New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[theakston2k]

If the turnout is 49% and of those 74% support the proposals (under the trusts rules), Would it then be considered reasonable or unreasonable (under JV rules) for the trust to seek to block the proposals?

 

Out of interest are you a member of the Trust and going to be voting on it yourself?

[Batch]

If the turnout is 49% and of those 74% support the proposals (under the trusts rules), Would it then be considered reasonable or unreasonable (under JV rules) for the trust to seek to block the proposals?

Guess who:
  David Coe?
  Anthony Hall?
  Soggsy or whatever his name is

At least now we can see where this is going.

[RobertT]

Also Bob, remember it's not just a survey style vote, it's a formal vote of people who have paid for a voting share in the JV.  Having that level of commitment was one of the requirements of the Council to entertain the deal in the first place.  No JV without a significant number of paid up shareholders = no ground purchase and 250 year lease extension = no solid footing upon which to commit capital spend on development.  Not to mention the financial savings in rent.

[Tays85]

Also assuming none of them buy food or drink or anything while at the games they do go to with a discounted ticket.

Agreed and a point I made with some mates recently. I'd rather have some people in the ground at a reduced rate spending their money in the kiosks than those seats be empty. It's also pretty damning that we had all these people "abusing" the ticket arrangements and the place was still only half full every week.

[Riddick]

Agreed and a point I made with some mates recently. I'd rather have some people in the ground at a reduced rate spending their money in the kiosks than those seats be empty. It's also pretty damning that we had all these people "abusing" the ticket arrangements and the place was still only half full every week.

Buying what out of stock item at what possibly open kiosk is that?

[Batch]

If the turnout is 49% and of those 74% support the proposals (under the trusts rules), Would it then be considered reasonable or unreasonable (under JV rules) for the trust to seek to block the proposals?

Also there is no block bob, that implies motive. click the link Bennet provided, it's set out there. It's consent being granted through the legal mechanisms.

[theakston2k]

Agreed and a point I made with some mates recently. I'd rather have some people in the ground at a reduced rate spending their money in the kiosks than those seats be empty. It's also pretty damning that we had all these people "abusing" the ticket arrangements and the place was still only half full every week.

This is why the match day prices are going to be interesting, as they haven’t been released yet it’s pretty obvious as per usual the club are going to be reactive rather than proactive. It seems clear they are waiting to see season ticket numbers before setting the prices.  

Assuming season ticket sales are lower than predicted will they go the lower price route to get more people in or will they think they can milk the Holloway good will and ramp up the prices to plug the gap.

[Bob's Orange]

This is why the match day prices are going to be interesting, as they haven’t been released yet it’s pretty obvious as per usual the club are going to be reactive rather than proactive. It seems clear they are waiting to see season ticket numbers before setting the prices. 

Assuming season ticket sales are lower than predicted will they go the lower price route to get more people in or will they think they can milk the Holloway good will and ramp up the prices to plug the gap.

Fwiw Grimsby are also doing the same re delaying match day prices.

[Batch]

Fwiw Grimsby are also doing the same re delaying match day prices.

Its not particularly useful for those wanting to weigh up a season ticket v individual costs though.

Clearly this means the matchday prices are coming down, and they are avoiding losing season ticket sales

[4D]

Logic would suggest that with less season ticket holders, matchday prices would come down slightly or stay the same.

[NotHarryAgombar]

Don't forget they could also use "dynamic pricing" for match by match prices - eg they could make certain (high demand) games such as Bristol Rovers more expensive; or should we put together a promotion chase, generally demand goes up a bit, so  they could increase match by match prices part way through the season.
That assumes they have the commercial acumen to think that through of course, and are prepared to open more turnstiles.

[RobertT]

Opening turnstiles costs money, the fans should have figured teleportation by now.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

I reckon they might not have a turnstile problem next year even with reduced ones open. Maybe for Rovers.

I can see the numbers plumeting. Cue blaming the fans for the budget. Bob the nob (suspected surname Weyman) already does.

[4D]

Sigh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvg9gk2rj43o

[reeves4england]

Sigh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvg9gk2rj43o

It does highlight the catch 22 situation where having a training ground and modern stadium is attractive to prospective owners, but we don't trust the current incumbents to build it properly in order to get to that stage. And I suppose that as much as Dai Yongge was a bit of a basketcase, you knew what you were getting into financially at Reading. Here, who knows how many skeletons are lurking in the closet. And the fitness room. And the matchday hospitality.