The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 What you embarrassed about tho, the cost of going to Firhill? The cost of football generally? The fact yer neighbour cant afford to go to the football? All of those things, and more The point I am making is that a third of people in Glasgow cannot work due to having disabling conditions (not the same as people who get Disability Living Allowance at middle or high rate who the club may already recognise as you say). At least one third of people of working age in Glasgow are on some form of out of work benefit (usually as a result of disability) and this means they generally live on £65 a week. When you have vast numbers of people in that situation it seems sensible to me to adapt accordingly and try and find ways to include those people. My neighbour is a blazing Rangers fan (I hear the songs most nights from downstairs), but actually wants his son to become a Jag. The wee man's first game was at Firhill against Rangers a couple of years ago and apparently he came away asking his dad why he didn't support the Jags. I know he has pestered his dad to go again but its just too expensive when your disposable income is nil. If it was a fiver to get in for someone on Inapacity Benefit then dad might find that money sometimes. When its £17 there is no chance they will go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think that's probably true. I'd love to see it tried, getting a sponsor to cover the entire cost of a match and paying for the expected income, and announcing that it was entirely free to anybody who wanted to go. My suspicion is that not even the JH stand would get filled these days. If that is true then it means the players are being paid far too much (for the simple reason that not enough people want to watch them!). Slash gate prices by slashing players wages. Its very simple and it can be done (Dundee have guys playing as trialists for free ). End the nonsense of agents and "contracts" which mean nothing, and just pay players a decent but not excessive wage to play for Partick Thistle. High wages can only be justified by high results and I don't see us challenging for the league this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third Lanark Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 If that is true then it means the players are being paid far too much (for the simple reason that not enough people want to watch them!). Slash gate prices by slashing players wages. Its very simple and it can be done (Dundee have guys playing as trialists for free ). End the nonsense of agents and "contracts" which mean nothing, and just pay players a decent but not excessive wage to play for Partick Thistle. High wages can only be justified by high results and I don't see us challenging for the league this year. Questionable if they are really playing for free there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Questionable if they are really playing for free there A man in the pub told me they were Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) All of those things, and more The point I am making is that a third of people in Glasgow cannot work due to having disabling conditions (not the same as people who get Disability Living Allowance at middle or high rate who the club may already recognise as you say). At least one third of people of working age in Glasgow are on some form of out of work benefit (usually as a result of disability) and this means they generally live on £65 a week. When you have vast numbers of people in that situation it seems sensible to me to adapt accordingly and try and find ways to include those people. My neighbour is a blazing Rangers fan (I hear the songs most nights from downstairs), but actually wants his son to become a Jag. The wee man's first game was at Firhill against Rangers a couple of years ago and apparently he came away asking his dad why he didn't support the Jags. I know he has pestered his dad to go again but its just too expensive when your disposable income is nil. If it was a fiver to get in for someone on Inapacity Benefit then dad might find that money sometimes. When its £17 there is no chance they will go. Im not gona get into a political debate with you but I have a brother-in-law on incapacity benefit, it's questionable whether he should be entitled to it and Im not trying to tar all with the same brush, but he gets more money to live on per week than £65...he actually makes more than me when you consider he has no rent/mortgage or council tax to pay. Anyway that's an 'our system is fecked' debate for another part of the forum. For what it's worth, I feel Thistle have their pricing structure pretty much spot on relative to other Clubs of similar stature and can't be blamed for 'pricing people out' of going to watch football. The blame lies with Scottish football generally and until changes are made (such as those you mention in another post) there will always be those who can't afford to go to games. Edited March 12, 2011 by Steven H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Im not gona get into a political debate with you but I have a brother-in-law on incapacity benefit, it's questionable whether he should be entitled to it and Im not trying to tar all with the same brush, but he gets more money to live on per week than £65...he actually makes more than me when you consider he has no rent/mortgage or council tax to pay. Anyway that's an 'our system is fecked' debate for another part of the forum. For what it's worth, I feel Thistle have their pricing structure pretty much spot on relative to other Clubs of similar stature and can't be blamed for 'pricing people out' of going to watch football. The blame lies with Scottish football generally and until changes are made (such as those you mention in another post) there will always be those who can't afford to go to games. I'm not particularly trying to start a political debate! I was actually just trying to make a constructive suggestion about social inclusion. Feel free to disagree. I respect other people's opinions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 If that is true then it means the players are being paid far too much (for the simple reason that not enough people want to watch them!). Slash gate prices by slashing players wages. Its very simple and it can be done (Dundee have guys playing as trialists for free ). End the nonsense of agents and "contracts" which mean nothing, and just pay players a decent but not excessive wage to play for Partick Thistle. High wages can only be justified by high results and I don't see us challenging for the league this year. Some of our players are being paid an absolute pittance. Indeed barely double that magic JSA figure. The harsh reality is that for all the jiggery pokery with the numbers from our directors we lose £200k+ a year on current crowds and wages even with the Warriors pumping in £100kpa, and we have one of if not the smallest player budget(s) in the First Division ignoring the part-time teams. Dundee have trialists playing for free because these players are, for the most part, out of contract and using Dundee as an opportunity to attract interest from clubs in the summer. They are limited to 3 games and they cannot otherwise get game-time. We cannot afford to slash gate prices and pay for it by slashing the player budget. We have a mediocre team as it is and in order to make the football affordable to the people you mention it means having to cut the entrance fee by about half or more. That means we then need to increase the people through the gate by as much as 50%-100% just to stand still. If we then savagely cut the player budget the attendances will plummet when we're in a relegation battle, 2nd Division football, lower crowds and back to square one. Football is too expensive for would be punters and current punters: absolutely. But the harsh reality is that if Thistle cut their ticket prices they'll probably go out of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'm not particularly trying to start a political debate! I was actually just trying to make a constructive suggestion about social inclusion. Feel free to disagree. I respect other people's opinions Sorry, wasn't suggesting you were trying to start a political debate, was talking about what I then went on to say. I also don't think we are disagreeing much, except in where the embarrassment is from and blame is apportioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Some of our players are being paid an absolute pittance. Indeed barely double that magic JSA figure. The harsh reality is that for all the jiggery pokery with the numbers from our directors we lose £200k+ a year on current crowds and wages even with the Warriors pumping in £100kpa, and we have one of if not the smallest player budget(s) in the First Division ignoring the part-time teams. Dundee have trialists playing for free because these players are, for the most part, out of contract and using Dundee as an opportunity to attract interest from clubs in the summer. They are limited to 3 games and they cannot otherwise get game-time. We cannot afford to slash gate prices and pay for it by slashing the player budget. We have a mediocre team as it is and in order to make the football affordable to the people you mention it means having to cut the entrance fee by about half or more. That means we then need to increase the people through the gate by as much as 50%-100% just to stand still. If we then savagely cut the player budget the attendances will plummet when we're in a relegation battle, 2nd Division football, lower crowds and back to square one. Football is too expensive for would be punters and current punters: absolutely. But the harsh reality is that if Thistle cut their ticket prices they'll probably go out of business. Ok, then we need to slash overheads rather than players wages. Where is all the money going if players are being paid so little? Why are our overheads so high? Could it actually be that things like police costs are killing us. Lets identify what is actually happening and try to sort it out. Edited March 12, 2011 by The Devil's Point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 All of those things, and more The point I am making is that a third of people in Glasgow cannot work due to having disabling conditions (not the same as people who get Disability Living Allowance at middle or high rate who the club may already recognise as you say). At least one third of people of working age in Glasgow are on some form of out of work benefit (usually as a result of disability) and this means they generally live on £65 a week. When you have vast numbers of people in that situation it seems sensible to me to adapt accordingly and try and find ways to include those people. My neighbour is a blazing Rangers fan (I hear the songs most nights from downstairs), but actually wants his son to become a Jag. The wee man's first game was at Firhill against Rangers a couple of years ago and apparently he came away asking his dad why he didn't support the Jags. I know he has pestered his dad to go again but its just too expensive when your disposable income is nil. If it was a fiver to get in for someone on Inapacity Benefit then dad might find that money sometimes. When its £17 there is no chance they will go. If that was true then it would make Glasgow surely the sickest place on the planet. Anybody who actually believes that one person in three is ill or disabled to the point where they cannot hold down a job is seriously deluded, in my opinion. Just wanted to get that in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Ok, then we need to slash overheads rather than players wages. Where is all the money going if players are being paid so little? Why are our overheads so high? Could it actually be that things like police costs are killing us. Lets identify what is actually happening and try to sort it out. Servicing our debt and paying our bills. We can't do anything about police costs. They're imposed on us and already subsidised. Welcome to Scottish Football: il n'y a pas d'argent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 If that was true then it would make Glasgow surely the sickest place on the planet. Anybody who actually believes that one person in three is ill or disabled to the point where they cannot hold down a job is seriously deluded, in my opinion. Just wanted to get that in. Sure, but those are the present facts. Its not really news that Glasgow is a sick place. I think we still top European league tables for lung cancer and the like. I agree that more people are probably capable of work than is presently recognised, but its not that many more. The public just doesn't want to know the truth about the extent of disability in society. No one listens to me (probably understandably ) when I keep saying we need to redefine what disability is. It is my opinion that we can no longer afford to class addiction as a disability, and if we changed that a massive number of those currently classed as disabled have to think again. We go round and round in circles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Servicing our debt and paying our bills. We can't do anything about police costs. They're imposed on us and already subsidised. Welcome to Scottish Football: il n'y a pas d'argent. I think you are stating the truth but the logic of that is that we are already bust. Why waste our time worrying what to do, lets just despair. Mon the Jags and the Forum. Thoroughly enjoyed this debate but I'm going to butt out now and let others have theri say (for I have said too much already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think you are stating the truth but the logic of that is that we are already bust. I think we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Sure, but those are the present facts. Its not really news that Glasgow is a sick place. I think we still top European league tables for lung cancer and the like. I agree that more people are probably capable of work than is presently recognised, but its not that many more. The public just doesn't want to know the truth about the extent of disability in society. No one listens to me (probably understandably ) when I keep saying we need to redefine what disability is. It is my opinion that we can no longer afford to class addiction as a disability, and if we changed that a massive number of those currently classed as disabled have to think again. We go round and round in circles I agree with some, but not all of what you are saying. There may be around 1/3 of adults claiming disability allowances, but that does NOT mean that they are all disabled to the point that they are incapable of working. Many of them simply choose not to work, because they enjoy the lifestyle that not working and various allowances allow them to lead, and they're successful at conning too many people. Addiction is a difficult one, whether alcohol or drugs. In most cases, self-inflicted, and a real cause of misery to family members who are not also in the same boat, and indeed many of the addicts themselves. Frankly, many if not most of them are indeed incapable of holding down any kind of job that requires judgement and reliability. The best way to deal with them isn't easy to work out when resources are being stretched everywhere else (but bankers' bonuses), and I doubt if we could come up with the solution here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think you are stating the truth but the logic of that is that we are already bust. W We probably are. But we're less bust that some others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Devil's Point Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 I agree with some, but not all of what you are saying. There may be around 1/3 of adults claiming disability allowances, but that does NOT mean that they are all disabled to the point that they are incapable of working. Many of them simply choose not to work, because they enjoy the lifestyle that not working and various allowances allow them to lead, and they're successful at conning too many people. Addiction is a difficult one, whether alcohol or drugs. In most cases, self-inflicted, and a real cause of misery to family members who are not also in the same boat, and indeed many of the addicts themselves. Frankly, many if not most of them are indeed incapable of holding down any kind of job that requires judgement and reliability. The best way to deal with them isn't easy to work out when resources are being stretched everywhere else (but bankers' bonuses), and I doubt if we could come up with the solution here. Perhaps a person is incapable of work if no employer would ever hire them. Addiction is Scotland's secret and shame. The violence and abusive behaviour complained about after the old firm game had nothing to do with football. It was all to do with drink and our collective inability to handle the stuff. Alcohol turns nice guys into demons. If alcohol and drugs were impossible to get for say the next two weeks, then no-one would die. Some people would feel absolutely rotten for a few days but then they might feel better. Addiction is not an illness, it is a choice in my opinion. However, as things stand, addiction can be considered a disability for benefit purposes. I think a lot of taxpayers are starting to feel angry about having to pay people to get drunk. The system as it stands is basically a form of assisted suicide. But anyway, lets get back to talking about the football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Perhaps a person is incapable of work if no employer would ever hire them. Addiction is Scotland's secret and shame. The violence and abusive behaviour complained about after the old firm game had nothing to do with football. It was all to do with drink and our collective inability to handle the stuff. Alcohol turns nice guys into demons. If alcohol and drugs were impossible to get for say the next two weeks, then no-one would die. Some people would feel absolutely rotten for a few days but then they might feel better. Addiction is not an illness, it is a choice in my opinion. However, as things stand, addiction can be considered a disability for benefit purposes. I think a lot of taxpayers are starting to feel angry about having to pay people to get drunk. The system as it stands is basically a form of assisted suicide. But anyway, lets get back to talking about the football. Pretty much in agreement with all of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) My first Thistle game was in 1983. Thistle were a first division team. It cost me 50p to get into the ground through the boys gate, and a further 20p to get into the enclosure. I can't be 100% certain but I think it was simply double the juvenilles' price for adults and maybe £2-£2.50 for a seat in the stand. According to this site =CPI&use[]=NOMINALEARN&year_late=2008&typeamount=17&amount=17&year_source=2008&year_result=1983"]www.measuringworth.com , loosely speaking, we are paying somewhere between 2-6 times more to watch our team now, than we could to see Mo Johnston, Kenny McDowell, Doogie McNab, Ian Jardine, Kenny Watson.... Furthermore, there used to be 4 or 5 options going to firhill. The stand, the shed, behind the goal, the enclosure, hospitality. Each option offered a distinctly different feel to watching the game. Priced at different levels, if not entirely logically, punters generally found a place in the ground to suit them. Even under the shed there was an air of 3 degrees of supporter types. Each of the 3 sections got a wee bit "madder" as you got closer to the fence and the away supporters. Now there are two options. 17 quid or 85 quid. Apart from the clothes you're wearing, when your actually watching the game..... is there any real difference between the two? Edited March 12, 2011 by ChewinGumMacaroonBaaaz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.