I think it might be something to do with the fact they have effectively been given a brand spanking new stadium at the taxpayer's expense and they need to get bums on seats. Nothing to do with the TV deal IMO, even though Brady was giving that spin this morning, horrible Tory girl that she is.£289 to see the Hammers next season, shame broadcast revenue couldn't be used to do the same here.
You would though.I think it might be something to do with the fact they have effectively been given a brand spanking new stadium at the taxpayer's expense and they need to get bums on seats. Nothing to do with the TV deal IMO, even though Brady was giving that spin this morning, horrible Tory girl that she is.
True.You would though.
I think it might be something to do with the fact they have effectively been given a brand spanking new stadium at the taxpayer's expense and they need to get bums on seats. Nothing to do with the TV deal IMO, even though Brady was giving that spin this morning, horrible Tory girl that she is.
West Ham have effectively been given the stadium. The have a 99 year lease costing them £3 million a year, which in the overall scheme of things is nothing. The costs to rebuild the stadium when last I looked were £189 million and rising, West Ham's contribution is capped at £15 million. They also have the monies to come in from the redevelopment of the Boleyn ground. The have been given an incredible public subsidy and then they try to get some kudos by saying what good boys and girls they are by reducing ticket prices. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.I thought it was for the 16-17 season that they move in, which is when the extra TV money comes in.
They have not been given the stadium. They are renting it, like a lot of clubs do. New shiny, state of the art, UEFA class 4, but it is NOT theirs, and other events will happen there that are not under the control of West Ham!
I also expect a number of clubs that do not fill their stadia to drop their prices for the 16-17 season.
Someone must have done an economic model that shows you make more money overall from upsells like shirts and catering if you get more people in, plus a huge buzz which helps the players perform better.
If we stay up I seriously expect our owners to go forward with the East Stand extension to take us up to 40,000 and to reduce ticket prices for the 16-17 season to ensure it sells out every week.
West Ham have effectively been given the stadium. The have a 99 year lease costing them £3 million a year, which in the overall scheme of things is nothing. The costs to rebuild the stadium when last I looked were £189 million and rising, West Ham's contribution is capped at £15 million. They also have the monies to come in from the redevelopment of the Boleyn ground. The have been given an incredible public subsidy and then they try to get some kudos by saying what good boys and girls they are by reducing ticket prices. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Just a side question here on next season's Season Ticket that's not a renewal .
If it's bought as an under 22 year old ticket by someone who is 22 in August but bought before that date can he get it at the reduced price?
This is what the season ticket brochure says:
"Under-22s prices are available to any supporter aged 18-21 on 1 September 2015"
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11670/9868753?
IMO Value for money, but not much evidence of the TV money being passed on to the fan in the stand
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 11 | 28 |
2 | Manchester C | 11 | 23 |
3 | Chelsea | 11 | 19 |
4 | Arsenal | 11 | 19 |
5 | Nottm F | 11 | 19 |
6 | Brighton | 11 | 19 |
7 | Fulham | 11 | 18 |
8 | Newcastle | 11 | 18 |
9 | Aston Villa | 11 | 18 |
10 | Tottenham | 11 | 16 |
11 | Brentford | 11 | 16 |
12 | Bournemouth | 11 | 15 |
13 | Manchester U | 11 | 15 |
14 | West Ham | 11 | 12 |
15 | Leicester | 11 | 10 |
16 | Everton | 11 | 10 |
17 | Ipswich | 11 | 8 |
18 | Palace | 11 | 7 |
19 | Wolves | 11 | 6 |
20 | Southampton | 11 | 4 |