I've followed up on a few of the points made on this thread and this one regarding season ticket sharing...
"Club losing £2m/season on the sharing scheme" - I got my words wrong on this, confusing “losses” with “loss of potential revenue” when talking about the cost to the club of the scheme...
The ticket sharing scheme has about 5,000 season ticket holders bought in to it, paying £20 each (that’s worth around £100k). The club estimate it has also brought in up to 4,000 new members (that’s worth a further £100k). This means the “new revenue“ the scheme has created is about £200k for the 2021/22 season.
If the club had simply added the £20 sharing fee to everyone's season ticket price, the club would have generated £525k. This would clearly be better for the club - more than double the revenue in fact - but not everyone wants/needs to be able to share their season ticket, and it was thought unfair to charge everyone as a result.
Even when not adding the £20 charge for everyone, the club could have made a case for an inflationary increase to season tickets. For this coming season alone, this would bec 5%, generating upwards of £1m revenue but, again, the club didn't see this as fair at a time when people have numerous rising costs in their lives.
In short, if thef the club had wanted to generate additional revenue frrom STHs at this time, or “profiteering”, as some on here have called it, there were easier routes to take than the ST sharing scheme, which also came with a sofware development cost to implement.
With this season's extended capacity at the Amex, the club have around 5,000 match tickets to sell per game (more if, like Burnley, our visiting clubs don’t take and/or sell their full 3,000 allocation). The potential value of selling out these 5,000 seats is around £2.4m for the season. Beyond this, the season ticket exchange transaction volumes are down, and the club estimate a decline in revenue of £100k on this.
So, if the club don’t sell out all match day tickets and the exchange doesn’t open, the potential maximum revenue loss could be around £2.5m.
However, the club will clearly sell some match day tickets, and some games will certainly sell out, but for COVID-related reasons on top of the season ticket sharing scheme, and an increase in capacity (a decision taken pre-COVID), the club have seen fewer sell-outs in both home and away areas, costing the club revenue.
The club won’t know until the end of the season what the likely net impact will actually be but, as we have seen, games have not been selling out at all, or selling out very slowly, meaning the ticket exchange is opening later with much lower volumes sold as a result – and all of these will all be revenue hits.
So, whilst the club won’t ever know exactly how many people sharing a season ticket would have bought a match ticket without the facility being in place, I'm not sure claims that the club are profiteering really stack up. Indeed, the club believe it will ultimately be to be negative for them in terms of revenue generation.
The club have also seen a further knock-on effect of the scheme where some families who previously held, say, 3 season tickets, now hold just 2 as well as an additional club membership knowing that they can make do by legitimately sharing their 2 season tickets across the wider family at a reduced cost.
The club do benefit from having greater visibility of who is in the stadium, allowing them to have a better chance of keeping out banned supporters, and minimising touting of tickets, particularly for games against the top six. With STH "guest tickets” the club don’t collect data as responsibility sits with the season ticket holder for the conduct of their guest. In contrast, under the season ticket sharing scheme, the member is responsible for themselves.
TL;DR: are the club “losing” £2m on the scheme? No. But the scheme was introduced by the club knowing it had the potential to hit revenues by up to £2m. And, since introduction, the club now know they certainly will not make a profit on the scheme.
However, it Is it still seen as worthwhile as an addtitional fan service, not least because COVID is still a concern to a great many people, impacting how often they wish to attend matches, yet prefer to retain their season ticket. The club also hope that the greater flexibility offered to season ticket holders will help season ticket retention, season after season.
Finally, it allows the club to continue to grow membership numbers, and they know this group are the most likely to buy future season tickets (not one-off visitors brought in for free), which helps the club to grow. And, finally, the club also hopes the flexibility offered will help with fan loyalty and support season ticket retention.
"Club losing £2m/season on the sharing scheme" - I got my words wrong on this, confusing “losses” with “loss of potential revenue” when talking about the cost to the club of the scheme...
The ticket sharing scheme has about 5,000 season ticket holders bought in to it, paying £20 each (that’s worth around £100k). The club estimate it has also brought in up to 4,000 new members (that’s worth a further £100k). This means the “new revenue“ the scheme has created is about £200k for the 2021/22 season.
If the club had simply added the £20 sharing fee to everyone's season ticket price, the club would have generated £525k. This would clearly be better for the club - more than double the revenue in fact - but not everyone wants/needs to be able to share their season ticket, and it was thought unfair to charge everyone as a result.
Even when not adding the £20 charge for everyone, the club could have made a case for an inflationary increase to season tickets. For this coming season alone, this would bec 5%, generating upwards of £1m revenue but, again, the club didn't see this as fair at a time when people have numerous rising costs in their lives.
In short, if thef the club had wanted to generate additional revenue frrom STHs at this time, or “profiteering”, as some on here have called it, there were easier routes to take than the ST sharing scheme, which also came with a sofware development cost to implement.
With this season's extended capacity at the Amex, the club have around 5,000 match tickets to sell per game (more if, like Burnley, our visiting clubs don’t take and/or sell their full 3,000 allocation). The potential value of selling out these 5,000 seats is around £2.4m for the season. Beyond this, the season ticket exchange transaction volumes are down, and the club estimate a decline in revenue of £100k on this.
So, if the club don’t sell out all match day tickets and the exchange doesn’t open, the potential maximum revenue loss could be around £2.5m.
However, the club will clearly sell some match day tickets, and some games will certainly sell out, but for COVID-related reasons on top of the season ticket sharing scheme, and an increase in capacity (a decision taken pre-COVID), the club have seen fewer sell-outs in both home and away areas, costing the club revenue.
The club won’t know until the end of the season what the likely net impact will actually be but, as we have seen, games have not been selling out at all, or selling out very slowly, meaning the ticket exchange is opening later with much lower volumes sold as a result – and all of these will all be revenue hits.
So, whilst the club won’t ever know exactly how many people sharing a season ticket would have bought a match ticket without the facility being in place, I'm not sure claims that the club are profiteering really stack up. Indeed, the club believe it will ultimately be to be negative for them in terms of revenue generation.
The club have also seen a further knock-on effect of the scheme where some families who previously held, say, 3 season tickets, now hold just 2 as well as an additional club membership knowing that they can make do by legitimately sharing their 2 season tickets across the wider family at a reduced cost.
The club do benefit from having greater visibility of who is in the stadium, allowing them to have a better chance of keeping out banned supporters, and minimising touting of tickets, particularly for games against the top six. With STH "guest tickets” the club don’t collect data as responsibility sits with the season ticket holder for the conduct of their guest. In contrast, under the season ticket sharing scheme, the member is responsible for themselves.
TL;DR: are the club “losing” £2m on the scheme? No. But the scheme was introduced by the club knowing it had the potential to hit revenues by up to £2m. And, since introduction, the club now know they certainly will not make a profit on the scheme.
However, it Is it still seen as worthwhile as an addtitional fan service, not least because COVID is still a concern to a great many people, impacting how often they wish to attend matches, yet prefer to retain their season ticket. The club also hope that the greater flexibility offered to season ticket holders will help season ticket retention, season after season.
Finally, it allows the club to continue to grow membership numbers, and they know this group are the most likely to buy future season tickets (not one-off visitors brought in for free), which helps the club to grow. And, finally, the club also hopes the flexibility offered will help with fan loyalty and support season ticket retention.
