by Westwood52 » 09 Jan 2017 13:33
by Y21 » 09 Jan 2017 14:04
by PieEater » 09 Jan 2017 14:25
by Nameless » 09 Jan 2017 16:08
by From Despair To Where? » 09 Jan 2017 17:26
by Z175 » 19 Jan 2017 14:49
by From Despair To Where? » 19 Jan 2017 17:35
by Ian Royal » 19 Jan 2017 17:42
Z175 I think its understandable from United if we didn't agree our subsidy first.
If Man Utd and Reading agreed £30 a ticket, Reading would have had far less revenue from their equal share of gate receipts.
At £45 a ticket, Reading got the increased share from 70,000 Man Utd fans charged full price, meaning that even after the subsidy for 5,000 fans, they are much better off.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Man Utd are refusing to pay over gate receipts above £30.
Otherwise if clubs start doing this - and Wigan have copied so far, it'll be a race to the bottom. The big clubs might refuse to participate in a competition where their fans are discriminated against. Logically it could FA Cup's revenue sharing model in the long run and mean the end of big pay days away to big teams.
How would we feel if we played Aldershot and they insisted on us charging £30 a ticket, which they give to their fans for free?
by RoyalBlue » 19 Jan 2017 19:58
Z175 I think its understandable from United if we didn't agree our subsidy first.
If Man Utd and Reading agreed £30 a ticket, Reading would have had far less revenue from their equal share of gate receipts.
At £45 a ticket, Reading got the increased share from 70,000 Man Utd fans charged full price, meaning that even after the subsidy for 5,000 fans, they are much better off.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Man Utd are refusing to pay over gate receipts above £30.
Otherwise if clubs start doing this - and Wigan have copied so far, it'll be a race to the bottom. The big clubs might refuse to participate in a competition where their fans are discriminated against. Logically it could FA Cup's revenue sharing model in the long run and mean the end of big pay days away to big teams.
How would we feel if we played Aldershot and they insisted on us charging £30 a ticket, which they give to their fans for free?
by Nameless » 19 Jan 2017 20:16
by bcubed » 19 Jan 2017 20:45
RoyalBlueZ175 I think its understandable from United if we didn't agree our subsidy first.
If Man Utd and Reading agreed £30 a ticket, Reading would have had far less revenue from their equal share of gate receipts.
At £45 a ticket, Reading got the increased share from 70,000 Man Utd fans charged full price, meaning that even after the subsidy for 5,000 fans, they are much better off.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Man Utd are refusing to pay over gate receipts above £30.
Otherwise if clubs start doing this - and Wigan have copied so far, it'll be a race to the bottom. The big clubs might refuse to participate in a competition where their fans are discriminated against. Logically it could FA Cup's revenue sharing model in the long run and mean the end of big pay days away to big teams.
How would we feel if we played Aldershot and they insisted on us charging £30 a ticket, which they give to their fans for free?
Might be being thick here but I don't get that argument. Even with RFC subsidising the tickets the greedy ManU barstewards got their full £45 from each ticket Reading sold. Indeed had RFC not subsidised the tickets it is likely they would have sold less and therefore ManU would have made less money.
by Z175 » 20 Jan 2017 14:41
RoyalBlue
Might be being thick here but I don't get that argument. Even with RFC subsidising the tickets the greedy ManU barstewards got their full £45 from each ticket Reading sold. Indeed had RFC not subsidised the tickets it is likely they would have sold less and therefore ManU would have made less money.
by Snowball » 20 Jan 2017 14:55
Z175 Does no one else think it is a bit cheeky of Reading to demand a cheque for half the proceeds based on 75,000 lots of £45?!
by muirinho » 20 Jan 2017 14:56
Z175RoyalBlue
Might be being thick here but I don't get that argument. Even with RFC subsidising the tickets the greedy ManU barstewards got their full £45 from each ticket Reading sold. Indeed had RFC not subsidised the tickets it is likely they would have sold less and therefore ManU would have made less money.
My point was that Man Utd don't get their full £45 from each ticket Reading sold - in the FA cup gate receipts are split 50-50. So reading get their half of the extra, from both sets of fans.
I understand the point that Man Utd are no worse off financially due to our subsidy - in fact as you say they are slightly better off if we wouldn't have sold out at the higher price.
I also get the point that Man Utd probably don't really care too much about their fans being screwed over to fund Reading. But if they can use that argument to withold £500k of gate receipts - you can bet they will pretend to! 70,000 lots of £15 adds up.
Does no one else think it is a bit cheeky of Reading to demand a cheque for half the proceeds based on 75,000 lots of £45?!
by Ian Royal » 20 Jan 2017 17:07
Z175RoyalBlue
Might be being thick here but I don't get that argument. Even with RFC subsidising the tickets the greedy ManU barstewards got their full £45 from each ticket Reading sold. Indeed had RFC not subsidised the tickets it is likely they would have sold less and therefore ManU would have made less money.
My point was that Man Utd don't get their full £45 from each ticket Reading sold - in the FA cup gate receipts are split 50-50. So reading get their half of the extra, from both sets of fans.
I understand the point that Man Utd are no worse off financially due to our subsidy - in fact as you say they are slightly better off if we wouldn't have sold out at the higher price.
I also get the point that Man Utd probably don't really care too much about their fans being screwed over to fund Reading. But if they can use that argument to withold £500k of gate receipts - you can bet they will pretend to! 70,000 lots of £15 adds up.
Does no one else think it is a bit cheeky of Reading to demand a cheque for half the proceeds based on 75,000 lots of £45?!
by Lower West » 20 Jan 2017 18:25
Z175RoyalBlue
Does no one else think it is a bit cheeky of Reading to demand a cheque for half the proceeds based on 75,000 lots of £45?!
by From Despair To Where? » 20 Jan 2017 20:11
Z175 My point was that Man Utd don't get their full £45 from each ticket Reading sold
by AthleticoSpizz » 20 Jan 2017 20:16
by Elm Park Kid » 23 Jan 2017 11:21
Z175 I think its understandable from United if we didn't agree our subsidy first.
If Man Utd and Reading agreed £30 a ticket, Reading would have had far less revenue from their equal share of gate receipts.
At £45 a ticket, Reading got the increased share from 70,000 Man Utd fans charged full price, meaning that even after the subsidy for 5,000 fans, they are much better off.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Man Utd are refusing to pay over gate receipts above £30.
Otherwise if clubs start doing this - and Wigan have copied so far, it'll be a race to the bottom. The big clubs might refuse to participate in a competition where their fans are discriminated against. Logically it could FA Cup's revenue sharing model in the long run and mean the end of big pay days away to big teams.
How would we feel if we played Aldershot and they insisted on us charging £30 a ticket, which they give to their fans for free?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 179 guests