Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Pitch Invader

245

Comments

  • Options
    I think the club might consider hiring what at the Oval they call the green team,  Used during testmatches to bring down streakers and pitch invaders, they our good at the ruby tackle.
  • Options
    3 -5 yr ban, really for most probably a drunken bet prank laugh?
    yeah ban him for remainder or season but 3-5yrs ? 
    Come on
  • Options
    Personally, I thought the response by the stewards, excluding the one that chased the lad, was pretty average. The lack of a more proactive response might have encouraged others.
  • Options
    How can we say anybody is talking bollocks over this when the bloke kept his trousers on?
  • Options
    Rothko said:
    I’ve read some shit takes on this site this season, but blaming it on Football for a Fiver, is pretty special
     Also defending his actions... Laughable.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    After the game not the same as during the game which goes in the refs report.

    Still wrong but they were children not an "adult".  So, probably the club had some discretion then.  They wouldn't have that with someone interrupting the game as they will be asked by the EFL for a report.

    There's been stewards in front of the East stand for a long while. Might be more now, I  don't know, but it's not new.

    It might be a reaction to other incidents here or elsewhere (Forest in the cup for example) but the guy is still an idiot.

    Meanwhile, we have had football for fiver games for 10 or 15 years IIRC correctly.
  • Options
    Dave Rudd said:
    Dave Rudd said:
    Cheap tickets?

    Increase in pond life?

    Has anyone done the Maths?  Can someone ask Mick Everett if the Club fine outweighs the extra income? 
    What extra income?

    Why, tickets for a fiver @Airman Brown

    x tickets at £5 per tickets = £5x ... or have I missed something?

     :) 
    Less the full price ticket match income from people who would have bought a match ticket at standard price.

    So, best guess the club would have sold at most 3,500 tickets at £4.17 each net of VAT. That’s £14,583.

    If we assume for argument’s sake the average net yield from a paid ticket normally is £15 that means the club got the same as if 1,000 people had bought match tickets at normal prices. No extra.

    Or you can say the club lost £10,830 from those 1,000 people and gained a similar amount back from the other 2,500 who came and paid.

    I’m assuming that the home crowd was 6,000 season ticket holders, 1,500 comps and 3,500 payers. There may have been more STs and comps and fewer payers. 

    It’s anyone’s guess how many would have paid at full price - I doubt if it would have been quite as low as 1,000 for a Saturday game. But given we had 8,000 home fans on Tuesday and won it’s reasonable to assume we would have had 9,000 plus today, which makes the FFAF effect very small. In 2010/11 we would have sold a five figure number of £5 tickets, from recollection.


    Yes but you haven’t factored in the increased sales from catering , club shop sales , official programmes ect ect from the increased foot fall and also the long term of of for example even a small amount of those £5 tickets were first timers or youngsters who on the back of today might consider buying a season ticket for next year 
  • Options
    How do we know that the invader purchased the ticket from the football for a fiver promotion?
  • Options
    How long before the club realise he was not a pitch invader but our new midfield playmaker?

    The clubs a bloody shambles!
  • Options
    I must admit , he did get around the pitch quite quickly, some would say faster than Ben Watson, could this be one of our new signings for the summer?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    YTS1978 said:
    I assume none of those taking the moral high ground were on The Valley pitch after Burnley or Doncaster? The Valley would be empty if we'd all been banned for 5yrs! It's was a bit stupid and probably a pissed up dare, but he didn't hit anyone, just made a bit of a tit of himself. A ban to the end of the season should be enough.
    He'd be gutted if it's only the end of the season...  
  • Options
    We don't want to go back to the bad old days, when fan behaviour was so bad that fences had to be erected around the pitch. That all stopped after the dreadful Hillsborough disaster and fans didn't run onto the pitch any more. It does need strong action to be taken against bad behaviour and to show that it won't be tolerated.
  • Options
    Was he wearing a mask?
  • Options
    YTS1978 said:
    I assume none of those taking the moral high ground were on The Valley pitch after Burnley or Doncaster? The Valley would be empty if we'd all been banned for 5yrs! It's was a bit stupid and probably a pissed up dare, but he didn't hit anyone, just made a bit of a tit of himself. A ban to the end of the season should be enough.
    Those were after the game had finished though?
  • Options
    I agree that a ban until the end of the season would be appropriate but that's not the club's decision to make.

    The police make the arrests and courts issue the banning orders along with a fine and a criminal record, not the club.

  • Options
    Solidgone said:
    Dave Rudd said:
    Dave Rudd said:
    Cheap tickets?

    Increase in pond life?

    Has anyone done the Maths?  Can someone ask Mick Everett if the Club fine outweighs the extra income? 
    What extra income?

    Why, tickets for a fiver @Airman Brown

    x tickets at £5 per tickets = £5x ... or have I missed something?

     :) 
    Less the full price ticket match income from people who would have bought a match ticket at standard price.

    So, best guess the club would have sold at most 3,500 tickets at £4.17 each net of VAT. That’s £14,583.

    If we assume for argument’s sake the average net yield from a paid ticket normally is £15 that means the club got the same as if 1,000 people had bought match tickets at normal prices. No extra.

    Or you can say the club lost £10,830 from those 1,000 people and gained a similar amount back from the other 2,500 who came and paid.

    I’m assuming that the home crowd was 6,000 season ticket holders, 1,500 comps and 3,500 payers. There may have been more STs and comps and fewer payers. 

    It’s anyone’s guess how many would have paid at full price - I doubt if it would have been quite as low as 1,000 for a Saturday game. But given we had 8,000 home fans on Tuesday and won it’s reasonable to assume we would have had 9,000 plus today, which makes the FFAF effect very small. In 2010/11 we would have sold a five figure number of £5 tickets, from recollection.


    All hypothetical nonsense to prove your point? 
    Poor old Rick. The man knows his onions and cares passionately about the club and it's success or otherwise. We all know that he was primarily responsible (along with a small committee) for having built our attendances and developed the initiatives to do so. He might sound obsessed but that's what it needs to implement and a growth strategy and succeed. He might not be everyone's cup of tea but he undoubtedly loves the club as much as anyone else and knows more about how it runs than anyone involved in it today. Cut him a bit of slack.
    Well said. I can’t understand why anybody would be calling him out when he has more insight into the workings of the club that probably anyone on here. The club should really take more advantage of his knowledge. 
  • Options
    edited March 2022
    CH4RLTON said:
    Dave Rudd said:
    Dave Rudd said:
    Cheap tickets?

    Increase in pond life?

    Has anyone done the Maths?  Can someone ask Mick Everett if the Club fine outweighs the extra income? 
    What extra income?

    Why, tickets for a fiver @Airman Brown

    x tickets at £5 per tickets = £5x ... or have I missed something?

     :) 
    Less the full price ticket match income from people who would have bought a match ticket at standard price.

    So, best guess the club would have sold at most 3,500 tickets at £4.17 each net of VAT. That’s £14,583.

    If we assume for argument’s sake the average net yield from a paid ticket normally is £15 that means the club got the same as if 1,000 people had bought match tickets at normal prices. No extra.

    Or you can say the club lost £10,830 from those 1,000 people and gained a similar amount back from the other 2,500 who came and paid.

    I’m assuming that the home crowd was 6,000 season ticket holders, 1,500 comps and 3,500 payers. There may have been more STs and comps and fewer payers. 

    It’s anyone’s guess how many would have paid at full price - I doubt if it would have been quite as low as 1,000 for a Saturday game. But given we had 8,000 home fans on Tuesday and won it’s reasonable to assume we would have had 9,000 plus today, which makes the FFAF effect very small. In 2010/11 we would have sold a five figure number of £5 tickets, from recollection.


    Yes but you haven’t factored in the increased sales from catering , club shop sales , official programmes ect ect from the increased foot fall and also the long term of of for example even a small amount of those £5 tickets were first timers or youngsters who on the back of today might consider buying a season ticket for next year 
    Repeat business is why I advocated it in the first place but obviously the fewer attend for £5 the less it is likely to have that effect and a high proportion will be existing fans on those numbers. The profit on the ancillary spend is insignificant. Might be worth £1-£2 to the club on average, so 2,500 x £2 if you’re very lucky. The club gets a tiny share of the catering income.
  • Options
    We don't want to go back to the bad old days, when fan behaviour was so bad that fences had to be erected around the pitch. That all stopped after the dreadful Hillsborough disaster and fans didn't run onto the pitch any more. It does need strong action to be taken against bad behaviour and to show that it won't be tolerated.
    If this type of thing was happening multiple times with bad consequences then act accordingly, but let’s not turn it into anything like the fan behaviour of the 80’s. The game and fans have evolved in the most part and when things need to be acted upon for example the acceptance of racism, they generally are. The guy was obviously having fun after a few sherberts and mad a wrong choice, no need to make more of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!