Elstone takes umbrage at BBC Sport study into prices

We all know the reason clubs struggle is because of the high percentage of income paid out on playersÂ’ wages, most of whom are too thick to have any idea how to cope with that amount of money. Removing this dreadful obscenity would mean anyone can get to games. Surely Elstone realises that around 㿊 a game is a vast amount of money to many fans. When will that guy get real.

If not stats, then what?

I haven't read it but a lad who has stated that the cheapest Man City one is a one-off ticket special or something like that.

It's not really the ticket prices for me, it's the price of piss-poor half-time lager.

I loved it when it was Budweiser, it's rubbish now.

Well, it wouldn't! 㿊 as a proportion of my weekly take home is 10%. 㿊 as a proportion of a player taking home 㿊k a week is 0.001% – or the equivalent of 30 pence to me (wow – 30p to watch a match!)

It's akin to Marie Antoinette saying of the starving Parisians who couldn't afford bread, "Why don't they eat cake?" ... and we know how that ended.

Now to make out that 𧼏 (it sounds better than 𧼐) is somehow cheap is ridiculous. That's 㿋 per game for 19 home games. Don't know where he gets the 㾶 figure from. Probably talking about kids prices.

As long as PL clubs continue to try and buy their way to success and the fans are happy to see them do it, the costs of watching football will continue to rise so there is no point in complaining about it. Only when fans begin to vote with their feet will the clubs get the message.

Make a contrary case, challenge the stats, but don't just dismiss an argument because it uses stats.

There are lies, damn lies, stats, stats which provide only part of the picture, and no argument but just a dismissal of stats.

I speculated last year that the extra 㿨m or so a season that Everton enjoy going forward from the new TV deal will take about 3-5 years to find itself into the pockets of agents and players (read fee, agent and salary for Lukaku), and I see nothing in this report to dispel my opinion.

The high prices (and yes, I agree they are high) do not filter their way to dividends for owners and shareholders, as would be the case in a normal commercial organisation. Buffalo Bill and his co-owners make Jack shit out of Everton, believe me. As far as I know, no dividend has been paid in living memory, and no salaries are paid to the owners. Supposedly, they even buy their own tickets!

It's only by driving up capacity, and improving facilities can the club have any prospect of leeway that at the same time allows us to compete for the best players, and also invest at least some of the income back into pricing subsidy for ticket prices. Either that, or a very rich owner who is prepared to underwrite the losses that lowering prices would inevitably bring, as is the case at Man City.

Everton has a largely working-class, low-income fanbase, and in many respects we are all the better for it, but this fact, and our low commercial income potential brought about by the limitations of the 'Old Lady', I'm afraid leave us in a financial strait jacket with very little latitude to play tunes with prices which would not undermine the whole viability of the club... sorry, but that's the reality.

Are you saying this is not true and that all quoted statistics should be taken at face value?

For an out-of-context example, when the Ebola breakout hit the news, the BBC stated that Ebola has a 100% mortality rate. This statistic was taken from three outbreaks (1976, 1997, 2011) that affected only one person in each outbreak, all of whom died. The WHO (not Roger) actually state that the average mortality rate is 50%. So the BBC used the statistic that best suited their story.

Another example is Mr Elstone stating that 1 in 5 people pay less than 㾶 per game. What it does not say is that these are Kids prices. It might be obvious but Elstone doesn't state this as it sounds better and supports his argument better. You could say that Little Johnny goes to 19 games a season for less than ٞ.00 per game. As his dad pays for the ticket. Still a true statistic though.

What if 94% of people paid 㿓.99 per ticket. The statistic "Only 6% of fans at Goodison Park, across the entire season, pay more than 㿔 per seat" would still be true.

Also I never aimed my initial comment at Elstone, Everton, the BBC or anyone else.

Sorry if I interpreted your post as having a go at Elstone using stats.

One stat I like is that some people have only one leg, so if you count all the legs in the UK and divide by two, you come out with a stat that on average people in the UK have something like 1.986 legs! Maybe that's why I'm limp (like my arguments!).

Is it responding to demand from fans (can you really believe that Arsenal have fans complaining that two new strips a season aren't enough?) or is it greed from the clubs and their shirt sponsors.

The evidence in this article is probably going to get the BBC into more trouble for questioning the integrity of football clubs and their exploitation of the fans.

Price of Foootball.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29624410

So, in that context, may I offer three more sets of stats (for those who can't be arsed to read the article)

1. The cost of making a shirt can be as cheap as €8 (depends which group of child labourers you exploit) and can sell for as much as 㿣 or more depending on whether you buy from the club or online.

2. Adidas turnover from footy related merchandise has risen 121% in the past 10 years and now accounts for ٟ.8bn of their total income.

3. Not content with odious amounts of telly money and screwing the fans at the gate, the 'top clubs' in the UK have peddled on average 1m shirts EACH in the past 4 years and even Liverpool make it to number 7 in the World Shirt Lifters League with sales of 805,000 over the same period.

Fiddling about with the mark-up rates, I calculate that the top merchandisers in Euro Footy make on average 㾷m per year from shirt sales for the club. I admit to only gaining a grade 5 in maths at O-Level and haven't had a numeracy test since but I think the guesstimate is not far from the truth.

I know some of you will reply that you don't have to buy this cack and that is true too. Hopefully, though, the facts will persuade any punters to leave their money in the piggy bank and Put it towards a cup final ticket instead (another rip off).

When I occasionally attend matches these days, I usually take along a couple of my grandsons so, all-in-all, it is a pretty expensive day out. Therefore I never ever buy food and drinks inside the ground but either take our own or buy stuff outside the ground which is far cheaper. As far as tickets go, though, you have to pay the price asked.

The mark-up on food and drink inside the ground must be way over the top.

I'd probably ask for a pay rise.

If Borussia Dortmund can keep international players at the club and charge the fans a fraction of what we pay, why do Premier League clubs feel the need to screw the fans at every opportunity?

Read the article recommended by John Ford @ 24

Our game stinks!

I am afraid the situation regarding players wages increasing is just going to get worse and worse. Scudamore is already pushing for Premier League clubs to play league games in other countries... as you rightly say the Premier League is awash with money. So I can only see the 39th game as this proposal for overseas games, then this just sums up what the Premier League thinks of its fans.

Already, many fans can no longer afford to watch their teams in this country but who gives a shit about them? Let's make it even harder for fans to see all their club's games by this stupid idea.

Now if they propose that, apart from expenses, all money raised from overseas Premier League games goes direct to grassroots football, that way at least kids may get decent changing rooms with showers that work. So, instead of raping the game, the greedy clubs and players can give something back for a change.... Mind, I won't hold my breath on this.

But, as you say, we won't hold our breath!

James, what would you want to see / hear about ticket prices that's not propaganda?

Charge upper-class prices for a working-class game, and the grounds have never been fuller? Man City fans getting slaughtered because the ground wasn't full for their last Champions League match? The Daily Mirror criticising Evertonians because the club had to cancel their extortionate plane to Russia?

Only a boycott of live games would work, even if the fans all went in after 15 minutes. One thing is certain: the television company's would demand that clubs reduced their prices, because it would not look good to the world-wide audience, watching a game without the emotion of the crowd.

Sadly though, they will go ahead with it within the 38 game structure. Watch Brenda Rodgers complain about players being tired due to travel etc. Of course he won't, the bean counters will silence him.

When I said the 39th game I didnt mean an extra league game this is what the press were calling playing a game abroad. There is no doubt the 2 biggest supported clubs outside of this Country will be pushing for a game either in the far east or the States where both clubs have a massive following. Money is the most important thing, I am afraid fans come a long way down the pecking order. Although the clubs will get bumper pay days from these games, most of the extra revenue will end up in players pockets.

Imagine – a Saturday when all EPL matches took place in near-empty stadiums! That would give the greedy bastards pause for thought.