[brockwell-spireite]

Working with a German client at the moment, talking football over dinner he shows me his new season card... As a member of Borussia Monchengladbach it cost him 156 euros... If he was a non member it would've been 176 (or there abouts) this gets him access to every league game, every home German cup game and every champions league home game... No wonder their stadia are full!!

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

brockwell-spireite, on 05 July 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

Working with a German client at the moment, talking football over dinner he shows me his new season card... As a member of Borussia Monchengladbach it cost him 156 euros... If he was a non member it would've been 176 (or there abouts) this gets him access to every league game, every home German cup game and every champions league home game... No wonder their stadia are full!!

Look at the prices of the club we are playing in the friendly. The opposite end of the scale

[60s 70s Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 05 July 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

Working with a German client at the moment, talking football over dinner he shows me his new season card... As a member of Borussia Monchengladbach it cost him 156 euros... If he was a non member it would've been 176 (or there abouts) this gets him access to every league game, every home German cup game and every champions league home game... No wonder their stadia are full!!

So are our Premier League stadiums [full]. Thing is our PL could easily afford to massively subsidise tickets also, but they probably think why bother when the demand remains. The issue for us and our fellow lower league brethren would be then, (presumably we would have to charge the same), how do we survive off £133 per head?

Ask Audi, Digibet, Postbank to sponsor us?

[CFC91]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 06 July 2016 - 12:34 AM, said:

Look at the prices of the club we are playing in the friendly. The opposite end of the scale

Or look ever closer to home at ours.

[JonB]

If you want to pay less to get in then expect to see less invested in the playing budget as to an extent thats where your ticket money is contributing. The money that isnt being paid in the form of gate money has to be replaced by something if you want a similar budget and at our level there is no massive TV deal etc to do it. Everyone always compares our prices to big foreign teams or premiership teams who have the massive tv deals, sponsorship deals etc filling the coffers as well.

[Stockholm Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 05 July 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

Working with a German client at the moment, talking football over dinner he shows me his new season card... As a member of Borussia Monchengladbach it cost him 156 euros... If he was a non member it would've been 176 (or there abouts) this gets him access to every league game, every home German cup game and every champions league home game... No wonder their stadia are full!!

Absolutely. I've finally found the information I was looking for - this was May, 2013

Quote

Uli Hoeness, President of Bayern Munich:

'We could charge more than £104. Let's say we charged £300. We'd get £2m more in income but what's £2m to us?
In a transfer discussion you argue about that sum for five minutes. But the difference between £104 and £300 is huge for the fan.
We do not think the fans are like cows, who you milk. Football has got to be for everybody.
That's the biggest difference between us and England.'

[BlueRover52]

JonB, on 06 July 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

If you want to pay less to get in then expect to see less invested in the playing budget as to an extent thats where your ticket money is contributing. The money that isnt being paid in the form of gate money has to be replaced by something if you want a similar budget and at our level there is no massive TV deal etc to do it. Everyone always compares our prices to big foreign teams or premiership teams who have the massive tv deals, sponsorship deals etc filling the coffers as well.

It's a balancing act between numbers.High prices,low attendances maybe.Low prices stadium sell out maybe.

[JonB]

BlueRover52, on 06 July 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

It's a balancing act between numbers.High prices,low attendances maybe.Low prices stadium sell out maybe.

Agree but ticket prices are one of the clubs biggest incomes...not only do they need cover the costs of hosting games but they need to make an income as well to put towards the playing budget etc. Its a massive gamble that just setting them low will mean big crowds no matter what which we know wont happen, folk generally only turn up in big numbers when things are going well but then its a case of we'll set them low, spend money on a decent squad and hope they do well to cover the costs of it all...if the crowds dont turn up we're in trouble!

[brockwell-spireite]

JonB, on 06 July 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

Agree but ticket prices are one of the clubs biggest incomes...not only do they need cover the costs of hosting games but they need to make an income as well to put towards the playing budget etc. Its a massive gamble that just setting them low will mean big crowds no matter what which we know wont happen, folk generally only turn up in big numbers when things are going well but then its a case of we'll set them low, spend money on a decent squad and hope they do well to cover the costs of it all...if the crowds dont turn up we're in trouble!

Borussia have just made the champions league two seasons on the bounce so they must be doing something right.

[BlueRover52]

brockwell-spireite, on 06 July 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

Borussia have just made the champions league two seasons on the bounce so they must be doing something right.

And making a few bob.

[BlueRover52]

JonB, on 06 July 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

Agree but ticket prices are one of the clubs biggest incomes...not only do they need cover the costs of hosting games but they need to make an income as well to put towards the playing budget etc. Its a massive gamble that just setting them low will mean big crowds no matter what which we know wont happen, folk generally only turn up in big numbers when things are going well but then its a case of we'll set them low, spend money on a decent squad and hope they do well to cover the costs of it all...if the crowds dont turn up we're in trouble!

And thats exactly where this club is at.High prices for this level and not enough fans through the turnstiles.So totally misjudged and mismanaged the clubs heirarchy need to try something different.

[JonB]

brockwell-spireite, on 06 July 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

Borussia have just made the champions league two seasons on the bounce so they must be doing something right.

Suspect you've answered some of the question there...nice big chunks of champions league money helping.

[Stockholm Spireite]

At our level, ST's are large proportion of our income, but higher up the pyramid, it's importance falls to a point where it could be seen as 'just another income stream'.

According to Deloitte’s 2015 Annual Review of Football Finance, commercial revenue accounts for just 27% of revenue for all Premier League clubs. For Manchester United, that figure is 50%. That tells us the club is making considerably more of its global profile, and its global and regional sponsorship portfolios.

Let's stick with United a little more. The guy that brokered the deal for Chevrolet was fired after the number were revealed to his company. Not only did he agree for the £53m per year, but also bought out the previous sponsor from the remaining years of their deal. Then add on £75m per year from Adidas...and don't Aon sponsor the training ground? And DHL the training kit - or were they bought out?

Adidas alone give Utd the power to buy a marquee player each year, and their dependence of ST's to funds things diminishes significantly. Under Adidas, United has taken ownership of key commercial ventures previously operated by Nike, like the club Megastore. While the club now has to bear the cost of operating its retail and merchandising arms, it now retains 100% of the profits.

A little look here shows just how much things have grown, and also how the proportions of income has changed: The business model in pie chart form

I'm sure that United could argue that they have the fans in mind when they've frozen season ticket prices for 5 years now, but between £530 and £950 is something I would never pay for. But since the Glazers' arrived season tickets in the north and south stand first tiers upper increased by 72% between 2005 to 2012. A season ticket in tier two of the Stretford End, cost £475 before the 2005 takeover and now costs £703.

Imagine being an Arsenal fan and paying between £1035 and £2039...the mind boggles at the blind loyalty of some - plenty who admit to spending beyond their means. But then, cash cows like supporters have always been milked dry, haven't they?

[brockwell-spireite]

Stockholm Spireite, on 06 July 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

At our level, ST's are large proportion of our income, but higher up the pyramid, it's importance falls to a point where it could be seen as 'just another income stream'.

According to Deloitte’s 2015 Annual Review of Football Finance, commercial revenue accounts for just 27% of revenue for all Premier League clubs. For Manchester United, that figure is 50%. That tells us the club is making considerably more of its global profile, and its global and regional sponsorship portfolios.

Let's stick with United a little more. The guy that brokered the deal for Chevrolet was fired after the number were revealed to his company. Not only did he agree for the £53m per year, but also bought out the previous sponsor from the remaining years of their deal. Then add on £75m per year from Adidas...and don't Aon sponsor the training ground? And DHL the training kit - or were they bought out?

Adidas alone give Utd the power to buy a marquee player each year, and their dependence of ST's to funds things diminishes significantly. Under Adidas, United has taken ownership of key commercial ventures previously operated by Nike, like the club Megastore. While the club now has to bear the cost of operating its retail and merchandising arms, it now retains 100% of the profits.

A little look here shows just how much things have grown, and also how the proportions of income has changed: The business model in pie chart form

I'm sure that United could argue that they have the fans in mind when they've frozen season ticket prices for 5 years now, but between £530 and £950 is something I would never pay for. But since the Glazers' arrived season tickets in the north and south stand first tiers upper increased by 72% between 2005 to 2012. A season ticket in tier two of the Stretford End, cost £475 before the 2005 takeover and now costs £703.

Imagine being an Arsenal fan and paying between £1035 and £2039...the mind boggles at the blind loyalty of some - plenty who admit to spending beyond their means. But then, cash cows like supporters have always been milked dry, haven't they?

There was an interesting article about the power these huge sponsorship deals bring with them, for example adidas had made comments about the style of play at United under Van Gaal something sponsors had rarely if ever commented on in the past in England.

[Stockholm Spireite]

brockwell-spireite, on 06 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

There was an interesting article about the power these huge sponsorship deals bring with them, for example adidas had made comments about the style of play at United under Van Gaal something sponsors had rarely if ever commented on in the past in England.

I know the one you're referring to. It stirred memories of the arguments between Brasil and Nike at the '98 world cup. 3 Nike-endorsed players made the squad at the expense of non-Nike players. The lucky 3 were also a combination of badly out of form, recently returned from injury, or both.

At the top level, Adidas and Nike are trying to tie up the "360 deals" - player sponsored by their brand, who also make the team kit for club and country; think Adidas with Gareth Bale right now. It wouldn't surprise me if in the near future, some - but not many - transfers like this are made, especially at United. Just as Jorge Mendes et al work for their clients, they also have a nice slice cut for them by the sponsors, too.

[brockwell-spireite]

Stockholm Spireite, on 06 July 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

I know the one you're referring to. It stirred memories of the arguments between Brasil and Nike at the '98 world cup. 3 Nike-endorsed players made the squad at the expense of non-Nike players. The lucky 3 were also a combination of badly out of form, recently returned from injury, or both.

At the top level, Adidas and Nike are trying to tie up the "360 deals" - player sponsored by their brand, who also make the team kit for club and country; think Adidas with Gareth Bale right now. It wouldn't surprise me if in the near future, some - but not many - transfers like this are made, especially at United. Just as Jorge Mendes et al work for their clients, they also have a nice slice cut for them by the sponsors, too.

Yes, remember reading that Nike had forced Ronaldo to play in that final in 1998 despite him being ill before kick off, he went on to have an absolute shocker and clearly wasnt well! They also force Brazil to tour around the world that doesn't necessarily benefit the players or the coaches training schedule, no wonder players get as many caps as they do these days the amount of international breaks there are.