No. It happened, but wasn't any plan as such. Prices have risen just as much everywhere, and it's not as if Aldershot are trying to cater to the corporate crowd. No it didn't. The fans weren't blamed for Hillsborough.
Not alone. But i think it has been a part of it. Ticket prices (EPL) has increased 10 times the growht in pay. How would you explain the extreme rising ticket prices and the decrease in attendance ? Clubs like Manchester United or the total numbers of fans for all the clubs in EPL might have gotten higher. But the attendance in the league has dropped. Yes clubs got into the idea of maximising their income, rather than saying high crowds allowed them to keep ticket prices low. Yet clubs have NEVER owed more money. Funny how that goes.
Do some research and you will se that ticket prices in EPL have increased more than other places. NO ?? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...olice-officer-advising-Margaret-Thatcher.html http://www.channel4.com/news/liverpool-fans-wrongly-blamed-for-hillsborough-disaster http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/media.shtm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ken-Liverpool-fans-Hillsborough-disaster.html
a decrease since when? Tickets started steeply rising in price around 20 years ago and crowds are roughly double what the were then. again, since when has the level dropped? Crowds in the top four divisions 1985 - 21080, 8725, 4828, 2519 1990 - 20757, 12496, 5079, 3426 1995 - 24271, 10894, 5502, 3374 2000- 30757, 14155, 6704, 3914 2005 - 33890, 17410, 7738, 4502 Now - 34442, 17729, 7375, 4406 Not really. If you constantly spend 105% of you income, and your income increases tenfold, your debt also increases tenfold.
Do some research? Other than actually going to games here for the past 25 years, you mean? Over the past 25 years prices have risen massively. A second tier game in the mid 80s would cost about £3, and a top tier one about £3.50. Now you are looking at roughly £25/£33. The top tier rise is a bit bigger, but both are very steep rises. By the late 80s you could go to Millwall in the top flight and find that it now costs £5 to stand. Prices were rising long before all-seater stadiums came in. No. There was a public inquiry into the disaster. That report led to the phasing out if terraces. It didn't blame the fans.
Sure, team owners are in it for the money. They invest hundreds of millions of dollars when they buy their clubs. They have a lot to lose, so they want their business partners to run their teams as efficiently as possible. The situation in Green Bay is pretty unique compared to most places. In any event, it's not like there has been any real effort to create another fan-owned team, so the point is mostly moot. In today's business environment, the chances of fans being able to raise the money to buy a team are pretty much zero. College players don't get paid, though many of them go to school for free. However, very few schools have attendance like Ohio State or Michigan. Most college programs are much less well-attended and sell very little merchandise. The majority of college programs are a lot like lower division soccer teams in Europe when it comes to finances- they are break even, at best.
So how do you make it so everyone can afford to go to a game? That is an impossible request. Everyone can't afford a Porsche. There are people in the States that can't afford a ticket. Yet, they are still huge fans. We've been over and over this. People can still be fans without attending matches. There is no way clubs could make tickets affordable for everyone.
The Green Bay Packers have won four Super Bowls. The Pittsburgh Steelers have won six. The Dallas Cowboys and San Francisco 49ers have won five each. The Packers are tied with the New York Giants winning four Super Bowls. I believe the comment if you look back says the Packers have historically been ONE of the most successful teams in the NFL. Not the most successful. The facts bear out they have been one of the most successful. Not the most successful.
college players in the major sports don't get paid normally, but the tooth fairy often leaves them a roll of hundreds under the pillow instead of the usual quarter. they're offered a free college education but like they say, you get what you pay for. it wouldn't surprise me if the growing predominance of pro sports and muntiple sports TV channels has put a big crimp on college football attendance, but back when i was a nipper cal and stanford used to fill up 85,000 seat stadiums every saturday and that was pretty much business as usual for NCAA division 1 programs. there's still a good side to what might seem to the uninitiated to be a scandalous mockery of amateur sport and educational ethics: these proceeds are in large part spread out to support less visible sports like swimming, fencing, field hockey and a dozen others, and with a view to gender parity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...e-difference-between-success-and-failure.html Article about Cardiff City and their proposed change to Red in The Telegraph yesterday.
I think most people forget that the only collegiate programs that make money are some football, basketball and hockey programs. The large majority of collegiate athletes who play other sports are true amateurs and generally do live up to the scholar-athlete ideal. They tend to have higher graduation rates and GPA's than non-athletes. There is a lot of focus on the popular college sports. But the large majority of collegiate athletes play sports that are almost never on TV and where there is very little chance of ever going pro.
Not going to say i have counted the people Im only reproducing the info i read. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...d-to-fill-empty-seats-as-recession-bites.html Do not remember where i read a comparison between Bundesligen and EPL where they clearly stated that EPL attendance was going down as a result from the way the the league or clubs where run. Please do not missunderstand. I appreciate English leagues , clubs and football. But i would hate to see it get lost in the seek for money. When the culture , sport and poeple is rich in so many other ways allready. Therefor i hope English clubs, owners , fans , associations , sponsors and league stop for a minute, raise their head to see and appreciate and value other factors than money alone. A friend off mine said to me the other day. Some people are so poor that money is all they have. . See my point ?
I have not clamed the seats have been to blame. I said EPL have increased their prices more than others . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...tickets-go-up-in-price-by-seven-per-cent.html http://cardiffbluearmy.blogspot.com/2012/02/modrn-football-fans-are-slowly-getting.html http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/new...-revolt-over-massive-hikes-article738885.html http://www.dailyorgan.com/2011/10/football-sport-or-business/ http://research.yougov.co.uk/news/2012/03/06/premier-league20-years/ 73% feel top-flight footballers’ behaviour has got worse in the past 20 years since the Premier League started (with 43% saying that it has got 'much' worse) Only 10% believe behaviour has improved 93% feel true fans have been priced out of attending Premier League football matches due to the high cost of tickets 85% say ticket prices do not represent a fair value for money relative to the entertainment of Premier League football 77% think that a Premier League side is likely to go into administration within the next two years http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/dav.../aug/16/premier-league-football-ticket-prices. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ague-football-tickets-soar-1-000-decades.html Bank of England figures show cumulative inflation of 77 per cent since 1990, yet at Liverpool a ticket is 1,000 per cent more expensive. This is pricing out young fans and older people, some who have stuck by their club and the game in general, through bleak times. According to the Guardian, in 1990 the cheapest ticket to watch Manchester United cost £3.50. With inflation of 77.1 per cent since that year, according to Bank of England figures, that ticket would stand at £6.20 in today’s money.This season, the cheapest ticket available at Old Trafford is £28 – mainly in the lower tiers of the East and West Stands and these are snapped up like gold dust. This represents a 700 per cent increase on ticket prices. If you have been going to the games the past 25 years you should have discovered the increase That might be. But some as the links i posted shows someone blamed the fans to . Do you have a link to the report ?
Well if you look at the contex between income and expenses in % you might see that some of the owner really do not risk that much. And i believe that there are values more valuable then money when it comes to things like this. Look at the development of fan owned clubs though out Europe started by people that will not accept the monetary canter. The gathering of forces in the fan world is not only special but unique. If you look at the German or the Swedish model i find it strange that people would want 1 man power . Might be the cultural differences ? If my club where to be owned and rund by a billioner i do not think i would give the same support i do today. I would feel my money and support whent to him alone . Change of Names , stadiums , places , colours , players , fans and so on would not give me what i have today. Some might see it as fairytell. I try to value the things that give more then money. The average seem very high to me. So how that isn`t going in pluss is strange to me. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/pdfs/2011/2010+national+college+football+attendance
Agree . Not everyone can offord to go to a game. But as said before comparison of a porche and a game or a club is a bit off. So please try a different approach or angle. And as stated before . Different places different measures. Some places removing the seats in one stand might be a way when a new regualtion within a club might be a way for another club. The point isn`t to get every one in for free. The point is to preserve the values a club has. That is not achieved by pricing out middle working class.
I dissagree. Show me the facts to support that statement? I think there are more factor to the raising if prises . And i think the big numbers of football tourist is a part of it. Agreed. But a look to others models might not be a good idea sometimes.
I think it isn`t the league you play in that matters. But the people in the and around the club and it`s values. Fortuna in der 4 liga Or like first round in the Norwegian cup top league vs level 4 in Norway.
Students get in for free at most schools. Only big name programs (like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas) charge students for tickets.
Crowds and prices started rising in the 1980s. Games weren't selling out in the 1980s. Taking 1989, Man Utd averaged 35000 in a ground that held 57000 Liverpool averaged 38000 in a ground that held 45000 Arsenal averaged 35000 in a ground that held 60000. Nobody in the top division was selling out. Most were nowhere near. How can tourists have been pushing up prices in an era when supply vastly outstripped demand? The only clubs who are attracting football tourists are the "big 4" clubs. They typically have tiered membership schemes to get into the queue to buy tickets. Consequently tourists will actually find it very hard to buy tickets for their games, therefore not that many will be there. The demand is absolutely overwhelmingly driven by domestic fanbases, not overseas visitors. You have to also look at the era in context. The game was dying on its arse in England in the mid 1980s. Crowds were falling. Hooliganism was rife - and no, it wasn't a great part of the culture. It added nothing to the experience of going to games, and football is far better of without hooligans. Stadiums were often in a poor condition, with poor facilities. The game needed to smarten up, and the better facilities definitely led to better crowds. Sure, it cost a bit more, but people were prepared to pay a bit more if it meant being in a decent stand rather than being stuck in an open terrace with a large fence with spikes on top, being herded like cattle from station to stadium and back again by the police. This is actually my big problem with the "against modern football" campaign. It ignores the fact that there's actually a fair bit that's been good about modern football. It's just been left unchecked because of greed, but that doesn't mean everything about modern football is bad. When I read people talking about being against modern football though, I just get the impression that those most passionate about it are too young to remember the alternative. If you look at Germany and Holland, their success is in no small way down to rebuilding grounds to modern standards. And not all tickets in Germany are cheap. Many seat tickets in the Bundesliga are just as high, if not higher, than many in the premier league. To say you are against modern football is just stupid. You have to specify what it is exactly you are against.