Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:46 am  

Tony Fax wrote:

Of course there's an answer. There's a solution to every problem.

Well what is it then that has any chance of all the parties involved agreeing to and will actually be implemented?

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:04 am  

Slightly off topic but Ive been thinking more about ticket pricing because I don't normally take much notice but I have been seeing more adverts for this Sundays game which is great but I just wonder the clubs thinking around the young adult pricing and age range. I think something needs to be done in this area as I think we would all agree money is getting tighter and tighter but I just don't get the age range and the thinking behind it.

A lot of young ones now are in education till at least 18 so the age range of 16-18 are quite unlikely to be able to afford the prices that the club charge at the moment and I don't know if this is just me but it seems to be reflected in the demographic on the terraces almost as though there is a whole generation of people missing as the club has done a lot of work in the community which is fantastic and every week you see the young kids around the stadium but then it just seems to be a lot of the older generations after that. Maybe a re-think of the pricing and age ranges for the young adult tickets are needed.

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:21 am  

Young people especially children with an adult should be free, others from 16-18 should be something like £5.

PS: and anyone on here with a user name from G to T should be charged double.

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:37 am  

faxcar wrote:

Well what is it then that has any chance of all the parties involved agreeing to and will actually be implemented?

There's been quite a few suggestions on here, and although not ideal and quite painful, are probably better than the status quo. Just because you don't agree with the ideas it doesn't mean nothing can be done.

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:54 am  

Tony Fax wrote:

There's been quite a few suggestions on here, and although not ideal and quite painful, are probably better than the status quo. Just because you don't agree with the ideas it doesn't mean nothing can be done.

The question was, what was the chances of all the parties involved agreeing to any of the ideas on here or anywhere else and implementing them?

It’s not about what I think seeing because I’m not one of the players who have to agree.

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 11:06 am  

faxcar wrote:

The question was, what was the chances of all the parties involved agreeing to any of the ideas on here or anywhere else and implementing them?

It’s not about what I think seeing because I’m not one of the players who have to agree.

You pointed out that Bradford and Fev blocked a motion for a TV deal. It's ridiculous that just a couple of clubs can block stuff. The clubs HAVE to get together and a minority shouldn't be allowed to veto motions. Otherwise all clubs will continue to lose circa £200k a year and we all know where that'll eventually end up.

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 12:00 pm  

Tony Fax wrote:

You pointed out that Bradford and Fev blocked a motion for a TV deal. It's ridiculous that just a couple of clubs can block stuff. The clubs HAVE to get together and a minority shouldn't be allowed to veto motions. Otherwise all clubs will continue to lose circa £200k a year and we all know where that'll eventually end up.

I don't think the mooted tv deal was worth owt like £200,000 a year for championship clubs.

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 12:26 pm  

Hudd-Shay wrote:

I don't think the mooted tv deal was worth owt like £200,000 a year for championship clubs.

I wasn't suggesting a TV deal would cover losses. My point was getting all the clubs together to make fundamental changes, the TV deal just being an example of the tail wagging the dog.

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:17 pm  

You can’t solve a problem, but you can solve a negative situation

Re: Accounts : Fri Sep 20, 2024 1:46 pm  

Tony Fax wrote:

You pointed out that Bradford and Fev blocked a motion for a TV deal. It's ridiculous that just a couple of clubs can block stuff. The clubs HAVE to get together and a minority shouldn't be allowed to veto motions. Otherwise all clubs will continue to lose circa £200k a year and we all know where that'll eventually end up.

It was more than just Bulls and Rovers.

Against were Bradford, Batley, Dewsbury, Doncaster, Featherstone, Wakefield and Widnes.

For were Swinton, Halifax, York, Barrow, Sheffield and Toulouse.

Didn't vote. Whitehaven.

The RFL didn't have to accept the vote and could have forced it through but decided to do nothing.

That apart it's just an example of the difficulties of getting anyone to agree on anything and getting it implemented.