wonderpup Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I run a football club and the profitability of that club is increased by the number of people who come into the stadium on match day. Therefore in order to maximize both the short term profitability of the club and to safeguard the clubs long term future two options suggest themselves: 1) To leave the doors fixed open on match day and sell a ticket to anyone and everyone who wants to come in, with no limit on numbers- since any attempt to limit either the numbers of people coming in or impose restrictions based on their viability as long term supporters of the club would result in damaging the economic perfomance of the club by reducing sales of tickets. OR 2) To limit the number of people coming in to a safe number to avoid dangerous overcrowding and vetting those who do come in to ensure they are the type of supporters likely to provide the most value to the club over the long term. This strategy would limit the short term profitability of the club in terms of ticket sales but would in the longer term create a more stable and durable business model and avoid the risks associated with overcrowding. On a purely rational basis it's clear that option two is the best, since it does not involve the dangerous need to have unlimited access to the stadium with all the risks this could bring of spectators being injured or fighting among themselves due to the overcrowded conditions and also offers the best chance of building a support base who would add value to the club over the long term. However; access to the league in which the team plays is controlled by advocates of option one and they have threatened to make accessing the league difficult should I choose option two. So- do I choose option one and risk the dangerous overcrowding that might spell disaster to the club- or do I choose option two and risk having my access to the league restricted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuywontbuy Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 but they choose option 3) which is to hold a referendum on this, but in the week before, someone dies in the safely controlled crowd (option 2) - therefore people associate that option as very bad, and enough swing-voters vote for option 1) - even though the death was utterly irrelevant to the points of the referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John51 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Increase the price of adult tickets by 50%, Have a discount 1 adult + 1 junior ticket at the previous adult ticket price. iow, bring a kid along or pay more. The more youngsters there are, the less likely there is going to be trouble. Plus, kids get used to going to the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Increase capacity and invest in the stadium facilities. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I run a football club and the profitability of that club is increased by the number of people who come into the stadium on match day. Therefore in order to maximize both the short term profitability of the club and to safeguard the clubs long term future two options suggest themselves: On a purely rational basis it's clear that option two is the best, Option two is NOT the best of the two on a rational basis - as you have said you need to also ensure the short term profitability of the club and option two is designed to precisely limit this Your question is either fundamentally flawed or the correct answer is option a (which will also guarantee the viability of the club as it will be allowed into the league - whereas there is the very real possibility that it will not be in the league with option b (goodbye long term future) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Increase capacity and invest in the stadium facilities. Obviously. Everyone agrees to the idea of building/extending the stands, but everyone is also ferociously opposed to building new stands next to their favourite seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 You're not thinking like a colossus of business. Run the club on a shoestring, pack in the punters for as long as they will come, saddle it with debt, rape the pension fund and finally sell it to some bloke in the pub for the price of a pint.* *Any resemblance to events real or fictional is purely coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Introduce a new 'Value Added Ticket' to be paid in addition to the normal entrance, start it at 2% and gradually ramp it up to 20%. Use the funds generated to build a couple of large administration buildings on the other side of town. Fill them with lawyers and other criminal types and start up a complex protection racket around access to the Bovril hut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Replace any employees with robots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted June 19, 2016 Author Share Posted June 19, 2016 Increase capacity and invest in the stadium facilities. Obviously. There is no way to plan what increase in capacity is required since the numbers entering the stadium are increasing unpredictably and at a rate faster than the devlopment of new facilites can be constructed, nor is there any interest in developing new facilites since the management are pursuing a cost cutting programme that involves shutting facilites down. So while the management welcome the increased profitability derived from increasing gate receipts they have no intention whatsoever of making the investment required to accomodate the additional spectators entering the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blobloblob Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 #fcexit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynezilla Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Charge more for away fans? Leaves more capacity for the home fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted June 19, 2016 Author Share Posted June 19, 2016 Option two is NOT the best of the two on a rational basis - as you have said you need to also ensure the short term profitability of the club and option two is designed to precisely limit this Your question is either fundamentally flawed or the correct answer is option a (which will also guarantee the viability of the club as it will be allowed into the league - whereas there is the very real possibility that it will not be in the league with option b (goodbye long term future) So the only way to save the club is to endanger the well being of it's supporters? If so then why would they continue to support it? Would it not make more sense to find a more sane league to play in? One that did not have an irrational attatchment to the idea of unlimited entry to the stadium irrespective of the consequences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CunningPlan Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Move the pitch to the Midlands, convert the stadium to flats and just rent them out, innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I run a football club and the profitability of that club is increased by the number of people who come into the stadium on match day. Therefore in order to maximize both the short term profitability of the club and to safeguard the clubs long term future two options suggest themselves: 1) To leave the doors fixed open on match day and sell a ticket to anyone and everyone who wants to come in, with no limit on numbers- since any attempt to limit either the numbers of people coming in or impose restrictions based on their viability as long term supporters of the club would result in damaging the economic perfomance of the club by reducing sales of tickets. OR 2) To limit the number of people coming in to a safe number to avoid dangerous overcrowding and vetting those who do come in to ensure they are the type of supporters likely to provide the most value to the club over the long term. This strategy would limit the short term profitability of the club in terms of ticket sales but would in the longer term create a more stable and durable business model and avoid the risks associated with overcrowding. On a purely rational basis it's clear that option two is the best, since it does not involve the dangerous need to have unlimited access to the stadium with all the risks this could bring of spectators being injured or fighting among themselves due to the overcrowded conditions and also offers the best chance of building a support base who would add value to the club over the long term. However; access to the league in which the team plays is controlled by advocates of option one and they have threatened to make accessing the league difficult should I choose option two. So- do I choose option one and risk the dangerous overcrowding that might spell disaster to the club- or do I choose option two and risk having my access to the league restricted? You choose option #1 but offer a discount for annual membership with the benefit of guaranteed entry (capacity set aside). Thus, you get the benefit of taking money from anyone who turns up on the day and also getting cash-flow upfront from people buying the annual membership (season ticket). The keenest supporters will either make sure they get there early enough to guarantee entry assuming there is an actual finite capacity of the stadium, or, will buy the season ticket. The flaw in the analogy you posit is that the stadium does indeed have an actual finite capacity beyond which no more people can physically fit through the doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDevil Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 A you need to do is to figure out how to fit 10 to each seat. Then get yourself a HMO licence for the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 It's almost like this is a metaphor for something, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blod Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Don't be so overbearing and dictatorial, your term managing the club will end and you will be back in the stands soon. So allow the bloody supporters their rights to set their own gate limits and stop being a facist. Edit, maybe with less management the club could win the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Increase the price of adult tickets by 50%, Have a discount 1 adult + 1 junior ticket at the previous adult ticket price. iow, bring a kid along or pay more. The more youngsters there are, the less likely there is going to be trouble. Plus, kids get used to going to the match. +1 As with all hobbies you need to get kids involved. And women. Don't know how many women go to football though. Or could be persuaded to. Allotments - more women have allotments or come along and do a bit than I think they used to. but without encouraging a new generation of plotters to get involved the future will be grim. Not helped by some of the current over 60s who to be frank are insults to the very oxygen we breathe. It is entertaining watching them explode at various trigger words like BBQ and socialising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 T So the only way to save the club is to endanger the well being of it's supporters? If so then why would they continue to support it? Would it not make more sense to find a more sane league to play in? One that did not have an irrational attatchment to the idea of unlimited entry to the stadium irrespective of the consequences? If in your thought experiment you only give two options (and usually in thought experiments you stay within the parameters set) plus the stipulation of the one league you wish to be a member in, I stand by my first answer to you. If you don't like it, either tell me why I'm wrong or reframe your question Do I agree with the league or the short and long term goals of the football club, and that the options given me are the best way forward, no, not really - you asked me to choose one of your two proposals. I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 How about a women-only ground, with no men (especially young men) admitted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Don't you get in a lot of legal trouble if you allow unlimited access? Overcrowding of stadia is a big no-no these days, and although I assume that we're not talking about a big league club here I don't know if the rules only apply to those over a certain size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudoBear Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I can't believe the narrow mindedness!! Forget the football, it's getting such bad press. Rip out the seating, and anything else that gets in the way and run the grounds as a refugee camp. You'll then be making money everyday of the year ;¬) If you aim high enough you could be the entrepreneur who launches the Refugee Industrial Complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudoBear Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 'Off Topic'! We were just getting started, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.