benjii

Probably that and the fact that CEOs of companies have more important things to do than correspond directly to all incomings. I suspect the reply will, quite properly, be a delegated one.

Yeah, my point is we don't know so it seems a little pointless to pick our a few figures and have a rant. As shirt sponsorship is unlikely to effect ticket sales it really is pointless to off-set the one against the other. We could have had the current ticket prices + a shirt sponsor and no one would be mentioning the shirt sponsorship whatsoever because it's not connected. I agree with your general points around the financing - we don't know for sure. As for Stu's main point, which is that the club will make more money this way... isn't that the point? Nothing to be ashamed of. Our prices are still reasonable for what must be the most expensive squad in the division (unless one of the relegated teams has a more expensive one). If you can't afford an ST, then you can't afford one. It's not the end of the world. If the policy results in average attendances and revenue falling then it will obvioulsy have failed. Bet it doesn't.

And a free shirt? For £1.25 a month?

The point I was making was that I don't see the logic in pointing just at the ticket prices and the shirt sponsorship. They are no more connected than any other two revenue streams.

Training ground, signings, cost of business purchase, wages for behind-the-scenes people at the top of their game etc... I don't know the figures and I am assuming money has been made available but it seems a bit selective to compare ticket revenues with sponsorship revenues and nothing else.

Oh, my goodness! Another one of the self-content uber complacent. This sort of attitude, that next season's signings shouldn't be signed this season, is the reason why England haven't won the World Cup since '66 and explains why Saints always, and I mean always, prepare terribly for the next season. Personally, I think Alpine has been rather conservative in his well-judged and eminently justifiable criticism. If anything we should be making our 2011-2012 signings now. Why wait until after the 2010-2011 season? Are you happy just writing off another season without having all the players we are going to sign during the following season? Well, if you are, let me tell you this; it is the path to ruin. And another thing, I bet we sign some players that are so rubbish any idiot will be able to tell they are rubbish without even watching them. That's another thing we always, and I mean always, get wrong.

There should be some sort of label on the front to warn people.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Square-hosts-World-Cup-giant-screen/article-2274387-detail/article.html There will be one in Bristol. According to that article most cities, in fact nearly all cities, won't have a public screening.

Indeed. Slovenia will be a tougher match IMO. Very organised at the back and the kind of team our bunch of up-and-at'em cloggers will struggle against.

You do the average working person a disservice comparing him/her to these numpties.

Unbelievable!

Stuey, are you going to factor in the millions paid by Markus towards transfers, development etc.. in your "hand" analogy too?

Exactly, me too. Glad the membership scheme is coming back (assuming it is roughly the same as it used to be). No point buying a ST but I would like the opportunity of jumping the queue to whatever extent possible for popular games.

Fair enough, but you do come across as "the voice of The Echo" to many, I suspect, even if that is inadvertent.

Yes, I think there is. So I suppose they vote "yes" or don't vote at all for expediency then at some point in the following month say, "Er, we object now as we've had a claim issued in the High Court that goes to the heart of this proposal and the defendants do not admit the claim". I'm not sure what happens if someone objects... presumably AA has to get a court order to get the CVA approved or maybe the objector has to apply for an order to block it? Either way, I can't see HMRC willingly compromise their claim without any future recourse when this action is already underway.

Agreed. I can't really see how cashflow can be positive. It may be that the books look in good order though due to equity injections from the lovely Herr Liebherr.

Your first comment clearly contained an implied insult. By saying the thread was pointless you are implying that the poster was being, in some sense, pointless. That is slightly insulting. I'm not saying that you should not hold an opinion by virtue of doing a bit of work for a newspaper. Given, however, that you were silly enough to "out" yourself on here you can expect to take some flack when the implied insult in your comment can easily be levelled at the organisation you write for, and further that it smacks of hypocrisy somewhat to bite the hand that apparently feeds; if people thought for hours on end about the relative merits of starting every thread there would be a less vibrant discussion on here, fewer rumours and fewer "emails apparently from the ticket office".

I think you're right, but... If the case is resolved in HMRC's favour before the football debts are paid in full, however (ie when PL parachute money earmarked for football creditors has yet to fall due), then the whole thing would get rather messy indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if HMRC attempt to stay the CVA in some way.

Thanks - someone intelligent enough to see the point I was actually making...

Ignoring your silly response which takes affront at something I didn't even suggest.... We all know this is now your best source of material (vis Senior Sports Reporter Gordon Simpsons' reference to emails "reportedly from the ticket office") so I suggest you don't go about insulting other posters who provide you with the ability to do your job.

says Echo-boy (presumably penning the next story courtesy of this 'ere site).

I have to challenge this assumption that less STs = less money (and I know you caveated your comment in relation to succes on the pitch). If you buy a ticket for 15 matches you will pay more than if you had bought an ST (and that's without adding any booking fees on). I suspect most prior ST holders who don't renew will go to 15 or more matches if the team is winning most weeks. Whilst this has caused some unhappiness it has obviously been considered and determined that it is the best thing to do. The issue here is in relation to the Fans Charter which now either appears to have been very misleading or simply not worth bothering with and in the lack of a decent explanation in relation to this.

The reality is something rather different.

PMSL It looks like a pastiche but it's probably real.

I would crack up if a street hawker used that line! Much better than, "special price for you my friend, yes please."