it have to be the clubs who take a stand?
Yeah I think its great if the Man City fans refuse to pay and send tickets back and put a bit of power back in their hands. Just a shame non members will see it as an opportunity to go and will fork out. The sad thing is that I doubt the top clubs will ever fail to sell out - especially those in London as they attract neutrals and tourists.
West Ham fans not enamoured at paying £45 for the midweek F A Cup replay at Old Trafford after West Ham charged the Mancs £25 for the first fixture. All very eloquently put http://www.kumb.com/story.php?id=126653
Fan power. Will take some organising but it might as well start here. If fans set the prices what should be top whack? I suggest PL £45 Championship £30 L1 £25 L2 (who gives a flying as we'll never have to pay it) £20
These would be top price for best seats at attractive games and fans would have to be prepared to boycott every single game at which the price was higher. It would have an impact on just about every non PL club apart from those that charge reasonable amounts. All we have to do is get buy-in from every football fan in the country. Simple. By the way I know that doesn't exactly help Arsenal or QPR fans but who cares about Arsenal any way and QPR will be back to 12000 max next season in the Champ and will be doing football for a fiver like us.
Secondary boycott would be to spend nothing else in the ground when top prices charged for crappy fixtures. sounds like a plan to me!
Arsenal have a VERY expensive stadium to pay for and need to finance the millions to pay part time male model / footballer Walcott
Indeed.
The Standard tonight had the ticket story slap bang next to a story about Walcott's new pay offer. I know you can argue "market forces" and all that, but its getting even more ridiculous than ever now.
Comments
Especially 32 to sit in a wooden hut at palace!
I meant in terms of some of the other prices around. 62 quid at Arsenal, 55 at QPR, 32 at Palace.
45 for Liverpool v United/Chelsea/City seems decent in comparison.
The point he made was that categorisation shouldn't apply to away fans. It's pure profiteering as the bigger clubs will sell out no matter what. He claimed that at Man City that there was a flat rate for away fans, and categorisation only applied to home areas. I would assume that means away fans play the lowest categorisation price in order to fulfil league rules on pricing.
Of course clubs aren't going to turn down what is essentially free money, but maybe the should be forced to. Categorisation is done to match pricing to demand. As the away demand is fairly constant, then the categorisation simply become preferential pricing. So QPR will charge Norwich fans less than Man City fans purely on the basis of who those fans support, both will comfortably sell out the away end, so there is little difference in the demand.
After Norwich have been in the prem a few years they'll stop selling out away games if they are being charged high prices, other "category c" teams already don't take a full allocation and charging everyone the same (and that would just be the category a price btw) would further reduce demand.
In addition it seems correct that a ticket for Man City v QPR costs more than QPR v Norwich, wherever you sit in the stadium.
Rather than try and have a uniform price for all teams, which I think is wrong, I think it's the price that the tickets are set at which needs to be addressed. Arsenal should be embarrassed to charge £62 to sit in the worst seats in their stadium, but they probably aren't.
Just a shame non members will see it as an opportunity to go and will fork out.
The sad thing is that I doubt the top clubs will ever fail to sell out - especially those in London as they attract neutrals and tourists.
I blame sky sports!
PL £45
Championship £30
L1 £25
L2 (who gives a flying as we'll never have to pay it) £20
These would be top price for best seats at attractive games and fans would have to be prepared to boycott every single game at which the price was higher. It would have an impact on just about every non PL club apart from those that charge reasonable amounts. All we have to do is get buy-in from every football fan in the country. Simple. By the way I know that doesn't exactly help Arsenal or QPR fans but who cares about Arsenal any way and QPR will be back to 12000 max next season in the Champ and will be doing football for a fiver like us.
Secondary boycott would be to spend nothing else in the ground when top prices charged for crappy fixtures. sounds like a plan to me!
(from Espn.com)
"The most expensive cup of tea is in Manchester, where both City and United charge 2.50 pounds"
That's more expensive than Starbucks!
The Standard tonight had the ticket story slap bang next to a story about Walcott's new pay offer. I know you can argue "market forces" and all that, but its getting even more ridiculous than ever now.