stevegrant

That was the case, yes. I assume the £3 transaction fee applies regardless of the type of card used now.

Ultimately, Cortese doesn't give a toss about that. He's only concerned about the here and now. Personally, if he reckons they'll get anywhere near 13,000 season ticket holders this year when last year's have been given 30 days to find £300+ in one lump sum, I think he's going to have a rather rude awakening. There are probably 8,000 of last year's season ticket holders who would generally renew under any circumstance (within reason) - hence why the idea of the £125 season ticket was a complete non-starter - but the other 5,000 or so's season-long custom would depend on a variety of factors. Timing and convenience are probably quite high on a list of those factors. The timing is terrible, the season's been over for the best part of a month, so there's no momentum left over from last season. As a result, the desire from the "floating" fans could easily have reduced since the season finished, which would have an impact. While the point about "get a 0% credit card" is valid, it's also not especially convenient. One of the main benefits, I think, of the installment plan the club offered in the past is that the form comes with the season ticket renewal form, so it just gets sent in at the same time, job done. With a new credit card, you have to go to the effort of finding a suitable card (not everyone would know where to look), then there's a much more substantial amount of time required to register for the card, and then once the card arrives, you have to activate it (can involve waiting on the phone for half an hour). You then make the purchase, but then you have to either set up a direct debit with the card provider (most don't do it within the registration process) or remember to make the right payments each month. All sounds simple, but there's a lot more to it than the club's own payment plan.

My opinion is that David Luker has had bugger all input into the ticketing policy this year or the associated delay in announcing it. In each of the previous 10 or so years he's been at the club, season ticket details have been published at the earliest possible opportunity (last season was the only time that wasn't well before the end of the season, for obvious reasons), and with very little complaint from the fanbase.

Seems as though if Palace do go bust, Sheffield Wednesday would not get a reprieve. The Championship would be made up of just 23 teams next season. Assuming, of course, Pompey make it to August...

Did they??

No it won't, it's just badly worded in the article (much like the ambiguity over the booking fee - I've had it confirmed that the £3 fee is per transaction, not per ticket, fortunately). The £2 surcharge is on top of the "in advance" ticket price, so the "on-the-day" price is £24. Why would they advertise an "on-the-day" price and THEN add another £2 onto it? (actually, given what we've seen today, probably best not to answer that )

Happy with the Barnet game, I've not been to Underhill before so that's one I can tick off the list.

I think they would have used an external company to provide this service. The club itself isn't set up to offer finance, it would need to be FSA-approved, etc. As a result, the club would take a bit of a hit on the season ticket price as the finance provider would take a portion of the money in exchange for providing the money to SFC up front, so the club would still get (most of) the money at the point of purchase, but they would have to pay a fee for doing so.

Some may even argue that at least with Lowe, if you had a grievance, you'd get the courtesy of a response... *awaits incoming abuse*

Can't say I've got any complaints over the prices themselves - with the VAT rate reverting to 17.5%, and the club having to price the tickets in such a way as to get loads sold at short notice last summer, an increase of only £30 on a renewal is fair enough, IMO. Even the matchday prices themselves are ok - if bought in advance, the actual ticket price is £2 less than last year (it was £24 for the Northam last season, then £26 on the day from January), but then they've thrown in the £3 booking fee for online and phone sales to throw it all out of sync. The hilarious irony is that it will now work out cheaper for people to buy match-by-match tickets on the day of the game by queueing up at the ticket office (£24) than to book on the phone or online (£22 + £3 = £25). Good work, whoever came up with that idea to reduce the queues at the ticket office on matchdays

There's a key difference between our situation a year ago and the situation Palace now find themselves in. Their stadium will be infinitely more valuable as property real estate for a developer than it is as a football stadium (location location location etc). Brendan Guilfoile (the Palace administrator) is doing his legal duty to maximise return for the creditors, but there's only so long he can run the business for before it ceases being a viable proposition - that seems to be the case from tomorrow, unless he can sell any more players relatively quickly. Re the fee for Ambrose, ultimately the most the administrator can get for him is whatever someone's willing to pay. If the highest bid is £750k and they're a few days from beginning the liquidation process, it's his duty to grab that money while he can. Arguably Mark Fry did the same with David McGoldrick and Andrew Surman, which allowed the club to continue trading for an extra few months. It doesn't bear thinking about what might have happened had those sales not taken place (even though we did ultimately get "fair" prices for them).

The responsibility for paying the football creditors will fall on the Premier League, who will cover all payments from their parachute payments. As a result, they'll only get about £26m of the £48m due over the next 4 years, most of which will probably be released to them in years 3 and 4.

Don't know which are any good, but there are loads on the Blackberry app store. Download it and just search for "radio" Someone I know has the 3GS and they've had exactly the same problem.

The main reason I've limited it to 400px wide is because there isn't a fixed width of the red header, it depends on the available width on the user's screen. If the available width is 800px (the vast majority of users, except some mobile users, will have at least this amount), the user menu on the right covers almost half of the available width, hence leaving 400px to play with. I can increase the space vertically by as much as required, but it starts to take up too much room after a while.

It happened after about 5 minutes of the game, I think! 80-odd minutes of hobbling around trying to get through it on adrenalin alone probably hasn't helped my cause, tbf, but there was no way I was coming off! ](*,)

Will probably pop to the hospital this evening... expect it's probably just heavy bruising but worth getting it checked out anyway.

It's called "minimising expenditure by encouraging membership participation" Would happily pay a professional to do it, but I know that there will be some excellent contributions from forum members

And thanks to that tackle, I am struggling to walk. Possible ligament damage, need to get it looked at.

Can do either. Last year I emailed everyone just before I got all the copies back from Baj/hamster to get postal addresses - obviously anyone who wants to collect theirs in person can do so, although it's possible that I may have moved to London by that stage this year...

Correct. The vBulletin logo will be gone, that's just the default logo for the forum software. There's enough space to extend the image to 400px wide, and I can move the menu down a bit so the image can be about 100px high without it looking like it's taking too much space.

If I remember rightly, it took 6-8 weeks last year. Hopefully won't be quite as long this time around.

That graduated red background won't change. It can be either "just" a logo or a full banner (with bits of the crest, player images/watermarks, stadium images, etc) - open to ideas really

Someone suggested to me that, because of the comfortable financial situation at the club, they didn't feel the need to release them early as every other club does as there's no pressing need for working capital over the summer. I'd disagree, personally, particularly as Cortese claims (and everything seems to back up the claim) they're not running it out of Markus Liebherr's pocket, but as a viable self-sufficient business.

Wouldn't be much of a prize if it was the latter, tbf

Yep, no problem. The prize is a signed shirt, by the way.