Season Tickets

[VillaTim]

I think you're missing the point with these GA+ seats guys, they're not in the slightest bit interested in the season ticket holders turning up faithfully every week, they want these tickets filled by day trippers that will come and spend a wedge in the club shop on that day too.

I actually noticed this at a few aways this year without thinking anything of it

But you could be right at Spurs and Fulham especially people were wandering around with brand-new scarves, some half and half’s and different nationalities,
they stuck out like a sore thumb because most of them didn’t know where they were going

But they’d all been spending, I just put it down to tourists in London town but maybe everyone is catching on

I was watching a river of a Spurs game in the run in and must've been an Australian channel covering their match as they ran an ad during half time of Spurs announcing a ticket exchange partnership with Australian site.

So they have that, healthy influx of Korean fans wanting to watch Son every game and also generally the attraction of their new ground for London tourists and also probably some fans who come over to watch NFL and then decide they want to see a premier league game there a few months later.

With that demand makes it far easier for them to make decisions like scrapping concession prices for over 65s.

Pretty sad that's where we are so soon after 18 months of empty stands/covid season and what was generally a miserable viewing experience.

Optus Sports run those ads .

[Percy McCarthy]

Every week we swallow
Viognier and Condrieu
We even had an old one, from 1982
The boys from Château Grillet
We make wine every year
But now Pinault has bought us
You'll all be drinking beer!
Ale! Ale! Ale!

Standing ovation.

[Dazvillain]

Reducing the number of ST holders looks like the route now .

You're just making stuff up now Tim.

900 people are being moved, mainly because the boxes are being reconfigured to create more space.  That's it.  Frustrating and disappointing for those affected, but they're getting to choose seats in their current stands and I guess they'll be allowed to relocate to other stands in the usual relocation window at a later date if they want. 

It's shit for those impacted, but they're not being kicked out by the club, just being asked to relocate.  The club are trying to compete financially and increasing corporate income is part of that.

We're in the Champions League next year.  I hope each and everyone of them finds a seat they are happy with and gets to watch us in our most exciting season in 40 years.

Which boxes are being reconfigured ? Not spending more money on north stand to be knocked down in couple of years surely ?

[VillaTim]

Reducing the number of ST holders looks like the route now .

You're just making stuff up now Tim.

900 people are being moved, mainly because the boxes are being reconfigured to create more space.  That's it.  Frustrating and disappointing for those affected, but they're getting to choose seats in their current stands and I guess they'll be allowed to relocate to other stands in the usual relocation window at a later date if they want. 

It's shit for those impacted, but they're not being kicked out by the club, just being asked to relocate.  The club are trying to compete financially and increasing corporate income is part of that.

We're in the Champions League next year.  I hope each and everyone of them finds a seat they are happy with and gets to watch us in our most exciting season in 40 years.

Which boxes are being reconfigured ? Not spending more money on north stand to be knocked down in couple of years surely ?

The Witton Road boxes .

[FatSam]

The Witton Road boxes .

Lane, surely?

[FatSam]

Inevitably, as time moves on, the crowd at top flight football will change and it will be the preserve of those with the most money, large scale concerts are already like this and eventually people will say "no more". I have with arguably my favourite singer and songwriter, sorry Bruce, too much. He's touring over here now but I have no regrets and no FOMO

Yes, Bruce Hornsby has pushed it too far hasn’t he.

[VillaTim]

The Witton Road boxes .

Lane, surely?

Witton Lane yep.

[Malandro]

Inevitably, as time moves on, the crowd at top flight football will change and it will be the preserve of those with the most money, large scale concerts are already like this and eventually people will say "no more". I have with arguably my favourite singer and songwriter, sorry Bruce, too much. He's touring over here now but I have no regrets and no FOMO

Yes, Bruce Hornsby has pushed it too far hasn’t he.

Railroading his fans.

[FatSam]

Trying to think of an analogy, it’s like people who have lived in the same run down London council flat for decades, suddenly it becomes trendy and people who never previously showed any interest in setting foot in the neighbourhood suddenly want a piece of the action so the council chuck out the long standing tenants to make way for the new money. That makes sense in my head anyway.

I think you are mis-characterising the role of local authorities in your analogy. To my knowledge they don’t evict social housing tenants in order to rent properties to private tenants because an area ‘becomes trendy’ in London, or anywhere else.

A more plausible scenario is that social housing tenants exercise right to buy and subsequently sell their properties on the open market for a massive profit to whoever can afford them (either owner occupiers or private landlords). The local authority is then forced to expensively build new homes to replenish its diminished social housing stock, whilst running the risk that these will also be sold for less than they cost to build when tenants exercise right to buy. In this context the local authority cross-subsidises new social housing by also developing new homes for private sale. The higher the sale receipts, the more social housing can be built.

All of this happens because there is demand in an area. After all, there is no point in exercising right to buy if you can’t make a profit on the property. The end result is that prices and rent levels increase above what some people can afford. However, none of this is the local authority’s fault.

[Skerra]

From what I’ve read, the ordinary fans, that are being moved, are being shafted again. They are saying that the Club has informed them that they have got to move seats but, can only apply for any seats that are left after all other season ticket holders, who aren’t being moved have said if they are renewing. In other words, the chances are, their choices will be shit seats no one else wants. Doesn’t sound great for them.

[PeterWithesShin]

It has to be that way if fans are being moved. Otherwise they'd be taking someone else's seat. And then that person would have to move. And repeat.

[VillaTim]

Trying to think of an analogy, it’s like people who have lived in the same run down London council flat for decades, suddenly it becomes trendy and people who never previously showed any interest in setting foot in the neighbourhood suddenly want a piece of the action so the council chuck out the long standing tenants to make way for the new money. That makes sense in my head anyway.

I think you are mis-characterising the role of local authorities in your analogy. To my knowledge they don’t evict social housing tenants in order to rent properties to private tenants because an area ‘becomes trendy’ in London, or anywhere else.

A more plausible scenario is that social housing tenants exercise right to buy and subsequently sell their properties on the open market for a massive profit to whoever can afford them (either owner occupiers or private landlords). The local authority is then forced to expensively build new homes to replenish its diminished social housing stock, whilst running the risk that these will also be sold for less than they cost to build when tenants exercise right to buy. In this context the local authority cross-subsidises new social housing by also developing new homes for private sale. The higher the sale receipts, the more social housing can be built.

All of this happens because there is demand in an area. After all, there is no point in exercising right to buy if you can’t make a profit on the property. The end result is that prices and rent levels increase above what some people can afford. However, none of this is the local authority’s fault.

Credit where it's due , top rant, completely off topic but nonetheless decent .

[Chico Hamilton III]

Trying to think of an analogy, it’s like people who have lived in the same run down London council flat for decades, suddenly it becomes trendy and people who never previously showed any interest in setting foot in the neighbourhood suddenly want a piece of the action so the council chuck out the long standing tenants to make way for the new money. That makes sense in my head anyway.

I think you are mis-characterising the role of local authorities in your analogy. To my knowledge they don’t evict social housing tenants in order to rent properties to private tenants because an area ‘becomes trendy’ in London, or anywhere else.

A more plausible scenario is that social housing tenants exercise right to buy and subsequently sell their properties on the open market for a massive profit to whoever can afford them (either owner occupiers or private landlords). The local authority is then forced to expensively build new homes to replenish its diminished social housing stock, whilst running the risk that these will also be sold for less than they cost to build when tenants exercise right to buy. In this context the local authority cross-subsidises new social housing by also developing new homes for private sale. The higher the sale receipts, the more social housing can be built.

All of this happens because there is demand in an area. After all, there is no point in exercising right to buy if you can’t make a profit on the property. The end result is that prices and rent levels increase above what some people can afford. However, none of this is the local authority’s fault.

Erm, ok.

[RamboandBruno]

Trying to think of an analogy, it’s like people who have lived in the same run down London council flat for decades, suddenly it becomes trendy and people who never previously showed any interest in setting foot in the neighbourhood suddenly want a piece of the action so the council chuck out the long standing tenants to make way for the new money. That makes sense in my head anyway.

I think you are mis-characterising the role of local authorities in your analogy. To my knowledge they don’t evict social housing tenants in order to rent properties to private tenants because an area ‘becomes trendy’ in London, or anywhere else.

A more plausible scenario is that social housing tenants exercise right to buy and subsequently sell their properties on the open market for a massive profit to whoever can afford them (either owner occupiers or private landlords). The local authority is then forced to expensively build new homes to replenish its diminished social housing stock, whilst running the risk that these will also be sold for less than they cost to build when tenants exercise right to buy. In this context the local authority cross-subsidises new social housing by also developing new homes for private sale. The higher the sale receipts, the more social housing can be built.

All of this happens because there is demand in an area. After all, there is no point in exercising right to buy if you can’t make a profit on the property. The end result is that prices and rent levels increase above what some people can afford. However, none of this is the local authority’s fault.

I think if you do your internet searches you’ll find such forced moves out of London have happened. Add on ‘initiatives’ like the bedroom tax, and forced moves have taken place in a different.

[Ads]

The Home Loss Compensation Regs would potentially apply then.