Tag Archives: news

The GOOD and BAD of Arsenal’s end of season ticketing review

Leave a reply

Morning! Yesterday the club published their end of season ticketing review 2023/24.

Firstly a bit of praise for the club. This sort of transparency is something many have been requesting for some time. Whilst you may or may not agree with the way tickets are distributed, it is a positive that club have outlined exactly how many tickets have been applied for and bought at all levels throughout the season.

Now for some thoughts on the review.

Our goal remains the same: to put tickets in the hands of our supporters, with a focus on our paying Silver and Red members. 

Touting is nothing new, and Arsenal are not the only club to have problems with it. If there was an easy solution, someone would have come up with one by now – football, music, festivals and more have all been targets of touts for decades.

I actually do not think ticket touts cause a big a problem as some make out. I would be surprised if there was much more then 1,000 tickets a game touted. Even half of that would surprise me. But touts and a presence on game day and make for a big story on social media when tickets are going for thousands.

My view is that our ticketing issues is more to do with the 75% reduction in silver allocation rather than ticket touts.

During the 2023/24 season, we banned 20,000 members and 54 season ticket holders for attempting to obtain tickets in unauthorised ways

The club needs to continue working against both touts and those that use bots to buy tickets.

Whilst some will claim to be a “victim” of an unfair crackdown, it is likely that either they, or someone buying on their behalf, has used a bot to buy tickets. This season should be a learning curve for fans about lending your membership to someone else to buy on.

At the start of the 2023/24 season, we introduced a ballot system…we believe this is the fairest way to allocate tickets to Silver and Red Members.  

Let’s be honest, the ballot has been a shit show.

We have long term silver members who have been to 15+ games regularly every year for a decade now only able to get 1 or 2 tickets a season.

The idea of the ballot was to reduce tickets that went to touting and get rid of the £10m scramble”. All it has done is reduce tickets going to some of the most loyal fans, and create a new scramble for tickets on the Ticket Exchange.

What I would say is we all moaned that the existing system of logging on at 10am on sale day did not work, we all demanded change, so I am reluctant to criticize the change too much.

I still do not see many other options other than a return to the 10m scramble or a continuation of the ballot. what needs to happen is some tweeks to the system. And again, I do not think the issues are the ballot. It is the reduction of allocation to silver members.

You can present statistics however you wish, and the above does make interesting reading.

What it highlights to me is the importance of the Ticket Exchange. The encouragement for season ticket holders to “use it or lose it” will lead to more tickets flowing down to members.

Mid-way through the season, we limited Ticket Exchange to members who were unsuccessful in the ballot. 

Arsenal showed that they were learning as they went along with the ballot. The change to limit Ticket Exchange to those who were unsuccessful in the ballot should be seen as a good thing.

The downside is it potentially alienates those that do not know if they can make a game until close to it (such as shift workers, or those that work overseas). They now struggle to pick up a last minute ticket when they realise they are available. But like with any change in system, there will always be winners and losers.

I was surprised to see that 6 fans applied for all 25 ballots and failed to get a ticket. I feel for those fans and the club risk losing their support. Can the club introduce a weighting system where the more ballots you are unsuccessful for, the more chance you have winning? I am sure there are very clever computer boffins that could create an algorithm…

I imagine the club will be celebrating 93,000 member obtained tickets as their aim is for “every fan to go once” rather than 10,000 fans going 9 games. and this creates an issue of fairness.

You now have fellas who have been to most games on their silver, now only able to go 4 or 5 times a season. Whilst others who were never quick enough to grab a ticket are now getting to 2 or 3 games.

Those fans that want to go to a lot of games are punished, with those who only want to go to a handful are rewarded. Everyone will have a different opinion as to which is the correct target audience.

We have implemented a functionality for members to be able to choose their top two price band preferences that they wish to purchase as part of a successful ballot application. 

Another issue with the ballot was you did not get a choice of where you sat or what you paid. You just got assigned a seat.

Not everyone can afford the top tier prices – Cat A can be as expensive as £141. The mid-season change at least allows fans to protect their pocket and only apply for the banding that they can afford.

We can confirm that 24 season tickets were cancelled last season due to lack of use. During the 2023/24 season, supporters had to use their season ticket (attend themselves or make their season ticket available on Ticket Exchange or Ticket Transfer) for 17 out of 22 matches. For the 2024/25 season, this will change to 20 out of 23.  

This is a positive.

Put simply, if you can not attend the majority of games (and are too lazy to put your ticket on Ticket Exchange) then you should not have a season ticket.

The club have always made it clear that they will consider re-instate your season ticket under exceptional circumstances. My advice is be pro-active. if something helps, drop the club an email early doors explaining why you (or a loved one) can not go and is unable to use the Ticket Exchange. Do not wait until you are informed you are losing your season ticket and then take to social media to complain.

The ballot will continue next season. Members who applied to 20 or more ballots and were not successful once [during 2023/24] will be invited to purchase a ticket from a select number of fixtures before Christmas.

Around 300 members applied for 20 or more ballots and were not successful last season. The fact they are being prioritised for a ticket before Christmas is a positive, but it does not make the system fairer.

“Sorry you missed out 20 times last season, here is one ticket for this”. It would be good to hear from the 300 fans whether they are happy with this?

Final thoughts

The issue remains that pre-Covid, 7,200 seats were allocated to silver members. since football returned, that number has declined every season and now sits at just 1,800.

Whilst the club will point to an average of 5,800 silver members getting tickets for games, it is still lower than previous. The difference is also more than 1,400 as the 7.2k does not include those who bought on the TX back in 2018.

Their have been some rumours that the club are not issuing new season tickets this summer (or at least reduced the percentage of non-renewals that go for re-purchase).

After Covid, those that jumped the queue and purchased a temporary season ticket were allowed to keep it. This came out of the silver allocation. I am hopeful that the above is true and that the aim is to return season ticket levels back to pre-Covid numbers, with the silver allocation getting boosted.

There are still too many tickets that do not go to the ballots (sponsors, holiday packages, an increase to players and staff families). If the club wants their putting tickets in the hands of our supporters philosophy (which is correct), they need to look at how many tickets they give out to non-supporters.

Enjoy your Tuesdsay!

Keenos

Remembering the A to Z of transfer speculation

Leave a reply

Rodrygo, Jules Kounde, Andriy Lunin, Archie Grey and Semih Kilicsoy. That is just a list of some of then players Arsenal have been linked with this morning.

I remember back in the day we used to do an A to Z of transfer speculation.

In the mid 00s, it was fairly easy to manage as social media and clickbait blogs (beyond Goal.com) were not really a thing. the majority of the speculation came from newspapers.

Despite less sources, we would still get close to 200 names linked with us over the summer.

These days we do not bother with the A to Z of transfer speculation. There are just too many “news outlets” that rely on transfer speculation to generate their advertising revenue.

Were we to do it, and take into account every source, we would probably get above 500 players on the list. It would be a full time job – and I struggle to write the blog these days along with my full time job, let alone also go through every link on NewsNow.

It has been a quiet start for all clubs in terms of transfers. Although this has to be expected with a major summer tournament ongoing.

PSR also means that teams are less likely to do deals before 1 July – any deal up until 30 June needs to go into a clubs 2023/24 season accounts and signing a new player early can create a breach.

The only sniff we have had of deals so far is the transfer merry-go-round that some clubs are trying to instigate to ensure their books balance for 2023/24.

Aston Villa have balanced their books by doing deals with both Chelsea and Everton – Ian Maatsen and Lewis Dobin in, Omari Kellyman and Tim Iroegbunam out.

These deals bring instant income to all clubs that allows them to keep within PSR, whilst in turn kicks debt down the road in amoritised transfer fees. These sort of deals are a poor way to run a football club and there is only so long you can operate in this manner until it catches up to you.

I will be laughing at the tears when Everton or Aston Villa go into administration. I am sure their fans will find a way to blame Arsenal, Liverpool or Manchester United.

As for The Arsenal, we continue to operate sensibly, in the right manner. We continue to grow on and off the pitch with new, better players coming in as income rises. We really are a well run club these days.

I am off for a BBQ and to try and enjoy some sunshine in Essex. Have a great Saturday!

Keenos

Transfer merry-go-round circumnavigates PSR

1 Reply

Aston Villa close on signing Ian Maatsen after agreeing terms on six-year deal
Aston Villa forward Jhon Duran ‘excited’ to complete Chelsea transfer

Chelsea looking to sign Jhon Duran for around £40m, whilst Aston Villa pursue Ian Maatsen in a deal worth around £37m has raised a few eyebrows considering both clubs were on the list of “needing to sell” by the end of the month to avoid breaching Profit and Sustainability Rules.

How can they spend without selling first was a common comment under social media posts providing updates on the deal as many scratched their head. But what both clubs are looking to get out of their PSR predicament by scratching each other’s backs.

When you sell a player, 100% of the book profit goes straight into the accounts – the book profit being the difference between what you sell for minus what you still have remaining in amortised transfer fees.

But when you buy a player, you only need to account for 20% of their transfer fee if they are signing a 5-year deal.

Duran was signed in January 2023 by Villa for £14.75m. They have around £10m remaining in amortised transfer fees. If they sell for £40m, they then show a book profit of £30m. That is probably more than enough to keep them out of trouble with PSR.

Ian Maatsen has come through Chelsea’s youth system, so the £37m rumoured transfer fee would be 100% book profit.

Working the deals the other way (based on 5-year deals), Duran will cost Chelsea £8m a year, and Maatsen £7.4m to Villa.

For the 2023/24 accounts, the difference between Chelsea selling Maatsen and buying Duran is £29m, whilst Villa’s side of the deal will show a net £22.6m. These figures might be enough to ensure neither club falls foul to PSR for this year.

To make it clear, what they are doing is not a loophole, nor is either club twisting the rules. But it is the sort of transfer merry-go-round we will begin seeing clubs partake more in.

If you and another club are close to breaking PSR, instead of “having” to sell a star player to stay within the rules, you could just do a deal with another club in a similar situation for a “player swap”. But instead of just swapping players, you assign a fee to both.

At its extreme, you could both pick a 20-year-old academy graduate that you no longer really want, and sell them for £100m. Neither club is really spending anything as you are bank-transferring £100m across and then receiving £100m back. But what you are then doing is adding £100m profit to this years accounts.

Back in 2020, Juventus signed Arthur Melo from Barcelona on a five-year contract for €72m. “Going the other way”, Miralem Pjanić joined Barcelona from Juventus for €60m. The huge fees ensured that both clubs did not breach UEFA FFP rules.

The issue with this tactic is it is very short term.

Whilst you are adding £100m to your accounts for this year (based on if 2 clubs decide to push the situation to the max), it then adds a further £20m to a clubs amortisation costs for the next 4 years. That is money they then need to find. And whilst they could continue repeating the trick, each time you do it adds more to your costs for a player you might not really want.

And this is where a lack of knowledge comes in.

If Aston Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Newcastle or Nottingham Forest do this sort of deal together, their fans will celebrate “getting one over” the Premier League, not realising that they are not really solving the fact that their club is badly run.

I think we will see more of these sort of deals over the next few years. Aston Villa are this morning getting linked with Everton’s Lewis Dobbin. Do not be surprised if you see someone like Jacob Ramsey go the other way.

These sort of deals are a move of desperation. They are short-term. The footballing equivalent of taking out a pay day loan. They are not something a serious club would do.

Like Chelsea offering extreme long term contracts to bring down the amortisation costs, these sort of transfers are perfectly fine. But there is a huge downside that should be clear and obvious to all.

Badly run clubs need to come within the rules by ensuring their books naturally balance, and not by relying on selling hotels, training grounds or involving themselves in transfer merry-go-rounds. All of these are short term solutions and will just kick the can of debt and punishment down the road.

Keenos