Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 144
  1. #21
    Members Herr Tubthumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The Fatherland
    Posts
    47,120


    1 Not allowed!
    I found this email from Paul Barber in another thread. He explains the double-subsidy. I have pasted the complete email so I don’t lose any context.


    We’ve had a message from Paul Barber in relation to this issue:

    “A few emails today stemming from Seagulls Travel’s email to their customers last night. I’ve just arrived in Yorkshire and seen the NSC thread created as a result. Just to round up the main queries:

    - there are no plans whatsoever to scrap the subsidised travel zone - or the club’s substantial contribution towards it;

    - a sustainable travel plan was a condition of our planning consent (but the club subsidising the cost of that travel plan forever wasn’t. That said, we have no plans to reduce or stop our contribution towards the cost of running the travel zone or maintaining the infrastructure on or around our land);

    - the subsidised travel zone is open to ALL supporters with a valid season or match ticket (this includes home and away fans);
    - in addition to the very significant capital costs for transport infrastructure and facilities at the time of the stadium build, we currently make a substantial contribution to the cost of supporter travel to and from matches (as we have for over 7 seasons). No other club does this as far as we are aware (and I’m told Southampton stopped their contribution to theirs soon after St Mary’s opened);

    - of course, ALL supporters also contribute towards the cost of our travel zone and infrastructure in the cost of their season ticket or match ticket because every supporter uses some part of the infrastructure to get to and from the stadium (bus, train, park and ride, road junction, car park, coach park, foot path, cycle path, cycle park etc);

    - we are only stopping the additional subsidies paid to Seagulls Travel (a commercial operation) and a number of other supporter groups who use private buses/coaches for the added convenience of a door to door service with some sitting outside the travel zone (as opposed to joining the subsidised travel zone at a convenient point for them);

    - however, we now have many supporters who travel from outside the subsidised travel zone who do not receive any additional support towards their travel costs for getting to the zone or stadium, as well as many other fans within the subsidised zone who pay to park their cars or private mini buses and who also do not receive any additional subsidy;

    - we appreciate that some fans are travelling from outside of the subsidised zone and making huge efforts to organise travel to and from home games, but it doesn’t seem fair that the club should in effect pay a double subsidy for some supporters to enjoy a door to door service when we are not able to support all supporters to do similar;

    - we have no problem with all the current buses/coaches operated by Seagulls Travel or the other groups continuing to organise trips to and from the Amex or using our facilities to park their buses/coaches;

    - we will still make our coach park available, free of charge, to any supporter bus/coach that wishes to park at the Amex provided they have contacted our operations team in advance (I’m not aware of any other clubs that provide free bus/coach parking).

    Finally, the club’s board continues to have a significant responsibility to manage the club’s costs as efficiently as possible, and to continue to reduce our dependency on Tony Bloom year on year. Yes, our revenues are significantly higher in the Premier League but so are our costs. Tightly managing our costs is therefore an important part of our strategy to remain as competitive as possible.

    The cost of the additional travel subsidies we are stopping ran to large six figures per season - and this was on top of a very substantial ongoing contribution to the main subsidised travel zone which is open to everyone - costs that our rivals do not cover.

    Regards, Paul”
    "I will design a town in the image of your face. Round the wrinkles of your eyes my footsteps you can trace. We could promenade down infra-nasel depression. The streets of your hands will never feel a recession."

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #22

      0 Not allowed!
      The way I see it there is no travel subsidy, we donít travel for free, itís in the price of the ticket.
    • #23
      #14/15 - 18/19 Goldstone1976's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      East Anglia
      Posts
      10,866


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Hampster Gull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The way I see it there is no travel subsidy, we don’t travel for free, it’s in the price of the ticket.
      Then the club are missing a trick; West Ham fans will only be paying £22.90 for their AMEX ticket next weekend (return to Falmer from Hayward’s Heath for next Saturday is £7.10), when PL rules allow us to charge £30. Across the season, that’s £400k in lost revenue.

      That doesn’t sound like the PB I know.
      Last edited by Goldstone1976; 11-08-2019 at 07:18.
      2A. K2-18b
    • #24

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Goldstone1976 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Then the club are missing a trick; West Ham fans will only be paying £22.90 for their AMEX ticket next weekend (return to Falmer from Hayward’s Heath for next Saturday is £7.10), when PL rules allow us to charge £30. Across the season, that’s £400k in lost revenue.

      That doesn’t sound like the PB I know.
      Not everyone travels as you suggest so your numbers inaccurate.

      There is I understand a planning requirement for us to include public travel with the ticket. Doesn’t mean it’s at the cost of the club rather than the home fan.

      Your post is on away fans. There is a £30 EPL cap and combined with the requirement on travel the clubs hands are tied.
      Last edited by Hampster Gull; 11-08-2019 at 07:50.
    • #25
      Members Herr Tubthumper's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      The Fatherland
      Posts
      47,120


      0 Not allowed!
      The more I think about it, the more conflating of travel zone and infrastructure seems a little disingenuous. We need some infrastructure, like the footpaths he mentions. How else can we get to the ground? I’m not aware of any other business making a point of subsidising basic access.
      Last edited by Herr Tubthumper; 11-08-2019 at 08:12. Reason: Added clarity
      "I will design a town in the image of your face. Round the wrinkles of your eyes my footsteps you can trace. We could promenade down infra-nasel depression. The streets of your hands will never feel a recession."
    • #26
      Members Herr Tubthumper's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      The Fatherland
      Posts
      47,120


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Hampster Gull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Not everyone travels as you suggest so your numbers inaccurate.

      There is I understand a planning requirement for us to include public travel with the ticket. Doesn’t mean it’s at the cost of the club rather than the home fan.

      Your post is on away fans. There is a £30 EPL cap and combined with the requirement on travel the clubs hands are tied.
      A sustainable travel plan was part of the planning. I don’t think this necessarily means it has to be part of the ticket.
      "I will design a town in the image of your face. Round the wrinkles of your eyes my footsteps you can trace. We could promenade down infra-nasel depression. The streets of your hands will never feel a recession."
    • #27
      Well, is it? Is it PotG?'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2017
      Location
      Sussex by the Sea
      Posts
      7,939


      1 Not allowed!
      I think that the Club should pay my taxi fare from my home to the station and back (from where I get the travel subsidy) each week.
    • #28

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Herr Tubthumper View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      A sustainable travel plan was part of the planning. I don’t think this necessarily means it has to be part of the ticket.
      Ok, helpful clarification. Not sure how they would comply without this but there are far more creative people out there than me.
    • #29
      #14/15 - 18/19 Goldstone1976's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      East Anglia
      Posts
      10,866


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Hampster Gull View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Not everyone travels as you suggest so your numbers inaccurate.

      There is I understand a planning requirement for us to include public travel with the ticket. Doesn’t mean it’s at the cost of the club rather than the home fan.

      Your post is on away fans. There is a £30 EPL cap and combined with the requirement on travel the clubs hands are tied.
      PB is on record as saying (included in this thread) “a sustainable travel plan was a condition of our planning consent (but the club subsidising the cost of that travel plan forever wasn’t”.

      I take that to mean that the club could remove the travel subsidy if they chose to, but have decided not to remove it. I think it’s just factually incorrect to say that the club don’t subsidise travel - for home and away fans.

      You can’t have it both ways: either the club are subsiding travel, or the ticket prices for the game itself are lower than the face value.
      2A. K2-18b
    • #30

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Goldstone1976 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      PB is on record as saying (included in this thread) “a sustainable travel plan was a condition of our planning consent (but the club subsidising the cost of that travel plan forever wasn’t”.

      I take that to mean that the club could remove the travel subsidy if they chose to, but have decided not to remove it. I think it’s just factually incorrect to say that the club don’t subsidise travel - for home and away fans.

      You can’t have it both ways: either the club are subsiding travel, or the ticket prices for the game itself are lower than the face value.
      The club have to have a sustainable travel plan and have chosen this route, presumably because it’s the most effective for the club, including financial impact.

      I don’t agree I am trying to have it both ways. For home tickets the club price the tickets at what they want, what they perceive the market will bear, there are no constrains them. The suggestion that they do that then reduce for the cost of the “subsidy” is not one I buy. For away fans they are constrained.There is a cap of £30 which can’t be exceeded so yes, they are constrained by choosing this route to fulfil the planning requirement (although the cap came post the travel decision)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •