[Football] Matchday travel subsidy?

[drew]

This is now the third thread either devoted to this subject or as in the Fans Forum thread one of the topics discussed, and seems to be the cause of mainly confusion.

First PB said the saving from taking the travel subsidy off Seagull Travel was a 6 figure sum, so probably some way off the million being quoted.

Secondly, most are baffled by the second subsidy situation, it seems to me that he is referring to the free door to door parking enjoyed by ST travelers. So to add a subsidy for travel and provide free parking, is seen as the double subsidy. Others travelling door to door by car or taxi have to pay for their parking or private hire cost with no subsidy, which maybe their choice but PB says is unfair if ST, another private hire company, receive two subsidies. Therefore ST had their travel subsidy withdrawn for the first time this season, but still receive the privilege of free parking next to the ground.

I think you are way off the mark. The double subsidy refers to the free travel zone. So anyone who lives outside the zone can pay for their own travel upto the zone and then benefit from the free travel. eg, if you live in Crawley, you travel to Haywards Heath and start the free travel. The double subsidy is that the club are paying this to the bus companies or rail companies and then they are paying it again to ST.

It would seem that the solution would be to take out the number of ST customers and deduct them from any formula that is part of the contract with Brighton Buses and/or Southern/Thameslink however, what we don't know is what formula is used to calculate the subsidy as part of the contract and how long that contract might be for!

 

[Weststander]

I am sorry that is not possible and if you can show me proof this statement came from club I will write them. My figures may not be accurate but assume ST take 4000 supporters and supporters club coaches 500. If club is saying this is costing them £1m this is crap. Over £200 per person you are joking.
If the £1m is what they pay out overall including train/buses thats not bad after collecting £1.5m from add ons to tickets. Do think we need some accurate figures from club because until they do I see it as just another income raiser. Sorry but income gone from £25 to £150m in 3 years there can be no justification for any supporter cost increases
The ground is in the sticks and should make it easier not harder for all supporters to get to. I feel strongly about this because heard last week elderly relatives from Hangleton say as they cannot afford the increase they are going to get bus into Hove and then get I think no 26.. Madness and feel I cant see this happen so a few of us will chip in to get there ST tickets.

No need to apologise to me.

An indication of the cost is in the long PB email which [MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] has relayed to this thread.

 

[Langley]

I'm still pretty sure BHA are the only club in the league who subsidise fans travel to and from the stadium. Flashing a ST card or ticket to to a bus driver and getting on for nothing still gives me a thrill (yes yes I know its built into the price of the ticket, but it still a nice perk).

I am one of those that can only get to the Amex by coach, because of my mobility. Now I know that is my problem, and I accept this, but my season ticket includes the travel subsidy which I am paying but get no benefit from. Without S T coaches I would not be able to get to games.
This year is my 70th year of supporting Brighton and Hove Albion. Not many more left I know, but I will continue supporting the club that I love as long as I can board the coach.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I am one of those that can only get to the Amex by coach, because of my mobility. Now I know that is my problem, and I accept this, but my season ticket includes the travel subsidy which I am paying but get no benefit from. Without S T coaches I would not be able to get to games.
This year is my 70th year of supporting Brighton and Hove Albion. Not many more left I know, but I will continue supporting the club that I love as long as I can board the coach.

You do get a benefit your coach is able to park for free within the stadium grounds and you get away as quickly as you can post game.

 

[drew]

I am sorry that is not possible and if you can show me proof this statement came from club I will write them. My figures may not be accurate but assume ST take 4000 supporters and supporters club coaches 500. If club is saying this is costing them £1m this is crap. Over £200 per person you are joking.
If the £1m is what they pay out overall including train/buses thats not bad after collecting £1.5m from add ons to tickets. Do think we need some accurate figures from club because until they do I see it as just another income raiser. Sorry but income gone from £25 to £150m in 3 years there can be no justification for any supporter cost increases
The ground is in the sticks and should make it easier not harder for all supporters to get to. I feel strongly about this because heard last week elderly relatives from Hangleton say as they cannot afford the increase they are going to get bus into Hove and then get I think no 26.. Madness and feel I cant see this happen so a few of us will chip in to get there ST tickets.

4000 supporters on ST coaches? Assuming that's 50 per coach thats 80 coaches and there certainly isn't that many in the car park. That said, I don't know whether there are some that drop off and park up elsewhere but I doubt it.

As for the figures, I assume the subsidy per game is around £5 so closer to £100 per person per year and the figure quoted by PB was I believe a 6 figure, not 7 so anywhere between £100,000 and £999,999.

 

[beorhthelm]

this is the trouble with subsidies, everyone thinks they should be entitled in perpetutity, so causes trouble when they need to be changed or removed from some. we forget we've all paid for them and really only spreading the costs between everyone.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is now the third thread either devoted to this subject or as in the Fans Forum thread one of the topics discussed, and seems to be the cause of mainly confusion.

First PB said the saving from taking the travel subsidy off Seagull Travel was a 6 figure sum, so probably some way off the million being quoted.

Secondly, most are baffled by the second subsidy situation, it seems to me that he is referring to the free door to door parking enjoyed by ST travelers. So to add a subsidy for travel and provide free parking, is seen as the double subsidy. Others travelling door to door by car or taxi have to pay for their parking or private hire cost with no subsidy, which maybe their choice but PB says is unfair if ST, another private hire company, receive two subsidies. Therefore ST had their travel subsidy withdrawn for the first time this season, but still receive the privilege of free parking next to the ground.

I don’t agree with your understanding. If your understanding is correct then many of us receive double or even triple subsidies. I typically use the train, and the footpath. Double.

 

[Ernest]

You do get a benefit your coach is able to park for free within the stadium grounds and you get away as quickly as you can post game.

Have you ever tried getting out of the coach park after a game

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Have you ever tried getting out of the coach park after a game

no i'm not a coach

 

[Cheshire]

I don’t agree with your understanding. If your understanding is correct then many of us receive double or even triple subsidies. I typically use the train, and the footpath. Double.

One thing most seem to agree on is that it is not clear what was meant by double subsidy and you and Drew, who also thinks I got it wrong, could be right. What I do know is that free parking for ST coaches is seen as a major benefit. When you think of the income the club lose by not charging for this prime space, it is almost like a subsidy and something the club could start charging for, although they have said for the foreseeable future they are not considering doing this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

One thing most seem to agree on is that it is not clear what was meant by double subsidy and you and Drew, who also thinks I got it wrong, could be right. What I do know is that free parking for ST coaches is seen as a major benefit. When you think of the income the club lose by not charging for this prime space, it is almost like a subsidy and something the club could start charging for, although they have said for the foreseeable future they are not considering doing this.

Personally, I think the confusion started when specific items of infrastructure were introduced as being part of the transport subsidy. I agree with you about the coach parking and everyone can understand the concept of charging for parking. But items like footpaths, cycle paths and cycle racks and even a road junction were then explicitly introduced in his argument and are now repeatedly used in his explanations. This seems very odd and confusing.

If Barber did start charging for coach parking, in his quest for fairness, he’d also have to set up toll booths and charge those using the footpaths etc.

I sense there will be an email very shortly to clear up the double-subsidy confusion.

 

[drew]

One thing most seem to agree on is that it is not clear what was meant by double subsidy and you and Drew, who also thinks I got it wrong, could be right. What I do know is that free parking for ST coaches is seen as a major benefit. When you think of the income the club lose by not charging for this prime space, it is almost like a subsidy and something the club could start charging for, although they have said for the foreseeable future they are not considering doing this.

I wonder what other clubs do in respect of coach parking charges. I suspect most don't have the capacity, eg Chelsea and, I believe, Liverpool, coaches park on closed off streets or specially created laybys.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I sense there will be an email very shortly to clear up the double-subsidy confusion.

I’ll book a day off work

 

[Hampster Gull]

I wonder what other clubs do in respect of coach parking charges. I suspect most don't have the capacity, eg Chelsea and, I believe, Liverpool, coaches park on closed off streets or specially created laybys.

Liverpool have their own way of dealing with coaches

 

[timbha]

Liverpool have their own way of dealing with coaches

You’re on form tonight !

 

[amexer]

One thing most seem to agree on is that it is not clear what was meant by double subsidy and you and Drew, who also thinks I got it wrong, could be right. What I do know is that free parking for ST coaches is seen as a major benefit. When you think of the income the club lose by not charging for this prime space, it is almost like a subsidy and something the club could start charging for, although they have said for the foreseeable future they are not considering doing this.

Ground is in the sticks. Part of planning was club saying very large % would be arriving by public transport. They had to supply a place for buses to park. Cannot believe they have or will ever consider charging. Can you imagine coaches refusing to pay,parking of site and the farce of picking up passengers after game. It us the supporters doing club the favour making effort to get to and fro ground not other way round

 

[Weststander]

4000 supporters on ST coaches? Assuming that's 50 per coach thats 80 coaches and there certainly isn't that many in the car park. That said, I don't know whether there are some that drop off and park up elsewhere but I doubt it.

As for the figures, I assume the subsidy per game is around £5 so closer to £100 per person per year and the figure quoted by PB was I believe a 6 figure, not 7 so anywhere between £100,000 and £999,999.

PB said a 6 figures sum at the higher end, so say £700,000 to £900,000 per season.

 

[Weststander]

Liverpool have their own way of dealing with coaches

2016 .... Agincourt, East London:

 

[Hampster Gull]

You’re on form tonight !

Im having a ‘special’ day

 

[Sheebo]

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.

Yes that’s true. I assume they give the train co a rough guess and they negotiate a deal at a cut price.

Incidentally, having been a Seagulls over Burwash member all the Amex era (I think it was the first coach ever sorted and before seagull travel incidentally) I can confirm the reason the subsidy for the coaches existed was because the club wanted as many people to use public transport / a variety of methods like coaches to get there. That was the big thing. Shame they’ve liars sight of that, especially as most season tickets have gone up hundreds since 2011. Also 1500 people or so getting the coach helps reduce queues for trains etc. It’s another thing the club dropped - there are many examples of this in the Alex era. I guess it’s business but it is a bit annoying.