Rob Hinkley is just going to have to forgive me. Over at the Sporadic Chronicle he writes ‘Probe urged into baffling “supply and demand” phenomenon’ and links to a BBC news story. Without further comment he leaves the reader to follow the link and chuckle at just how baffling, how arcane, how incomprehensible to normal minds is the phenomenon the BBC describes. I am going to be rather more heavy handed because I want to bring out what it all reveals about how baffling, arcane and incomprehensible to normal minds the BBC can be, particularly when it is channelling Liberal Democrat press releases.
The story concerned is Probe urged into ‘turnstile con.’
The Office of Fair Trading is being urged to investigate claims that football fans are being ripped off at the turnstiles.
“Ripped off.” Auntie does try so very hard to talk as the people do.
The Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) is concerned about clubs varying ticket prices according to the popularity of the opposition.
Italics mine. Screams of horror at such wickedness mine.
It says this unfairly penalises fans of big clubs, who are charged more.
One is charged more to see Manchester United than the Cligglesthorpe Lions, yes.
And it says Premiership clubs charge far more for tickets than their rivals in other European countries.A study conducted by the Liberal Democrats at the start of the football season found supporters of Premiership sides paid as much as seven times more for a season ticket than fans elsewhere in Europe.
I am sure that the Portuguese and German clubs mentioned are much beloved by their fans. So I won’t ask if they actually play football as well as Messrs Rooney and Beckham do.
The increasing trend for clubs to categorise ticket prices according to which team they are playing can mean wide variations between match prices.
For example, fans travelling to Birmingham City to watch the team’s clash with Manchester United on 16 October will be charged £45 a ticket.
But two weeks later, when the club plays host to Crystal Palace, they will pay just £28.
The FSF says this means fans of popular clubs who travel to away matches will be charged more throughout the season.
A Birmingham City spokesman explained the difference by saying that “some games are more popular than others.”
Then he said, “Popular means lots of people like going to see the football game. Do you like football games? My puppet friend Binky does!”
It wanted to have its 30,000 ground at full capacity and that Manchester United was more popular than Crystal Palace, he added.
Poor Crystal Palace. Binky was very sad too.
The spokesman had no comment to make on the differences between UK and European club prices, saying only: “We keep our prices in line with British clubs.”
Then Binky whispered something in his ear. “Yes, Binky?” he asked. “You thought that was a comment? Me, too. What’s that you said, Binky? Oh, you naughty puppet – but since you’re offering, mine’s a whisky. Too right, Binks, old mate. We aren’t paid nearly enough for this.”
My sources indicate that this Beckham person actually plays “elsewhere in Europe”
I have a faint memory of this being mentioned in the news last year.
Oh yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2999904.stm
Without wishing to reinforce any stereotypes about the ‘popular culture’ knowledge of individuals with an interest in conservative politics I’ll just point out that a Portuguese club are champions of Europe and therefore probably do play better football than Rooney and the departed Beckham.
Having said that I can’t see why ‘investigations’ are needed on this issue. Clubs are surely free to charge what they like. If premiership teams charge a fortune kids can pay less to watch their local teams, which is what they should be doing anyway rather than supporting the filthy Man Utd vermin despite living in Biggleswade.
Off Topic:
Who watches murder videos?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3733996.stm
Despite relentless examples of the BBC’s moral and intellectual failings, I am still shocked sometimes by its gross distortions of reality for the sake of ‘political correctness’.
Amazing that such an involved piece can be posted with no mention at all of what is undoubtedly a major viewing segment – Muslims watching approvingly.
.
Natalie –
One is tempted to mention the old Wildean quote about a cynic being someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I think you fail to understand what football means to many people (not me) in the UK. Football teams are part of their heritage. People want to be able to support “their” team in the way their fathers did. Man people are being priced out of the market.
I think this is one case where the government should get involved. There should be a programme to turn football clubs into co-operatives run by the supporters. PLease don;t tell me it can’t be done or the clubs would fail – Barcelona is run as a co-oeprative and that is one of the most successful clubs.
David
Continutation:
I think the government should place an upper limit on ticket prices (jsut as they do with other monopolies – don’t forget these are monopolies since the FA and Football League control the names and numbers of teams in each city). There should then be a levy of 10% on club funds (inc. TV rights payments) which would be used to create shares for the supporters until they owned say 60% of the stock.
David
yep …lets have lots more regulations & price controls, because that will work really well. If you don’t like the price of your ticket or your Sky sub go & do something else
The fact that Italian, Spanish and French clubs are all completely f*cked financially suggests that they are under charging rather than British clubs over charging.
As someone said above, if you don’t want to pay £50 to watch Chelsea then pay a hell of a lot less and watch Brentford or QPR who could do with your cash. Alternatively, go to the pub and boost the British economy by getting absolutely hammered whilst watching Sky. If you’re under 18 then you should be playing footy anyway rather than sitting on your a*se watching it.
David:
I thought everybody in Manchester was a fan of Man City, not Man Utd.
Having said that, variable ticket pricing is something that goes on here in the US as well. In the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts decided this year that anybody who wanted to go to their home game against the Packers would also have to buy a ticket to one of the Colts’ preseason games. The result was that the Colts had their first preseason sell-out in 20 years. 🙂
It is worth noting that ticket prices are not high in the UK because clubs make profits. With the exception of two or three “global brands”, the normal pattern is for a football club to make a small profit in a good year, and a large loss in a bad year, averaging a steady significant loss. Since Birmingham city is the example, here is the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SPORT/football/01/20/birmingham.profits.reut/
Clubs do from time to time become fan-owned co-operatives — Bournemouth and Brentford both come to mind, though I’m not sure what their respective ownership situations are now — but as such they tend to be unable to compete on the field against the majority of clubs with owners who fund losses out of their own pocket.
The baseball New York Mets began a similar variable pricing arrangement several years ago. There was barely a murmur of comment, let alone protest. I guess it seemed pretty logical to New Yorkers.
PJF — I noticed that too. The major audience for Jihadi snuff videos are degenerate white Westerners looking for a kill thrill! Tell me another one.
I submitted comments along your lines, but of course the (Don’t) Have Your Say team didn’t let me have my say!
I’m a season ticket holder at the home of the unbeaten Champions: Arsenal.
The quality of the football is superb and the entertainment magnificent.
Just thought I’d mention it …
I take it that you have the conservative view that we should stay well away from Europe then Pete.
Might get embarrased again.
Its all about access isn’t it David.
I can’t for the life of me understand why the government should rank football above ever other part of our culture. Pubs & Fish & Chips are also integral parts. The government bent on destroying pubs with smoking bans & disabled regulations and scaring us off chips for our health.
At least they are not actively destroying football
Oh and David
There is no difference between you saying I want to be able to watch football and me saying I want to drive a Ferrari. The government has no right to use other peoples money to buy me a car, the same goes for your football.
…or for anyone’s TV watching preferences.
Oh, wait…
.
EU serf –
Depends how far you want to go you ignorant serf you!
Are you saying you want libraries to charge for lending? Presumably you don;t like the govt. having price controls on lending of books (i.e. setting a zero price).
Are you saying you want local authorities to charge for use of their parks?
Are you saying primary and secondary education should be subject to charges?
If you answer no I don’t udnerstand your logic.
David
On the subject of the snuff video item on the online I too was outraged by that – it was so clearly a stitch up.
Other recent stitch ups:
1. James Naughtie on Today discussing need for more ethnic min. judges – although told by interviewee that 25% of new barristers are from EMs does not make obvious connection and ask if that is fair since far in excess of actual proportion in gen. population!
2. This trailer on TV for something liek “Protecting us from Nightmares”: basic theme – all this Islamic terrorist nonsense is got up by the government so they can exert sinister control over us. And there I was thinking OBL was planning further deadly attacks – silly me.
David Field
THFC
“I take it that you have the conservative view that we should stay well away from Europe then Pete.”
If by ‘we’ you mean THFC, you’ve been managing well enough to keep away from Europe without outside assistance 😉
As for the ‘conservative’ view, well I have lived in Spain, Italy and Cyprus, am a fluent Italian speaker, have visited most western European countries and some eastern and my girlfriend is French. I bow before no-one in appreciating the histories and cultures (note the plural) of various European countries.
Am I anti the EU? Absolutely. Its not just bad for us but for all the nations of Europe.
Would I withdraw from it? Absolutely.
Am I ranting? Its what I do best.
On the contrary, the mighty Lilywhites had a pre-season tour of Scandinavia just this year.
Ditto to what you said re: EU, Pete…I just spent 2 and a half years in Germany…I feel we are better off out rather than in. Also being half-American, I really do feel that for all the differences, Brits are more like septics than like Europeans – sorry if that offends anyone.
I also think, despite what the press gets up to, that English/British people are much more open-minded and accepting of cultural differences when it comes to newcomers/immigrants than anyone else in Europe. Usually, within about 3-4 generations, historically, most ethnic minorities are completely assimilated unless they choose not to be. Compare that to our right-thinking German brethren who have a problem calling 4th generation Turkish people German citizens, but will consider Kazakhs with German names instant citizenship.
Anyway, that was the beginnings of an off topic rant…I’ll get me coat.
In relation to the takeover bid for Man Utd on a Radio 5 Live sport report a group of Man Utd supporters who have opposed the takeover were described as “militants” in the broadcast. The BBC also described the scum in Beslan who blew the brains out of small children as “militants”. Fathers for justice were called “lunatic militants” by Victoria Derbyshire. Nice to know the BBC has such a liberal view of a “militant”
David Field said: “2. This trailer on TV for something liek “Protecting us from Nightmares”: basic theme – all this Islamic terrorist nonsense is got up by the government so they can exert sinister control over us. And there I was thinking OBL was planning further deadly attacks – silly me.”
On radiotimes.com I read the programme review which includes the following excerpt:
The Power of Nightmares
“This edition looks at how Western politics is increasingly dominated by the myth, propagated by the American neoconservatives, that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network.”
So al-Qaeda is a myth? I’m looking forward to watching this one.
In the context of pricing for football matches, nobody has yet mentioned that the extraordinary cost of watching a football match to day is due to the lunatic sums paid to the players. In the early 60’s I used to pay three shillings to watch ‘Spurs play. For me that was a quarter of an hours pay. The current pay rate for the kind of job I had then means that the turnstile cost now varies between two and three HOURS
work!!
If there should be any government interference (and I don’t support any) it should be on the level of pay to the footballers.
“The Power of Nightmares”
Lengthy piece supporting prog –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html
It seems its akin to Kerry’s line of terrorism as nuisance.
I don’t think we live in fear of ourselves being the victim of terrorism – not in the past from the IRA, not now from “al-Qaeda”.
But neither do we expect the government, airlines etc to ignore the threat. We don’t want anyone to die from their actions. Neither do we want part of the City to become a no-go area for some time as a result of a dirty bomb – even if the radiation is not immediately deadly.
I fail to see where the bias is, the BBC has merely reported the facts. The clubs vary their prices according to who’s playing. Some people don’t like this. One of the people is a representative of fans, the other is a politician. Er. That’s it.
As regards the policy itself, which the article beyond reporting the criticisms and defence is pretty neutral about, it’s simply the law of supply and demand. A ticket for a match more people want to see costs more than a match fewer people want to see. No problem in my mind.
To the media elite in their leafy suburbs, terrorism is a “nuisance”, whereas to “ordinary” people (the folks who are almost always the vicitms) it’s a very serious matter.
“Ordinary folk” (ie working and middle class people) are expendable in the eyes of the media elite, and thus terrorism is in their view nothing to get upset about.
Ordinary folk who are almost always the victims of terrorism??? Leafy suburbs??? What are you on about???
Firstly Terrorism has hardly killed anyone when considered in the context of every other type of hazard (i.e. getting run over). Secondly, the two major recent attacks on countries which are not semi war zones anyway were on the World Trade Center (which was hardly devoid of the suburban dwelling wealthy) and a commuter train arriving from the leafy suburbs.
Not that this matters in the slightest – trying to suggest that those who believe that Bush is tacking the problem in the wrong way are too busy sipping cocktails to care is totally wrong.
I think there is all too often a desire in the European press to identify with the perpetrators of terrorism rather than its victims. I have been struggling with this myself, ever since I saw security video of two young Middle Eastern guys casing the building I worked in in Frankfurt. (There was similar footage taken that week at similar buildings in London). Until then, it was easy to see the poor downtrodden masses of the Middle East on TV day in, day out, and say “Okay, I may not do something like this, but if I were to grow up in such squalour maybe I would blow myself up out of anger…”
9/11 was really quite abstract, bizarre and hallucinogenic watching on TV. One could feel empathy and be angry over the deaths of so many innocents, but it was still quite an abstract concept if you were not directly involved. One tends to think: “hey, what are the chances of that happening again?”
cont’d
cont’d
Then it became palpably real to me that there were terrorists casing the place where I worked as either a target or a place from which to launch an attack, and that to these guys, no matter how much I understood them, I was going to be a target. And no amount of reason, logic, argument, acquiescence, or even collaboration was going to beat 40 (or is it 70) virgins and a banquet. I was forced by the evidence staring me in the face to realise that the war with Islamo-Fascism is very real, and the more I read about it, the more I became aware of the way that whole issue has been treated. (I learned everything I needed to learn about propaganda and doublespeak from reading Chomsky and Herman, too.)
Maybe Bush is prosecuting things the wrong way; they most certainly should have sent more troops to Iraq. But there has been a high level of propagandising by the British press, in particular, BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian. Cont’d
Cont’d
By calling foreign terrorists “insurgents”, by calling a foreigner “Jordanian-born” to give the impression Zarqawi is Iraqi, by downplaying all the good that has come out for the Iraqi people, there has been an overwhelming propagandistic effect that everything is a horrible mess, when there are pockets of unrest rather than an entire country in anarchy. (One had the same impression from the press about Afghanistan, but they managed to pull off an election, there, so who’s right and who’s wrong?)
Since about 1995, US intervention has had a more benign and noble motivation than that of the Cold War. I think many people, particularly on the left, are failing to see that a pattern is emerging of the US stepping in on behalf of the underdog when the international community does nothing but have committees and wring its hands impotently. And the British left-of-centre press, including the Beeb, does not appreciate this.