SET PIECES: Blame it on the Arabs

[warthog]

Do you want to know why only ten people and a whippet go to Wigan matches? The answer's here.

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/article.p ... cle_id=487

Discuss.

[communistworkethic]

I was expecting a guest article from Robert Kilroy-Silk.

[Batman]

Vote UKIP

[Mixu Fattypieman]

Good article!!

Sums up a lot of the problems with the game. The standard of football and quality of games is generally not that great. The players are over-paid and would jump at the chance to move to a 'bigger club' because these are the only clubs with any chance of success. If a born and bred Scouser like Gerrard can be within an inch of moving from a club as big as Liverpool to Chelsea as they will give him a better chance of success there is something massively wrong with football.
When players can switch loyalties so easily as they know they'll never win anything with, say, Everton or Villa (or us for that matter) then how are fans meant to feel a bond with the players on the pitch who wear the shirt?!?

Oh, and the 5.15pm kick-offs ruin your Saturday night socialising plans too!!

[David Lee's Hair]

Great article

[communistworkethic]

The "today's footballers are not as good" argument is not going to hold water.

The likes of Best, Charlton, Finney etc were good in their day comparisons with their latter-day counterparts is impossible. They were nowhere near as quick, the game was slower, they were not as physically strong and they did not have the fitness levels of the modern athlete.

To compare a Moore and a Terry or Woodgate or Campbell or Ferdinand isn't going to work. You just can't say because Moore was the best of his era that would be the case if he were playing today. Greaves better than Henry?

Inflation is not increasing, it's been all but level for about 5 years. As for interest rates, again they've been at their most static phase in history based on the last 5 years and they're a fraction of what they were 20 years ago. Mortgage payments ratio is approximantely 20% of earnings, compare that to 35% in 1989.

I think the economic factor is overplayed. It is an issue for some, make no mistake, but I do not believe it is a factor for many when considered on its own. The cost only becomes a factor when considered with choice. Society changes, work-life changes, the hours we have free changes, the times of games changes. So if given the choice of traipsing to Bimingham for a 5.15 kick off on a Saturday night or watching the game with mates or at home and having the Saturday night-out you would normally and still spending the equivalent amount of cash, you'll kill two birds with one stone. We all have times when a choice has to be made between football and some other aspect of our lives, those choices are increasingly frequent for many and football is losing.

It's losing out because of quality of the product is not great in some instances, it's losing out in crowd numbers because of the ease of viewing almost every game at no more cost than you're already paying out for Sky, it's also losing out because it's lacking the kids coming through from the 80's and 90's when parents wouldn't take them because it wasn't considered safe.

[jetsetwilly]

Good read.

As i said at the start of the season, the reasons are obvious....

Cost £38 plus car park etc etc is too much
The destruction of relegation hs forced teams to play for a draw all too often resulting is drab games
Wages, the players no longer enable the ordinary man to relate to the guys on the pitch
Ease of access to TV live games

The FA will never allow the foreign channels to show games as the money doesn't filter back to SKY/FA/Clubs

For me, attending a live game is almost always better than being in front of the TV. However, not £70 better. Thats is why this year I have saved a fortune, and seen more BWFC games than I ever expected to.

As you said, empty stadiums are not a big deal as the attendance money is minimal when compared to the disgusting amounts Sky pay the clubs. For me, the lack of competition, dull football, and unreal wages have distanced me from football. I long for the day that FC BWFC starts up. They would get my custom, leaving the big time charlies to the prawn sandwitch brigade

[communistworkethic]

There's nothing stopping you from going to watch a Sunday league team in Bolton SH.Say you'll give them £20 a month to change their name to FC Bolton Wanderers and you're off.

[Dujon]

I am always astounded at the prices of season tickets and general admission in the Premiership.

While the local competition is hardly Premiership standard a season ticket for Sydney FC games costs the equivalent of about £63. You can see the membership plans here: http://fans.sydneyfc.com/membership/packages.php - keep in mind that these only cover 10 home games and not the 18 that you lot enjoy. The equivalent would then be £113.

Certainly you can pay more (considerably more) but that entitles the purchaser to much else than just a reserved seat. Imagine what it would be like if television money was forthcoming (there is, but it's a lot less than in England). The players are not paid as much either - surprise, surprise - and there is a salary cap.

I've probably said this before but, if I were living in England on my current income, there is no way I could afford a season ticket and I'd have to save up like mad to gather the dosh for a one off home game.

Thanks for the article, Warthog, there are some very good points expressed therein.

[chris]

Here’s a proposal or two. Drop the rule that forbids the televising of three O’Clock kick offs. Grant licences to pubs so that they can screen those games without relying on dodgy foreign channels. Sky make money. Britain’s ailing pub trade makes money. The public get want they want. Every one's happy.

But the three o'clock rule exists to prevent an attendance drop at lower league clubs. These attendances are currently good, and a law change there could put many smaller clubs in financial difficulty.

I'd like to see an limit on games that can have live coverage at all - say one per weekend, not just the big teams. And use a four figure salary cap to relieve the reduced income.

[runningonbravado]

enjoyed reading that. there's no way anything will change but players are just way too greedy. nobody needs 55K a WEEK to live. anyone who thinks otherwise is a poor show. if players weren't paid so much, then there'd be far less issue.

[Bruce Rioja]

I've only just got round to reading all of this.

Basically, I only have so much free time, and I only have so much disposable income.
If the club that I've supported through the years now want to treat me as a simple source of income, then fine, in turn I'll treat them as a service provider, and right now, looking at the total package I don't feel that they're giving me a suitable return on my investment in terms of time and cost.

Then Allardyce comes out with utter bollocks like "I'm not in the entertainment business", I've news for you matey boy - you are.

You're competing for the same free time and cash as the concert venues of Manchester, the cinema, the golf course, the pub and so on, and if it carries on as it currently is, then I, like many others, will have to reconsider my forward investment in the cold light of the closed season.
As I've said before, The Reebok's never full, so getting tickets for the big games isn't too great an issue. As such, why should I have a number of my weekends blighted by being told that I need to be at the ground at stupid o'clock for a game that I can see down the pub?