[Football] Matchday travel subsidy?

[Herr Tubthumper]

I found this email from Paul Barber in another thread. He explains the double-subsidy. I have pasted the complete email so I don’t lose any context.


We’ve had a message from Paul Barber in relation to this issue:

“A few emails today stemming from Seagulls Travel’s email to their customers last night. I’ve just arrived in Yorkshire and seen the NSC thread created as a result. Just to round up the main queries:

- there are no plans whatsoever to scrap the subsidised travel zone - or the club’s substantial contribution towards it;

- a sustainable travel plan was a condition of our planning consent (but the club subsidising the cost of that travel plan forever wasn’t. That said, we have no plans to reduce or stop our contribution towards the cost of running the travel zone or maintaining the infrastructure on or around our land);

- the subsidised travel zone is open to ALL supporters with a valid season or match ticket (this includes home and away fans);
- in addition to the very significant capital costs for transport infrastructure and facilities at the time of the stadium build, we currently make a substantial contribution to the cost of supporter travel to and from matches (as we have for over 7 seasons). No other club does this as far as we are aware (and I’m told Southampton stopped their contribution to theirs soon after St Mary’s opened);

- of course, ALL supporters also contribute towards the cost of our travel zone and infrastructure in the cost of their season ticket or match ticket because every supporter uses some part of the infrastructure to get to and from the stadium (bus, train, park and ride, road junction, car park, coach park, foot path, cycle path, cycle park etc);

- we are only stopping the additional subsidies paid to Seagulls Travel (a commercial operation) and a number of other supporter groups who use private buses/coaches for the added convenience of a door to door service with some sitting outside the travel zone (as opposed to joining the subsidised travel zone at a convenient point for them);

- however, we now have many supporters who travel from outside the subsidised travel zone who do not receive any additional support towards their travel costs for getting to the zone or stadium, as well as many other fans within the subsidised zone who pay to park their cars or private mini buses and who also do not receive any additional subsidy;

- we appreciate that some fans are travelling from outside of the subsidised zone and making huge efforts to organise travel to and from home games, but it doesn’t seem fair that the club should in effect pay a double subsidy for some supporters to enjoy a door to door service when we are not able to support all supporters to do similar;

- we have no problem with all the current buses/coaches operated by Seagulls Travel or the other groups continuing to organise trips to and from the Amex or using our facilities to park their buses/coaches;

- we will still make our coach park available, free of charge, to any supporter bus/coach that wishes to park at the Amex provided they have contacted our operations team in advance (I’m not aware of any other clubs that provide free bus/coach parking).

Finally, the club’s board continues to have a significant responsibility to manage the club’s costs as efficiently as possible, and to continue to reduce our dependency on Tony Bloom year on year. Yes, our revenues are significantly higher in the Premier League but so are our costs. Tightly managing our costs is therefore an important part of our strategy to remain as competitive as possible.

The cost of the additional travel subsidies we are stopping ran to large six figures per season - and this was on top of a very substantial ongoing contribution to the main subsidised travel zone which is open to everyone - costs that our rivals do not cover.

Regards, Paul”

 

[Hampster Gull]

The way I see it there is no travel subsidy, we don’t travel for free, it’s in the price of the ticket.

 

[Goldstone1976]

The way I see it there is no travel subsidy, we don’t travel for free, it’s in the price of the ticket.

Then the club are missing a trick; West Ham fans will only be paying £22.90 for their AMEX ticket next weekend (return to Falmer from Hayward’s Heath for next Saturday is £7.10), when PL rules allow us to charge £30. Across the season, that’s £400k in lost revenue.

That doesn’t sound like the PB I know.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Then the club are missing a trick; West Ham fans will only be paying £22.90 for their AMEX ticket next weekend (return to Falmer from Hayward’s Heath for next Saturday is £7.10), when PL rules allow us to charge £30. Across the season, that’s £400k in lost revenue.

That doesn’t sound like the PB I know.

Not everyone travels as you suggest so your numbers inaccurate.

There is I understand a planning requirement for us to include public travel with the ticket. Doesn’t mean it’s at the cost of the club rather than the home fan.

Your post is on away fans. There is a £30 EPL cap and combined with the requirement on travel the clubs hands are tied.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The more I think about it, the more conflating of travel zone and infrastructure seems a little disingenuous. We need some infrastructure, like the footpaths he mentions. How else can we get to the ground? I’m not aware of any other business making a point of subsidising basic access.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not everyone travels as you suggest so your numbers inaccurate.

There is I understand a planning requirement for us to include public travel with the ticket. Doesn’t mean it’s at the cost of the club rather than the home fan.

Your post is on away fans. There is a £30 EPL cap and combined with the requirement on travel the clubs hands are tied.

A sustainable travel plan was part of the planning. I don’t think this necessarily means it has to be part of the ticket.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I think that the Club should pay my taxi fare from my home to the station and back (from where I get the travel subsidy) each week.

 

[Hampster Gull]

A sustainable travel plan was part of the planning. I don’t think this necessarily means it has to be part of the ticket.

Ok, helpful clarification. Not sure how they would comply without this but there are far more creative people out there than me.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Not everyone travels as you suggest so your numbers inaccurate.

There is I understand a planning requirement for us to include public travel with the ticket. Doesn’t mean it’s at the cost of the club rather than the home fan.

Your post is on away fans. There is a £30 EPL cap and combined with the requirement on travel the clubs hands are tied.

PB is on record as saying (included in this thread) “a sustainable travel plan was a condition of our planning consent (but the club subsidising the cost of that travel plan forever wasn’t”.

I take that to mean that the club could remove the travel subsidy if they chose to, but have decided not to remove it. I think it’s just factually incorrect to say that the club don’t subsidise travel - for home and away fans.

You can’t have it both ways: either the club are subsiding travel, or the ticket prices for the game itself are lower than the face value.

 

[Hampster Gull]

PB is on record as saying (included in this thread) “a sustainable travel plan was a condition of our planning consent (but the club subsidising the cost of that travel plan forever wasn’t”.

I take that to mean that the club could remove the travel subsidy if they chose to, but have decided not to remove it. I think it’s just factually incorrect to say that the club don’t subsidise travel - for home and away fans.

You can’t have it both ways: either the club are subsiding travel, or the ticket prices for the game itself are lower than the face value.

The club have to have a sustainable travel plan and have chosen this route, presumably because it’s the most effective for the club, including financial impact.

I don’t agree I am trying to have it both ways. For home tickets the club price the tickets at what they want, what they perceive the market will bear, there are no constrains them. The suggestion that they do that then reduce for the cost of the “subsidy” is not one I buy. For away fans they are constrained.There is a cap of £30 which can’t be exceeded so yes, they are constrained by choosing this route to fulfil the planning requirement (although the cap came post the travel decision)

 

[Super Steve Earle]

The question you’re referring to was the removal of subsidy for Seagulls Travel, a separate and non-Albion business which runs coaches from various parts of the county.

I didn’t understand Barber’s point about it being a double subsidy. I also thought he was rather blunt with the person who asked he question.

Barber was great with the question and questioner who was being passive aggressive. One of the best moments of the night from Barber.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I wasn't at, and haven't heard, the Fans' Forum but I'm struggling to understand the "double subsidy" thing, even with your explanation.

If someone is travelling with Seagull Travel then they are not "using" the subsidy on train travel, public bus nor park 'n' ride. If, say, 2,000 people travel by private-operated bus to games (and the number must be pretty steady game-by-game), then the subsidy for 2,000 fans should NOT be provided to Southern Rail, Brighton Buses et al.

From my experience of the various transport methods to get to the Amex, Seagull Travel are probably the only one who could provide accurate data as to the number of fans that have used their services for any given game.

Seagull Travel may be privately-owned and, as such, looking to turn a profit, but they seem to made a significant effort to provide a comprehensive network of routes serving much of Sussex and a little bit beyond. In the early Amex seasons, when I lived in Somerset, I would marvel at the small groups of fans standing in far-flung parts of West Sussex and Hampshire waiting for their Seagull Travel bus as I drove back for an evening fixture.

It seems that the increase in their price necessitated by the removal of the subsidy has reduced demand - something any GCSE economics student could tell you would happen. I just hope that if Seagull Travel have to restructure routes etc to work around this shift, it doesn't leave some fans stranded and unable to get to games any longer.

I would sometimes used Seagull Travel for the games I'd take my 9-y-o to as it made getting home significantly more painless, particularly in cold/wet weather when the queues for the train would be a massive pain in the arse. Having just checked ST, this will now cost me over £30 for one-off games. I simply can't see me paying this, which may well mean he comes to fewer games from now on.

You make a good point. If the club are double subsidising then surely the obvious approach is to remove the subsidy which isn’t being used, ie pro-rata down the Southern Road/Bus subsidy by 2000, instead of removing the subsidy which is being used. Instead the club now has a situation where they’re subsidising travel for supporters they know do not use the travel zone. This doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[amexer]

I think PB means:
1. The club are fully subsidising everyone once in the travel zone, which is open to people living outside who make their way to just inside who then hop on a train, park n ride or public bus.
2. Then people living outside the zone who chose to ignore the subsidised option of (1), were getting a further club subsidy on Seagulls Travel on their full journey .... including the element within the zone, where they’d opted to ignore the first subsidy routes in (1).

(2) costing the club the best part of £1m.

Someone please correct me if TB/PB mean something else.

With £50 pa added to average gate is £1.5m. pa. Are you saying club pay out £1m on top of this. I think remember first year at Amex when club desperate to get people there, ST was free. When I have used ST many were elderly and wouldnt think capable of using PR or trains etc. It is small minded of club but sums up Premier football where you can do what you like..
Interesting because of little interest Seagull/Travel buses are FREE from Amex to Crawley for womens games.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Barber was great with the question and questioner who was being passive aggressive. One of the best moments of the night from Barber.

I felt Barber was blunt. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Barber was great with the question and questioner who was being passive aggressive. One of the best moments of the night from Barber.

100% spot on.

 

[drew]

I've always used the subsidy, either park and ride or using the train from Burgess Hill.

Think Bozza made the point that only ST have accurate figures regarding numbers using their transport. The club can reasonably accurately account for the number of cars using P&R but not so the number of occupants of each car. The 'black hole' is Brighton buses and trains as there is no record taken of how many people use the service. I assume the club use a formula to work out how much they pay Southern and the bus company. It would seem logical to deduct the number using ST from that calculation.

As for the club providing the subsidy, yes we pay towards it as part of the season ticket or matchday price but I'm guessing that only covers part of the cost. The proof in the pudding would be if the club deducted the whole subsidy paid to the other companies from ticket prices and we see how they compare to other clubs!

 

[tubby]

In the early days of the Amex a bus ran from Hangleton (others ran from Shoreham and Rottingdean) to the ground but this was withdrawn much to the dismay of a lot of people. No booking was required and was always full. However I understood the reasons for this and we had to accept it as there was plenty of other options to get to games. Seagulls Travel are a business and from their prices for away games it may be that they are subsidising away travel from the profits hence the cheaper fares when compared to Blues Away and the Costa Express.

 

[Goldstone1976]

The club have to have a sustainable travel plan and have chosen this route, presumably because it’s the most effective for the club, including financial impact.

I don’t agree I am trying to have it both ways. For home tickets the club price the tickets at what they want, what they perceive the market will bear, there are no constrains them. The suggestion that they do that then reduce for the cost of the “subsidy” is not one I buy. For away fans they are constrained.There is a cap of £30 which can’t be exceeded so yes, they are constrained by choosing this route to fulfil the planning requirement (although the cap came post the travel decision)

For away fans the club could choose to charge £30 and not provide free transport within the zone; this would meet the requirements of the PL (just like I paid £30 plus transport to Watford yesterday), and, according to PB, the requirements of the Transport Plan. They don’t - they choose to charge £30 including the free transport. What motivation would the club have to choose to give a benefit to away fans that they withhold from home fans? I can’t think of any - thus it’s reasonable to conclude that if they’re giving a travel subsidy to away fans, they are also doing so to home fans.

 

[Hampster Gull]

For away fans the club could choose to charge £30 and not provide free transport within the zone; this would meet the requirements of the PL (just like I paid £30 plus transport to Watford yesterday), and, according to PB, the requirements of the Transport Plan. They don’t - they choose to charge £30 including the free transport. What motivation would the club have to choose to give a benefit to away fans that they withhold from home fans? I can’t think of any - thus it’s reasonable to conclude that if they’re giving a travel subsidy to away fans, they are also doing so to home fans.

It would be difficult to segment ticket holders in the way you propose. For travel companies to get their revenue from away fans rather than the club they would need to check all ticket holders. That would drive significant costs to them. They would challenge the club I suspect if we took that turn.

 

[durrington gull]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the club scrap the whole of the travel subsidy - would be a backward step imo but let’s hope it’s retained for many years