I’m quite sure that this is exactly what I’m saying makes no sense. “They want money but not fans.” It’s oxymoronic

Personally I don’t see an avoidable charge as a barrier, but that’s just me.

Absolutely linked, hence why I asked how their priority can be money when they aren’t bothered about attendance!

Simple question; If the people running the club aren’t interested in increasing attendances, how on earth can the be hell bent on making money? Surely both go hand in hand?

Out of interest, was there a 3 quid surcharge for the game under Coyle...

If it is that simple, when you’re hangover has subsided try reading @Miller11‘s post.

Must say, when the argument turns to the personality - it’s pretty much discussion over.

Thing is - those fans you are labelling as “different types” had no problem being regular attendees or season ticket holders between 2005-10 so I’m not quite sure why you’d go so far to justify their stance now, especially on ticket cost. We’d agree all day on the multitude of anti Venkys reasons for turning your back but a 3 quid Saturday late comer fee? Its basic bullshit.

Grow up. There’s purposely being outspoken and then there’s being allergic to basic bullshit.

RF - football clubs in 2018 compete by revenue. If you’re lucky enough to be owned by billionaires with their fingers on the pulse, you’ll probably be successful. If you’re relying on a more moderate platform for some success- you need the locals to regular boost those coffers. I accept that others don’t see this as “their club” the same way as I do, but I simply won’t accept that the pricing is in anyway a barrier. The barrier is level of opposition and interest in division two. Pricing is an irrelevant part of it and this surcharge is the perfect excuse for those who simply cannot be arsed to support their club. Until we are promoted, those missing thousand will not return. That is unless we have an attractive fixture in the cup. The irony has never changed- if we had those fair weather fans regularly, we’d be in a much better position to invest in the team. The funny thing this summer, despite millions of debt - we’ve added more quality and invested... If that can’t encourage those fans on the fence, a reduction of the 1pm-3pm cost is absolutely negligible.

Stuart, Stuart, Stuart... the only farce is people are seemingly ignorant to why those lapsed fans are not interested in coming back! Its not a potential cost... it’s like gumboots said, years of the club being run like a joke. Yes, the 3 quid stuff is a bit of pain in the ass but it’s definitely being trotted out as an excuse when the reality many of those not currently attending are hurt by the “Danny murphy years”.. You ask for 40 quid a ticket for premier league games, you’ll see an increase. I agree we need creative ways to engorge regular numbers in the championship, but eliminating a 1pm-3pm charge is not the answer.

I ain’t the one frothing about a charge 99% will never have to pay Dreams.

Two quotes that show this is a nothing complaint and that the C in BRFCS actually stands for curmudgeon. That’s ridiculous. If your friend is truly looking for a club to follow, I’m quite sure he won’t be specifically put off because of a charge he could avoid completely by ordering his tickets on the phone!

So the club are conning fans? See I agree but people aren’t put off because of a 3 pound late comer charge. It’s however many years of bad management. As I pointed out, when the ticket is already 27 quid for standard lowest price seating on a normal “none standout” second tier game; you’ll do well to convince anyone who is out of the habit. I don’t think it’s the price, it’s the knock on of that recent history and the standard of second tier in some eyes. I tend to think this is worse now with Talksport being simply Arsenal and Tottenham, the dominance of the top six and the cost of the world class players being 100x of those only really marginally below. To sound like a broken record, I see it as a “negligible”, a non event that for all we know, does more to encourage membership into the reward scheme than put off those “only know my weekend plans by 1:15pm Saturday” fans. The “messages” from the club, aka the commitment and results of the team, of players and staff, investment in the squad, improved communication and social media coverage, new offers, events like the bonfire activity - it’s a stretch for me to get out my pram because of a charge that I’ll never even pay.

The fact it’s being complained at as a deterrent is exactly what I have problem with. It’s a decision they’ve made. Their reasoning? I can only assume but you say it may put 10 off.... what if it puts 10 others into jointing the rewards, ordering their tickets differently e.g. setting up an account or even thinking it’s better value to buy a half ST or participate in multi game offers? Bingo. The club should focus on making us better on the pitch to encourage fans and that takes money. If that means upping cost or selling 7000 tickets to Leeds and villa fans - so be it.

Yea I know that, it’s not relevant. The discussion seemed to be suggesting the surcharges and costs are putting people off in numbers - the point I’m making is the product or fixture tends to dictate people’s interest in attending. The surcharges don’t cost people committed to season tickets or regular walking on more. They cost people more who turn up last minute on a whim. I agree the other potentials are endless, I’ve said it before, kids of a certain age should be free and there are other great ideas. Still doesn’t change that this is an small and easily avoidable charge that’s being jumped on as something that it’s not.

We are talking about a business in an industry where the average salary at our level is more than 500k a year and rising! Costs go up, thus prices follow. The waiver for all surcharges at 12 quid really that bad? Jesus, I’d say the price of chips and hotdogs is more worthy of complaint. Factor in club cash, other offers, first choice on away seats etc - it’s worth it for a minimum of four games. Surely you’d agree we should be trying to encourage those to go more not pandering for going less? I think it’s obvious why comparing demand for a standard home game with a local or a perceived away “derby”; People will go to the one they want to regardless of cost. Would halving cost of tickets double walk ons for that fixture? I don’t think so personally. Turnover has to go up. I can see why people might think we should perhaps be doing or wording it differently (see @darren_rover ‘s post) but at the end of the day I accept that we need to boost the coffers- particularly when there is evidence they’re investing more on the pitch.

Will have to disagree on the impact of it, even though you even say that people attending will know before hand, which is one of 2 solid reasons for this cost being negligible. The other being the reward scheme making it free. The most basic income families would potentially feel it but we are talking a minority of those who’d be able to come regularly anyway. That’s a different argument. @darrenrover makes a point, if this was advertised as “27 quid a ticket but 10% off for those in the 1875 club and/or those tickets bought in advance” it would be seen completely differently and achieve exactly the same.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/november/ticket-news-sheffield-wednesday-h/ 27 quid in the riverside if you’re not in the 1875 club. 24 quid if you are. Will this game see the tickets fly out like Preston away? No, and It’s got feck all to do with surcharges. Plus one caveat that I hadn’t seen “1875 Club Members are exempt from the matchday price increase” So in essence the the surcharge is negligible, since if you know you can only got to a 3rd of the games and decide last minute, it saves you money to sign up to the rewards. Secondly people will pick and choose games by excitement ergo product. The price is generally secondary to the anticipated experience. Hence why I think the fans who use the excuse of 3 quid last minute charges aren’t avoiding games because of that cost.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/25531549 Quite sure this wasn’t cheap, and I recall about 17/8 thousand including a full city end turned up. Its product not price.

Would you pay the same for a 3rd round FA cup game at home to AFC Wimbledon?

But we both know they’d be back at 30 quid a pop if we played at a higher level RF, so why defend that sort of fan mentality, when it effectively damages the club and team long term? When you consider it this way, it’s easy to think the surcharges are potentially intended to push more towards ST and half ST.

@blueboy3333 My gripes with the ticketing at Ewood is more based on the above

I agree, seemed like a bit of a kick back, if I’d known it would be cheaper I would’ve got two bottles instead of a pint...!

No B.B. I get that people aren’t too happy about paying more in this climate, but I think you’re missing my point; This is also a perfect excuse for the lapsed fans who simply can’t be arsed with Rotherham at home. They’d pay it 3/4 times over if we had United, Liverpool, City etc, and never bat a eyelid. If it was price not product, wouldn’t we have seen at least one complaint about Preston charging us 27 quid basic for their game? Reason is- as you are pointing it out - that’s because entertainment wise, local derby with an edge is fair more enjoyable than the latest DC abomination or Star Wars Episode 19. I am not the marketing department or involved in finance so I cannot explain their decisions, but put it this way - I still think our tickets are correctly and fairly priced. If an improving young team on an upwards trend, with a good manager adding quality and class, investing in players, showing team spirit not seen for years, with a 1 defeat in over a year at home - needs to do more to “encourage fans to attend” then I personally think the fans deserve the criticism not the club.