Man City Fans Boycott

do they charge £1 for a 10p pack of space raiders in london?
could i buy a car for a grand then drive to london and sell it for two?

my examples are quite irrelevant but * paying 62 quid for a ticket, add the price of travel, add any food/anything you buy on the way there less than a month after christmas!
just because the players get payed extortionate wages doesnt mean the fans do also

Just because its based in london shouldnt mean the price goes up, the reason the tickets cost so much is so the money goes into arsenals pocket
if they need extra money to pay there wages. cut there wage bill. the fans shouldnt have to pay for there mistake!
celtic doesnt sign a player for 50k a week then hike up the prices an extra 20 quid

 

62 quid !!! no even if i had it .

 

Football has gone mad, and teams like City are a huge part of the problem.

 

is there anything official from city fans saying they boycotted the match because over 2000 still went, or is it just people asuming because 900 tickets didnt sell and seen the price and put two and two together

 

The point about London having on average higher wages is a valid point for Arsenal fans because one would expect a high proportion of Arsenal's fan base to be from London and therefore as an extension these fans would on average have a higher average wage than other cities around England.

A better comparison to be made in Scotland is Edinburgh not Glasgow, London is a finance capital, like Edinburgh although Edinburgh is on a much smaller scale, i would hazard a guess that average wages in Edinburgh are higher than Glasgow. So we should be comparing ticket prices to clubs like Hibs/Hearts than partick thistle.

 

Given you are an Economist, your post carries that bit more weight in my eyes

Would you agree that even comparing Edinburgh to London is still a bit of a stretch though? Albeit I do realiseyou were only using that as a more relative example than * Partick Thistle :smiley-laughing002:

 

2,000 sounds like a good turnout at that price. I don't see any evidence that they boycotted?

 

They returned 1,000 tickets. Normally they'd sell out the full allocation.

 

£62 is a * joke

 

This conversation makes me laugh.

Being a hockey fan from Toronto, All i know is overpriced hahahaha

 

know quite a few blues who want to go to this but couldn't get a ticket because the club didn't take their full allocation.
There was no boycott, they sold all the tickets they took, they just didn't think they would sell them all and didn't want any unsold tickets that they had paid for

 

Football is a unique industry and shouldn't be treated the same way. Can you imagine if someone from Arsenal's PR team came out and said the ticket prices are justifiable because they are in London??

Partick Thistle emphasises the point I was trying to make perfectly.

 

No one is saying it's the only factor. Not once has anyone even made it out to be a crucial factor; it's just been acknowledged that it is one. It's not hard to understand. You're correct in highlighting that football isn't the same as normal life though, of course it's not and no one will argue otherwise. But to attempt to imply that location - and by extension, normal life in that location - has nothing to do with it because it's football is foolish.

It really doesn't.

 

Went to see barca Valencia in the summer and the cheapest ticket was about 60 quid aswell think the went up into the hundreds! Was worth it though but * that every week!

 

We could go on all night but I disagree, football prices are relevant to the team you are watching, the division you are in, the price you pay for players and what you get on the pitch. Even by that logic, £62 is ripping the * and it was a clear attempt to exploit Man City fans.

You are missing the whole point of the Partick Thistle thing. I am using a team in a lower division as an example of how ridiculous it is to suggest inflated prices are justifiable because of location.

Oxford is reportedly the 4th most expensive place to live in Britain, so can Oxford United hike up their prices to 60 quid?

 

All true - I doubt you'd find someone who can honestly disagree with it.

100% agree.

I'm not missing the point - it's just a misguided one. It's irrelevant to my, Hammer and EvilBunny's points which were all about London in particular. London is the markedly different location, not just the poshest part of any city just because stuff costs more there than other parts of the same city. It's you who appears to misunderstand that point, as you've shown throughout your posts by continually holding up Partick Thistle as some sort of evidence.

For about the 5th time - NO ONE has said it justifies the purchase pricing clubs put on tickets these days. Stop putting words in peoples mouths to make your own point seem more relevant.

As for the Oxford "example", it's so much akin to the Partick one it's almost unbelievable I'm even still bothering to entertain it with an answer. You're once again taking something irrelevant to the point about London and making it out to be some sort of evidence. You've pointed out in your first sentence other factors which come into play - which are all undeniably true - so why can't you see any other factors we all encounter in normal life (such as cost of living, salaries, etc. which are all notably higher in London than the rest of the UK as was the only point made) as relevant to football? Of course they are, and especially to ordinary fans. To ignore factors like that completely when discussing fans and ticket prices is quite frankly a very callow outlook on things.

At least we both agree - I think we all agree actually - that the prices are ridiculous and exploitative of the ordinary fan base of clubs, especially big ones. That was never in doubt for me, and as I said you'd do well to remember in your next post, if you reply, that I've told you very straightforwardly at least 4 times now that the point about the London factor is in no way intended to justify the prices. It's just that - a factor.

 

Exploit both Man City and their own fans. By contrast a ticket for Stoke City end against Arsenal at the Emirates in a few weeks time is £35.50.

 

From page 2:

QPR play at Loftus Road. Loftus Road is in London. What are folk failing to understand? London has relative salaries to their ticket prices.

Now, that is nonsense, complete crap. That's where the Partick Thistle thing, which you continually are going on about, not me, came from, so do not for a minute accuse me of making up crap to justify my own posts, OK?

If it's not being used to justify the prices, why bring it up? Your saying because it is a factor rather than a justification .. well .. that's my point .. I don't think it is or should be.

If Arsenal's PR team attempted to use that as a factor/justification/excuse .. what ever you want to call it, they would be hammered left right and centre.

 

The quote: you missed out the part where he said:

"OK Arsenal are ripping it but you cannot compare London club prices like for like with those up North."

which is crucial in that it shows the point was not that the prices were acceptable, just that London prices in general are higher than everywhere else so there is a factor there not in existence in other places. Which leads me to...

Partick Thistle: Seriously ? You've brought the daft "example" up in virtually every post. As I said, like a dog with a * bone man :smiley-laughing002:

It's a misguided and irrelevant example for the context of the posts you're contending, there is no doubt about that.

Hammer mentioned it initially, and I mentioned he had a point about the difference between London in general with everywhere else in the UK. He was factually correct as London's cost of living and everything all being higher is a factor for the fans and clubs. That's why your Partick Thistle nonsense is completely irrelevant and I don't see why you'd keep going on about it when it's making no point relevant to London - which was where was mentioned due to the obvious difference, nowhere else.

That's your opinion, it is my opinion that that is quite foolish, but fair enough.

You're correct - it shouldn't be. Of course it shouldn't.

Of course they would, and rightly so.

We'll have to agree to disagree over the relevance of the location of London as a factor in the financial situation of both fans and clubs down there. That's fine, it is a forum after all. The annoying part was you seemingly implying that because I recognise a certain factor which you disagree with I was somehow becoming tantamount to an apologist for the insane prices that fans are charged for some games. I agree with you: it's exploitative, unfair and pricing working class fans out. Recognising other active factors relevant only to a certain place does not mean I suddenly think it's fine.