| This is awful from the club 17:52 - Dec 18 with 32576 views | londonlisa2001 |
Today's Guardian publishes details of costs to young people of supporting their club, including ticket prices, replica kits and mascot prices.
To my absolute horror I see that we charge more for youngsters to be a mascot than any other premier league club (well, the same as QPR). This is an utter disgrace. £450 when clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea, both Manchester clubs and both Liverpool clubs charge nothing.
Surely with the income we have we don't need to be ripping off local kids (or their parents) like this? What about the Swans mad youngster whose parents can't afford it? How do they feel? Is there any provision for this if parents simply can't, understandably, pay that amount?
I realise that from time to time we probably have kids doing it for a special reason and they don't, presumably, pay (illness related and so on) but this is just terrible in an area where people are hardly rolling in spare cash.
I had no idea that we charged this sort of money - sometimes every player has a mascot and we're charging this for all of them? It's awful. Is this something that is widely known ?
|  | | |  |
| This is awful from the club on 03:23 - Dec 20 with 2022 views | BobJack |
| This is awful from the club on 01:40 - Dec 20 by sixpenses |
Fine whatever you prefer but I think you will find it is much the same thing and the statement I made is correct english usage (as well as being more appropriate to the point I was making), this might help
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/61381/what-exactly-does-all-items-not
Consider the old saying - all that glitters is not gold
I of course can understand your confusion but I would consider it basic logic speak
i.e. the statement "All the Directors are shareholders" is not true (which was central to the logic point being made - as the poster was referring to the directors owning the club)
or put in perhaps a way that is more familiar to you - Not all the shareholders are directors (the fact that some are is less important than the fact some are not)
The net effect of the statements being if you had a ven diagram of Directors and shareholders, some would be in the overlap i.e being both Director and shareholder (Huw and LD) and others would only be in one group or the other.
 |
So you agree that both you and Darr got it wrong with your grammar.
Thanks for clearing that up. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 07:33 - Dec 20 with 1980 views | shandyjack |
| This is awful from the club on 23:24 - Dec 19 by _ |
How are the majority excluded you ask? Are you for effing real?? |
I'd suggest the long waiting list proves a lot can afford it and are happy with the package, just because a handful of ppl on here don't agree doesn't mean the 20,000 who go every week agree [Post edited 20 Dec 2014 7:46]
|  |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 07:38 - Dec 20 with 1980 views | dgt73 |
| This is awful from the club on 07:33 - Dec 20 by shandyjack |
I'd suggest the long waiting list proves a lot can afford it and are happy with the package, just because a handful of ppl on here don't agree doesn't mean the 20,000 who go every week agree [Post edited 20 Dec 2014 7:46]
|
Spot on. I'm very happy the way the club is run and I certainly don't want a tiny bunch of idiots speaking for me. #notinmyname# |  |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 08:13 - Dec 20 with 1968 views | AnotherJohn |
It is depressing to see the lack of social awareness from the 'we're okay and can afford it' camp. The damage to the club's image is illustrated by articles such as this one in the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2880510/Premier-League-clubs-c
Nor am I impressed by the apologists' argument that the odd bit of charity here and there (i.e. a few free places) can put things right. It's the old story of entitlement for the well off and crumbs for the disadvantaged - and we are talking about kids.
Our directors have a lot to answer for on this one. Many more policies of this ilk and I will hesitate to put my gate money into their pockets. The Trust really must take a stand on the issue. | | | |
| This is awful from the club on 08:41 - Dec 20 with 1954 views | dgt73 |
| This is awful from the club on 18:56 - Dec 19 by Neath_Jack |
As opposed to someone who believes something they watched in a f*cking film.
 |
It seems i was right after all. Oh well better luck next time. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:25 - Dec 20 with 1921 views | dantheswansman |
| This is awful from the club on 13:10 - Dec 19 by Parlay |
How many times can you ask the same question and get the same answer?
No, nobody owns the club. If all the directors were one person, they still wouldn't own the club. Majority shareholder yes, owner, no. However they aren't one person, they are multiple people so it doesn't even get that far.
NO director owns the club. NO director is even majority shareholder. |
Mr & Mrs Martin Morgan - 23.7%
Brian Katzen - 21.1%
Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd - 21.1%
Huw Jenkins - 13.2%
Robert Davies - 10.5%
Think that makes the morgan`s the majority shareholders ! so yes there is a majority shareholder ! |  | | |
| This is awful from the club on 12:29 - Dec 20 with 1912 views | ScoobyWho |
| This is awful from the club on 12:25 - Dec 20 by dantheswansman |
Mr & Mrs Martin Morgan - 23.7%
Brian Katzen - 21.1%
Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd - 21.1%
Huw Jenkins - 13.2%
Robert Davies - 10.5%
Think that makes the morgan`s the majority shareholders ! so yes there is a majority shareholder ! |
Actually they are not, they hold more shares than others but collectively those other shareholders hold more. Therefore they cant be a majority shareholder. |  |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:29 - Dec 20 with 1910 views | Parlay |
| This is awful from the club on 07:38 - Dec 20 by dgt73 |
Spot on. I'm very happy the way the club is run and I certainly don't want a tiny bunch of idiots speaking for me. #notinmyname# |
It has nothing to do with "a lot" being able to afford it. The fact is the price shouldn't be that high for a game of football and is double the price of many top European sides in arguably better leagues. Also the fact it is so high means many CANT afford it, so telling us a lot of people can doesn't really solve that issue.
A lot of people CAN afford £700 season tickets, however hiking them to that price would be unfair and way to high... Yet the equivelant match day tickets would cost even more than that at a whopping £760!!
A fair pricing scheme in line with what other top non English European sides would be around £28, and again more in line with a fair % of minimum wage. Currently someone working 38 hours a week at £6.50 or whatever it is (£230 after tax?) would have to pay 20% of his salary for a single match day ticket. That is too expensive.
There is no two ways about it. [Post edited 20 Dec 2014 12:33]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is awful from the club on 12:30 - Dec 20 with 1907 views | ApeShit |
| This is awful from the club on 12:25 - Dec 20 by dantheswansman |
Mr & Mrs Martin Morgan - 23.7%
Brian Katzen - 21.1%
Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd - 21.1%
Huw Jenkins - 13.2%
Robert Davies - 10.5%
Think that makes the morgan`s the majority shareholders ! so yes there is a majority shareholder ! |
I thought to be considered a majority shareholder you have to own at least 51% of the shares? |  | | |
| This is awful from the club on 12:32 - Dec 20 with 1905 views | ScoobyWho |
| This is awful from the club on 12:30 - Dec 20 by ApeShit |
I thought to be considered a majority shareholder you have to own at least 51% of the shares? |
Thats what has been explained before, and sounds right enough. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:34 - Dec 20 with 1898 views | dgt73 |
| This is awful from the club on 12:29 - Dec 20 by Parlay |
It has nothing to do with "a lot" being able to afford it. The fact is the price shouldn't be that high for a game of football and is double the price of many top European sides in arguably better leagues. Also the fact it is so high means many CANT afford it, so telling us a lot of people can doesn't really solve that issue.
A lot of people CAN afford £700 season tickets, however hiking them to that price would be unfair and way to high... Yet the equivelant match day tickets would cost even more than that at a whopping £760!!
A fair pricing scheme in line with what other top non English European sides would be around £28, and again more in line with a fair % of minimum wage. Currently someone working 38 hours a week at £6.50 or whatever it is (£230 after tax?) would have to pay 20% of his salary for a single match day ticket. That is too expensive.
There is no two ways about it. [Post edited 20 Dec 2014 12:33]
|
Have you come out to play again, if so I'll play to, so here goes :- match day ticket prices are correctly priced. Your turn............  [Post edited 20 Dec 2014 12:35]
| |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:34 - Dec 20 with 1895 views | Parlay |
| This is awful from the club on 12:25 - Dec 20 by dantheswansman |
Mr & Mrs Martin Morgan - 23.7%
Brian Katzen - 21.1%
Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd - 21.1%
Huw Jenkins - 13.2%
Robert Davies - 10.5%
Think that makes the morgan`s the majority shareholders ! so yes there is a majority shareholder ! |
To be a majority shareholder you need 50% (+1).
So no... We have no majority shareholders and no outright owners. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:37 - Dec 20 with 1884 views | Parlay |
| This is awful from the club on 08:13 - Dec 20 by AnotherJohn |
It is depressing to see the lack of social awareness from the 'we're okay and can afford it' camp. The damage to the club's image is illustrated by articles such as this one in the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2880510/Premier-League-clubs-c
Nor am I impressed by the apologists' argument that the odd bit of charity here and there (i.e. a few free places) can put things right. It's the old story of entitlement for the well off and crumbs for the disadvantaged - and we are talking about kids.
Our directors have a lot to answer for on this one. Many more policies of this ilk and I will hesitate to put my gate money into their pockets. The Trust really must take a stand on the issue. |
Absolutely spot on.
Season tickets are currently £420. In order for a season ticket to be beneficial to the fan the criteria is that a 19 match book works out cheaper than 19 individually bought tickets. 19 individually bought tickets comes to £760.
I wonder how many of these "we can afford it so its fine, bugger the ones that cant" would be up in arms should their season tickets be hiked to the £700 mark. And yet they would still be getting it cheaper than the ridiculous match day tickets. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:38 - Dec 20 with 1880 views | dgt73 |
| This is awful from the club on 12:37 - Dec 20 by Parlay |
Absolutely spot on.
Season tickets are currently £420. In order for a season ticket to be beneficial to the fan the criteria is that a 19 match book works out cheaper than 19 individually bought tickets. 19 individually bought tickets comes to £760.
I wonder how many of these "we can afford it so its fine, bugger the ones that cant" would be up in arms should their season tickets be hiked to the £700 mark. And yet they would still be getting it cheaper than the ridiculous match day tickets. |
Don't ignore me I want to play to. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:42 - Dec 20 with 1869 views | dgt73 |
| This is awful from the club on 12:40 - Dec 20 by Parlay |
No they aren't.
You said in a previous thread that if season tickets were priced at £700 then they wouldn't sell out. That suggests that for the local area £36.80 (£700 / 19 = £36.80) is too much for a ticket. So tickets currently priced at £38.50 on average... Wait for it.... Is not priced fairly. |
You're wrong......your turn | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:43 - Dec 20 with 1866 views | dobjack2 |
| This is awful from the club on 08:13 - Dec 20 by AnotherJohn |
It is depressing to see the lack of social awareness from the 'we're okay and can afford it' camp. The damage to the club's image is illustrated by articles such as this one in the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2880510/Premier-League-clubs-c
Nor am I impressed by the apologists' argument that the odd bit of charity here and there (i.e. a few free places) can put things right. It's the old story of entitlement for the well off and crumbs for the disadvantaged - and we are talking about kids.
Our directors have a lot to answer for on this one. Many more policies of this ilk and I will hesitate to put my gate money into their pockets. The Trust really must take a stand on the issue. |
I suppose that this subject is emphasising the difference in people's philosophy and ideas about how the club should be run.
If you are happy that the club is run on purely business' lines that mascots are like an x box or I pad - if you don't pay the going rate you don't get one.
If you feel that the club should not simply or solely be a business and should put something back for the community then the price is too high and believe that the club shot stop treating the fans as customers who are there to be exploited. | | | |
| This is awful from the club on 12:45 - Dec 20 with 1861 views | Parlay |
| This is awful from the club on 12:42 - Dec 20 by dgt73 |
You're wrong......your turn |
So you are trolling again. Cool. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:47 - Dec 20 with 1854 views | dgt73 |
| This is awful from the club on 12:45 - Dec 20 by Parlay |
So you are trolling again. Cool. |
What was the question, never mind.....your turn. | |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:48 - Dec 20 with 1850 views | Jackfath |
Grown men? |  |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 12:52 - Dec 20 with 1843 views | Parlay |
| This is awful from the club on 12:43 - Dec 20 by dobjack2 |
I suppose that this subject is emphasising the difference in people's philosophy and ideas about how the club should be run.
If you are happy that the club is run on purely business' lines that mascots are like an x box or I pad - if you don't pay the going rate you don't get one.
If you feel that the club should not simply or solely be a business and should put something back for the community then the price is too high and believe that the club shot stop treating the fans as customers who are there to be exploited. |
Spot on. The issue being, of course, that peoples stances are conflicting where it should be a simple case of one or the other.
A typical stance from someone who has a season ticket is... The club is in touch with its community and run for the fans... Prices should remain ridiculously high because the club is a money hungry business... I am perfectly happy paying only £22 a game and wouldn't pay £700 a year even though its less than the match day ticket prices which i condone.
All a bit of a nonsense really based on self serving ground. Not the attitude of the fans we had on our journey up where jacks looked after jacks. The Premier League has certainly enticed that sort of person. [Post edited 20 Dec 2014 13:00]
| |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 21:02 - Dec 23 with 1317 views | TheResurrection |
| This is awful from the club on 00:46 - Dec 19 by _ |
Jesus Christ what a contrite and pathetic post.
I'm fed up of fans like your and Paul Neath Jack. It's your types that are killingour fans club ethos by blindly agreeing with every shit decision the greedy money grabbers are making.
This is a time for a reality check and a proper shake up. Look to Germany not America. |
Oh I do like this one, I have to say....
Look to Germany, not America!
Classy ;-) |  |
| |
| This is awful from the club on 21:12 - Dec 23 with 1285 views | TheResurrection |
| This is awful from the club on 12:38 - Dec 19 by Shaky |
Well no actually.
The way it is normally done is that a potential acquiror would approach the chairman of the board who would then discuss it with the board, which would collectively decide how to proceed.
One problem with Jenkins' dual roles is he could hypothetically receive an offer wearing his chairman's hat and then independently continue discussions gathering requested information he has access to wearing his management hat.
Now is not right time to deal with this given an offer may be almost on the table, but as I have said before the Trust is negligent in not addressing this huge gaping potential conflict of interest. |
Hail the Shake man!! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
