| Bournemouth 12:04 - Mar 10 with 8725 views | LRB84UK |
Sold out in 30 seconds. Me and the boy on 39 points missed out. Beyond frustrated that we'll be losing our 100% record this season! |  | | |  |
| Bournemouth on 15:28 - Mar 10 with 1498 views | Mullet |
| Bournemouth on 15:23 - Mar 10 by BlueNomad |
They are close to finishing their new out of town training ground which looks amazing. That will free up the current training ground which is next to the stadium .Work can then start on that site, meaning they don’t have to move while it’s being done. When the current stadium was being built they played at Dorchester, possible because they were in L2 at the time. I don’t think they can be expected to move over 30 miles to play at St Mary’s!
Things aren’t always as straightforward as they first appear. |
They’ve spent 9/10 years in the Prem - if they want to be at that level they should have done more sooner. |  |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:03 - Mar 10 with 1423 views | football |
| Bournemouth on 14:35 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
You’ll have to explain how. It’s no different to clubs who step up in non league and have to bring stuff up to standard.
Why should they continue to rake in billions and not invest in infrastructure for fans? Especially after they were bankrolled to the top. 3k fans for the biggest league in the world is paltry anyway. Why should they be exempt from doing the bare minimum? |
Why shoudl they be forced to build and pay for a larger ground than they want or possibly need? They have invested in their fans and they have invested in their training facilities. Other fans have no right to dictate what is and is not acceptable for other clubs. I'd much prefer they keep their existing ground which works for them than move to a soulless bowl where normal fans are priced out for tourists so a few other away fans may be able to attend | | | |
| Bournemouth on 16:04 - Mar 10 with 1424 views | football |
| Bournemouth on 14:12 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
Nah, it’s unacceptable. Either give teams 3k or get out of the league. Syphoning that money off and not bothering to do the bare minimum is scandalous.
There’s no way in the world they and palace etc couldn’t smarten up their grounds - it’s a choice. |
And our ground is fantastic right??? The Cobbold stand, particularly for away fans is awful with tight rows, many restricted view and poor refreshment facilities. Those in glass houses and all | | | |
| Bournemouth on 16:08 - Mar 10 with 1413 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Bournemouth on 14:17 - Mar 10 by NeedhamChris |
This is up there with the Brighton banner. The entitlement and snobbery because it's Bournemouth.
10% is fair, even if annoying. |
Completely agree, my controversial take on away tickets is that it’s not teams like Bournemouth where 10% of tickets is only 1.3k for away fans that are the issue, but instead the fact teams with huge capacities like Man U are only required to give 3k
Think if clubs were just required to offer 10% then most of the issues would go away, and games like Bournemouth would be considered a quaint little away day much like AFC Wimbledon was a couple of years ago. Although that would mean clubs having to sell those extra tickets at £30 rather than the £60+ they charge home fans… |  |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:10 - Mar 10 with 1395 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 14:35 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
You’ll have to explain how. It’s no different to clubs who step up in non league and have to bring stuff up to standard.
Why should they continue to rake in billions and not invest in infrastructure for fans? Especially after they were bankrolled to the top. 3k fans for the biggest league in the world is paltry anyway. Why should they be exempt from doing the bare minimum? |
If the bare minimum is 3000 OR 10% - how are they exempt from it? | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:12 - Mar 10 with 1387 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Bournemouth on 16:10 - Mar 10 by NeedhamChris |
If the bare minimum is 3000 OR 10% - how are they exempt from it? |
Because it’s whichever is the smallest of the two, not largest | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:12 - Mar 10 with 1374 views | bluelagos |
| Bournemouth on 16:10 - Mar 10 by NeedhamChris |
If the bare minimum is 3000 OR 10% - how are they exempt from it? |
It's 3000 or 10%, whichever is the lower. |  |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:13 - Mar 10 with 1369 views | tommcd |
| Bournemouth on 16:10 - Mar 10 by NeedhamChris |
If the bare minimum is 3000 OR 10% - how are they exempt from it? |
The Premier League rule is whichever is the lower of the two. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bournemouth on 16:13 - Mar 10 with 1356 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 16:12 - Mar 10 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Because it’s whichever is the smallest of the two, not largest |
Exactly, and they meet that requirement don't they? | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:15 - Mar 10 with 1341 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 16:12 - Mar 10 by bluelagos |
It's 3000 or 10%, whichever is the lower. |
I agree. Mullet is suggesting they're exempted from the bare minimum. I'm saying they're not because 10% (or 3000) is the rule and they meet it. [Post edited 10 Mar 16:15]
| |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:23 - Mar 10 with 1279 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 16:08 - Mar 10 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Completely agree, my controversial take on away tickets is that it’s not teams like Bournemouth where 10% of tickets is only 1.3k for away fans that are the issue, but instead the fact teams with huge capacities like Man U are only required to give 3k
Think if clubs were just required to offer 10% then most of the issues would go away, and games like Bournemouth would be considered a quaint little away day much like AFC Wimbledon was a couple of years ago. Although that would mean clubs having to sell those extra tickets at £30 rather than the £60+ they charge home fans… |
I agree entirely, I don't think it's the Bournemouths of this world we should be annoyed at. You can pretty much guarantee that most of those fans at their ground are Bournemouth through and through as will have had a ticket for a while - whereas the tourists come first at Old Trafford, Anfield etc.
If you're going to be fair and balanced - people also need to include Brentford and Palace, rather than just picking on Bournemouth because the situation has annoyed them. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 16:58 - Mar 10 with 1201 views | Mullet |
| Bournemouth on 16:10 - Mar 10 by NeedhamChris |
If the bare minimum is 3000 OR 10% - how are they exempt from it? |
I didn’t say they were, I said they should supply 3k fans like everybody else does. You’re quoting something I didn’t say, because I think the rule is sh1t. Much like the argument that they should continue doing what they want. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 17:31 - Mar 10 with 1144 views | football |
| Bournemouth on 16:58 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
I didn’t say they were, I said they should supply 3k fans like everybody else does. You’re quoting something I didn’t say, because I think the rule is sh1t. Much like the argument that they should continue doing what they want. |
but why? they have to do 10% which they do. Why should they therefore sacrifice seats for their loyal fans so they can sell tickets to away fans at a considerably lower price? It's a business. If it was our gaff and we were told to sell more to away fans, our home fans would be rightly put out | | | |
| Bournemouth on 18:03 - Mar 10 with 1096 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 16:58 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
I didn’t say they were, I said they should supply 3k fans like everybody else does. You’re quoting something I didn’t say, because I think the rule is sh1t. Much like the argument that they should continue doing what they want. |
Apologies, I interpreted "Why should they be exempt from doing the bare minimum?" as you suggesting they were exempt from the bare minimum.
Also, when you say "everyone else does" - 20% of the Premier League (4 clubs) provide less than 3k. So they're hardly on their own.
Just find this a bit tinpot going after Bournemouth (because ultimately, they're now a more established club than we are). | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:07 - Mar 10 with 1070 views | Mullet |
| Bournemouth on 17:31 - Mar 10 by football |
but why? they have to do 10% which they do. Why should they therefore sacrifice seats for their loyal fans so they can sell tickets to away fans at a considerably lower price? It's a business. If it was our gaff and we were told to sell more to away fans, our home fans would be rightly put out |
Did you not pay attention this summer?  Ashton: The Stadium Will Be Ready 25th Jul 2024 21:25Town CEO Mark Ashton says Portman Road will be ready to host Liverpool on the opening day of the season, despite 104 separate projects which have been ongoing throughout the summer involving more than 200 workers.  20
If we refused any of that, what do you think the reaction would be? Let alone it was all done immediately not over the course of a decade or so. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:10 - Mar 10 with 1052 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 18:07 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
Did you not pay attention this summer? Ashton: The Stadium Will Be Ready 25th Jul 2024 21:25Town CEO Mark Ashton says Portman Road will be ready to host Liverpool on the opening day of the season, despite 104 separate projects which have been ongoing throughout the summer involving more than 200 workers. 20
If we refused any of that, what do you think the reaction would be? Let alone it was all done immediately not over the course of a decade or so. |
The article where we strive to meet the same rule and requirement that Bournemouth already do? | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:12 - Mar 10 with 1035 views | Mullet |
| Bournemouth on 18:03 - Mar 10 by NeedhamChris |
Apologies, I interpreted "Why should they be exempt from doing the bare minimum?" as you suggesting they were exempt from the bare minimum.
Also, when you say "everyone else does" - 20% of the Premier League (4 clubs) provide less than 3k. So they're hardly on their own.
Just find this a bit tinpot going after Bournemouth (because ultimately, they're now a more established club than we are). |
No you didn’t. You read what you wanted and made a mistake. If you think it’s reasonable that clubs can become established in the most corporate league in the world and not cater to fans even a little bit, that’s fine but a weird position to take.
Allowing inconsistencies like this is why the game and the pyramid is such a mess. Fans supporting it even worse. Thank Christ the away ticket price cap came in at least. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:14 - Mar 10 with 1017 views | football |
| Bournemouth on 18:07 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
Did you not pay attention this summer? Ashton: The Stadium Will Be Ready 25th Jul 2024 21:25Town CEO Mark Ashton says Portman Road will be ready to host Liverpool on the opening day of the season, despite 104 separate projects which have been ongoing throughout the summer involving more than 200 workers. 20
If we refused any of that, what do you think the reaction would be? Let alone it was all done immediately not over the course of a decade or so. |
We were having to do it to comply with FA rules and nothing more, so yes I paid attention. What is being suggested by you is that Bournmouth go over and above the 10% requirement (as they have less than 30,000 capacity) which is different. The financial hit will be considerably harder for them as they have less fans.
If they suggest things like this smaller clubs (Bournmouth, Palace, Fulham) woudl struggle and we end up with more tourist big clubs that sacrifice fans for instant money. | | | |
| Bournemouth on 18:15 - Mar 10 with 1014 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 18:12 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
No you didn’t. You read what you wanted and made a mistake. If you think it’s reasonable that clubs can become established in the most corporate league in the world and not cater to fans even a little bit, that’s fine but a weird position to take.
Allowing inconsistencies like this is why the game and the pyramid is such a mess. Fans supporting it even worse. Thank Christ the away ticket price cap came in at least. |
I was being polite, it's quite clear what you said - others can judge that.
Out of interest, how many of Fulham, Brentford, Bournemouth and Crystal Palace did you get tickets for?
It is not an inconsistency - as a supporter of a club who expanded their stadium too quickly and then ended up in administration (and damaging local businesses along the way), would have expected you to be more understanding of a club doing it in a slow and methodical manner. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:16 - Mar 10 with 1004 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 18:14 - Mar 10 by football |
We were having to do it to comply with FA rules and nothing more, so yes I paid attention. What is being suggested by you is that Bournmouth go over and above the 10% requirement (as they have less than 30,000 capacity) which is different. The financial hit will be considerably harder for them as they have less fans.
If they suggest things like this smaller clubs (Bournmouth, Palace, Fulham) woudl struggle and we end up with more tourist big clubs that sacrifice fans for instant money. |
Yep, exactly. Brentford as well. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:17 - Mar 10 with 1000 views | football |
| Bournemouth on 18:12 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
No you didn’t. You read what you wanted and made a mistake. If you think it’s reasonable that clubs can become established in the most corporate league in the world and not cater to fans even a little bit, that’s fine but a weird position to take.
Allowing inconsistencies like this is why the game and the pyramid is such a mess. Fans supporting it even worse. Thank Christ the away ticket price cap came in at least. |
How do you know they are not catering for fans? Do you know what their fanbase is, waiting lists etc or are you just taking the view of some away fans? Football is in a mess not through the likes of Bournmouth (and 100% fair play to them) but the oil driven clubs, who charge stupid amount for ticket so push out the loyal fans - just look at what's happened at Man City, West Ham, Spurs and pretty sure will follow at Everton. To me, that is the main issue. The fact that Bournemouth are competing with such a low gate at games is brilliant and an example that other clubs can do it | | | |
| Bournemouth on 18:20 - Mar 10 with 968 views | Mullet |
| Bournemouth on 18:14 - Mar 10 by football |
We were having to do it to comply with FA rules and nothing more, so yes I paid attention. What is being suggested by you is that Bournmouth go over and above the 10% requirement (as they have less than 30,000 capacity) which is different. The financial hit will be considerably harder for them as they have less fans.
If they suggest things like this smaller clubs (Bournmouth, Palace, Fulham) woudl struggle and we end up with more tourist big clubs that sacrifice fans for instant money. |
You asked why should they inconvenience their loyal fans. We did exactly that and loads more without much fuss or fanfare.
They’re operating on a par with Fleetwood et whilst taking in Prem money - that’s the absurdity of the system and your argument. As circular as this is becoming thanks to this sort of “plucky little Bournemouth” stuff, even at non league there are requirements and expectations.
This is meant to be the pinnacle of world football, with the money sloshing around to boot. The idea that clubs can’t meet an allocation that small is laughable. Especially when they’ve just spent loads on everything else and done nothing with their ground. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:27 - Mar 10 with 942 views | football |
| Bournemouth on 18:20 - Mar 10 by Mullet |
You asked why should they inconvenience their loyal fans. We did exactly that and loads more without much fuss or fanfare.
They’re operating on a par with Fleetwood et whilst taking in Prem money - that’s the absurdity of the system and your argument. As circular as this is becoming thanks to this sort of “plucky little Bournemouth” stuff, even at non league there are requirements and expectations.
This is meant to be the pinnacle of world football, with the money sloshing around to boot. The idea that clubs can’t meet an allocation that small is laughable. Especially when they’ve just spent loads on everything else and done nothing with their ground. |
And it is comments like this that ruin football. I'd much prefer clubs like Bourmouth (and they should not be singled out for small grounds) than a plethora of so called big clubs founded on oil money making more of a closed shop that it is. You seem to be arguing for a requirement of a certain sized ground to be allowed in the PL - or something like that. Let's just batten the hatches and close the PL shop then. There is nothing wrong with their ground - its actually not old, nice and decent facilities compared to many and I suspect for fans is better than many of the large grounds | | | |
| Bournemouth on 18:32 - Mar 10 with 908 views | NeedhamChris |
| Bournemouth on 18:27 - Mar 10 by football |
And it is comments like this that ruin football. I'd much prefer clubs like Bourmouth (and they should not be singled out for small grounds) than a plethora of so called big clubs founded on oil money making more of a closed shop that it is. You seem to be arguing for a requirement of a certain sized ground to be allowed in the PL - or something like that. Let's just batten the hatches and close the PL shop then. There is nothing wrong with their ground - its actually not old, nice and decent facilities compared to many and I suspect for fans is better than many of the large grounds |
Have a feeling this might be more simple, and just one person who feels entitled to go to every game they want missing out on a ticket. | |
| |
| Bournemouth on 18:39 - Mar 10 with 877 views | football |
| Bournemouth on 18:16 - Mar 10 by NeedhamChris |
Yep, exactly. Brentford as well. |
Forgot about Brentford - boot them out I say!!! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
