So the club are conning fans? See I agree but people aren’t put off because of a 3 pound late comer charge. It’s however many years of bad management. As I pointed out, when the ticket is already 27 quid for standard lowest price seating on a normal “none standout” second tier game; you’ll do well to convince anyone who is out of the habit. I don’t think it’s the price, it’s the knock on of that recent history and the standard of second tier in some eyes. I tend to think this is worse now with Talksport being simply Arsenal and Tottenham, the dominance of the top six and the cost of the world class players being 100x of those only really marginally below. To sound like a broken record, I see it as a “negligible”, a non event that for all we know, does more to encourage membership into the reward scheme than put off those “only know my weekend plans by 1:15pm Saturday” fans. The “messages” from the club, aka the commitment and results of the team, of players and staff, investment in the squad, improved communication and social media coverage, new offers, events like the bonfire activity - it’s a stretch for me to get out my pram because of a charge that I’ll never even pay.

The fact it’s being complained at as a deterrent is exactly what I have problem with. It’s a decision they’ve made. Their reasoning? I can only assume but you say it may put 10 off.... what if it puts 10 others into jointing the rewards, ordering their tickets differently e.g. setting up an account or even thinking it’s better value to buy a half ST or participate in multi game offers? Bingo. The club should focus on making us better on the pitch to encourage fans and that takes money. If that means upping cost or selling 7000 tickets to Leeds and villa fans - so be it.

Yea I know that, it’s not relevant. The discussion seemed to be suggesting the surcharges and costs are putting people off in numbers - the point I’m making is the product or fixture tends to dictate people’s interest in attending. The surcharges don’t cost people committed to season tickets or regular walking on more. They cost people more who turn up last minute on a whim. I agree the other potentials are endless, I’ve said it before, kids of a certain age should be free and there are other great ideas. Still doesn’t change that this is an small and easily avoidable charge that’s being jumped on as something that it’s not.

We are talking about a business in an industry where the average salary at our level is more than 500k a year and rising! Costs go up, thus prices follow. The waiver for all surcharges at 12 quid really that bad? Jesus, I’d say the price of chips and hotdogs is more worthy of complaint. Factor in club cash, other offers, first choice on away seats etc - it’s worth it for a minimum of four games. Surely you’d agree we should be trying to encourage those to go more not pandering for going less? I think it’s obvious why comparing demand for a standard home game with a local or a perceived away “derby”; People will go to the one they want to regardless of cost. Would halving cost of tickets double walk ons for that fixture? I don’t think so personally. Turnover has to go up. I can see why people might think we should perhaps be doing or wording it differently (see @darren_rover ‘s post) but at the end of the day I accept that we need to boost the coffers- particularly when there is evidence they’re investing more on the pitch.

Will have to disagree on the impact of it, even though you even say that people attending will know before hand, which is one of 2 solid reasons for this cost being negligible. The other being the reward scheme making it free. The most basic income families would potentially feel it but we are talking a minority of those who’d be able to come regularly anyway. That’s a different argument. @darrenrover makes a point, if this was advertised as “27 quid a ticket but 10% off for those in the 1875 club and/or those tickets bought in advance” it would be seen completely differently and achieve exactly the same.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2018/november/ticket-news-sheffield-wednesday-h/ 27 quid in the riverside if you’re not in the 1875 club. 24 quid if you are. Will this game see the tickets fly out like Preston away? No, and It’s got feck all to do with surcharges. Plus one caveat that I hadn’t seen “1875 Club Members are exempt from the matchday price increase” So in essence the the surcharge is negligible, since if you know you can only got to a 3rd of the games and decide last minute, it saves you money to sign up to the rewards. Secondly people will pick and choose games by excitement ergo product. The price is generally secondary to the anticipated experience. Hence why I think the fans who use the excuse of 3 quid last minute charges aren’t avoiding games because of that cost.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/25531549 Quite sure this wasn’t cheap, and I recall about 17/8 thousand including a full city end turned up. Its product not price.

Would you pay the same for a 3rd round FA cup game at home to AFC Wimbledon?

But we both know they’d be back at 30 quid a pop if we played at a higher level RF, so why defend that sort of fan mentality, when it effectively damages the club and team long term? When you consider it this way, it’s easy to think the surcharges are potentially intended to push more towards ST and half ST.

@blueboy3333 My gripes with the ticketing at Ewood is more based on the above

I agree, seemed like a bit of a kick back, if I’d known it would be cheaper I would’ve got two bottles instead of a pint...!

No B.B. I get that people aren’t too happy about paying more in this climate, but I think you’re missing my point; This is also a perfect excuse for the lapsed fans who simply can’t be arsed with Rotherham at home. They’d pay it 3/4 times over if we had United, Liverpool, City etc, and never bat a eyelid. If it was price not product, wouldn’t we have seen at least one complaint about Preston charging us 27 quid basic for their game? Reason is- as you are pointing it out - that’s because entertainment wise, local derby with an edge is fair more enjoyable than the latest DC abomination or Star Wars Episode 19. I am not the marketing department or involved in finance so I cannot explain their decisions, but put it this way - I still think our tickets are correctly and fairly priced. If an improving young team on an upwards trend, with a good manager adding quality and class, investing in players, showing team spirit not seen for years, with a 1 defeat in over a year at home - needs to do more to “encourage fans to attend” then I personally think the fans deserve the criticism not the club.

It should be cheaper, it’s not a live sport, it doesn’t take the same facilities or organisation, it’s not as immersive and it has zero impact on our local economy. If you want to complain about anything, I think a large coke and a large popcorn being nearly 10 quid is more of a “pertinent” reason than a 3 quid late arrival surcharge.

Well that’s the first time I’ve ever seen anyone defend or support the pricing structure of cinemas - in my opinion the most pointlessly expensive experience there is these days, since it would cost me nearly 30 quid to take a friend at the weekend including drinks and snacks etc. As for rinsing our fans and putting off lapsed season ticket holders - it was a 1/4 off on all food and drink last Saturday, I don’t ever remember the club doing that, even before the Raos rocked up. I also don’t recall anyone mentioning that here. Fair enough the prices aren’t the cheapest anymore, but football (even in this league) ramps up in cost every season. FFP (if you’re prepared to accept its validity, certainly has done QPR serious damage imo) also means our football budget is linked to our actual monetary turnover - which makes me think we could be paying potentially twice as much if the wage boom trend in football continues. I have my own perspective - I’d probably pay more and I think those using the 3 quid surcharge excuse would literally use anything they could to justify their own lapsed interest. I’m sure these people aren’t scraping around for 3 quid if they’re considering a game including transport, food etc. I’d be more pissed off if I was a Burnley fan. Their club will likely turnover more this year than ever before and it also coincides with some of their better seats costing £550 for the season. Ludicrous.

I think we’d all agree a step in the right direction today? Pace and trickery to force a penalty cutting in from the wing. Potentially earned a starting berth since our next game is a previous league one team?

There’s something about the resilience of our squad that makes me think you’re probably on the money - still any top half finish has to be viewed as excellent! Long way to go yet but when Derek Williams comes in for injuries and ends up looking like Charlie Mulgrew’s equal, it’s hard not to be excited.

Stick to Fifa. If you expect every game to be 100% quality attacking and running a game, you’re a moron. We defended excellently today, Williams was particularly good. Armstrong, Reed, Evans, Smallwood et al all worked really hard if lacking a bit of final product. We never looked like losing to one of the form teams. We lacked quality, that’s a given but to come with some ridiculous comments sums up what kind of self entitled fan you are. Grow up

Grow up

This “that amount” talk needs to remember we’ve spent more paying players off in recent history than B.B. probably cost us upfront

Surely is an over entitled expectation to demand Danny Graham’s replacement one transfer window back into the championship? Confusion sounds fair but criticism would be a better word to describe what I would describe of over-expectation and impatient judgement. For instance his “square peg - square hole” position, which as many of us know can and will probably develop with age/games. I would like to see him have a run up top, but I’m not prepared to criticise his inclusion out wide, especially when we’ve utilised a 1 striker system for nearly all of the TMs time here. I can’t remember saying I don’t fancy him out wide though, I haven’t got anywhere near even making a judgement yet. Only thing I can remember is he takes an age to tie his laces...

See this is what I mean about the sense of over expectation + entitlement of fans. We aren’t even talking 3 months. He still hasn’t started a league game. It’s under the assumption he’s cost us 5m+ upfront. I dont assume that which likely changes my stance from the outset, regardless; The cost is probably going to end up be “cheap” if he has even the most marginal success here (English young strikers aren’t cheap). Hindsight with injuries to other positions in the squad, is a wonderful thing too. What about availability, interest and wages of other options like Mcgoldrick, Marriott, Bamford etc? We all want him to do well, I just expect it will take time for any teenager to gel into a squad, in a new area, with new facilities and a new manager and teammates.

I said nearly and if you take 35k a week, times it by 4 years, allow for NI and tax and a 10% signing on fee.. it’s not far off. The wage alone is 8m. I’d love to say I’d made up losing 20/30m on the likes of Dixon, Murphy, Best etc, but unfortunately it happened. In hindsight but I don’t know the wage structure or limits. I’m quite sure the club is moving in a better direction thus I trust they attempted to get cheaper or specific targets that slipped through the net. It’s never simple. We signed a lot of players again, they aren’t all going to come off but the confusion for me with B.B. is the instant expectation due to the perceived cost.

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/news/story/_/id/1129467/blackburn-rovers-sign-dickson-etuhu-from-fulham 4 year deal at reputed 30+k a week? Why do you think the clubs in so much debt..! https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/11273264.Paul_Wheelock_column__Blackburn_Rovers_hampered_by_wages_of_transfer_listed_players/

Two ends of madness. Obviously helped winning 3-0...!