Ethical dilemma : Slumdon or Franchise?

Anything yellow and blue

Who would you prefer to go up - Slumdon or Franchise?

Poll ended at Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:02 pm

Slumdon
14
64%
Franchise
8
36%
 
Total votes: 22

boris
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:44 pm
Location: The house with no door

Re:

Post by boris »

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: Much as I despise what Abramovic has done, he has not stolen a fotball club from one community and given it to another.
Not sure about that, GY. Abramovic has continued the trend started by Bates of pricing out the original working class supporters so that almost all Chelsea attendees are now professional people with a decent income. A community is not just defined along geographical lines. Not saying that Chelsea are alone in this - they patently aren't - but I think it's a valid point and one that doesn't seem to draw as much approbation from football fans as the franchise scenario (oh sure, people moan about ticket prices, but there are not organised boycotts, no demonstrations, no new clubs set up for disenfranchised fans because they can't afford to go - although FCUM come close - and no real lead from Supporters Direct or the FSA about fighting to bring ticket prices down).
Baboo
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:31 pm

Post by Baboo »

Agree with GY's posting but can see your arguement Boris although I think moving a football club and leaving it where it is but pricing out your long standing (but of course now seated) customers are two very different things. The latter is very bad, but the former very very very very bad IMHO.
Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re:

Post by Kernow Yellow »

&quotboris&quot wrote:Abramovic has continued the trend started by Bates of pricing out the original working class supporters so that almost all Chelsea attendees are now professional people with a decent income. A community is not just defined along geographical lines. Not saying that Chelsea are alone in this - they patently aren't - but I think it's a valid point and one that doesn't seem to draw as much approbation from football fans as the franchise scenario (oh sure, people moan about ticket prices, but there are not organised boycotts, no demonstrations, no new clubs set up for disenfranchised fans because they can't afford to go - although FCUM come close - and no real lead from Supporters Direct or the FSA about fighting to bring ticket prices down).
It's not as easy as that, though, is it? Like it or not, football is a business, and ticket prices will only come down when 'the community' are sufficiently unwilling to pay the prices asked that the stadium is only half full. Wigan are doing it at the moment, because they see it as the only way to get money through the turnstiles. It's a bit fanciful to think that any club owner would reduce prices when he knows he can sell out anyway charging £45 or whatever.

Some Man Utd fans boycotted the game at Fulham when they were charged something extortionate recently (£50, was it?), but there are enough plastic Mancs in the South East that the away end was full anyway.

Not saying it's right, or fair, or good, but as a Chairman you'd be a fool not to do the same...
A-Ro
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Beset by fools and ne'er do wells.

Post by A-Ro »

Franchise - I hate S*****n and I want to go to the county ground next year and see us win (again).
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotboris&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote: Much as I despise what Abramovic has done, he has not stolen a fotball club from one community and given it to another.
Not sure about that, GY. Abramovic has continued the trend started by Bates of pricing out the original working class supporters so that almost all Chelsea attendees are now professional people with a decent income. A community is not just defined along geographical lines. Not saying that Chelsea are alone in this - they patently aren't - but I think it's a valid point and one that doesn't seem to draw as much approbation from football fans as the franchise scenario (oh sure, people moan about ticket prices, but there are not organised boycotts, no demonstrations, no new clubs set up for disenfranchised fans because they can't afford to go - although FCUM come close - and no real lead from Supporters Direct or the FSA about fighting to bring ticket prices down).
I understand your point Boris, and I agree with you to an extent, hence my stated despising of what Abramovic has done. However, what Abramovic has done hasn't led so much to the ticket price increases you mention. It has led to Chelsea owing shed loads of money. The ticket prices would have been similar whether Abramovic was there or not. The ticket price issue is largely one of the making of UEFA in creating the ridiculous &quotChampions League&quot and inflated UEFA Cup, together with the formation of the Premiershit and the greed of the biggest few clubs who currently populate the upper echelons of the pyramid. You only have to look at ticket prices of other similar sized Premiershit clubs for confirmation of that testimony. In addition, the even greater margin of ticket prices at Chelsea came with the Bates era to offset the cost of getting Chelsea artificially to the higher ranks of British football.

I hate the artifical financial helping hand to get clubs into a position they do not deserve and cannot alone sustain. But that is some distance from thieving a club's league place to do a property deal elsewhere.
boris
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:44 pm
Location: The house with no door

Post by boris »

Yeah, I was playing devil's advocate to an extent (and believe me, the devil doesn't pay well), as I can see the obvious differences between the Chelsea situation and the franchise one, and to some extent my sympathies for Chelsea fans have been shrivelled by all the racist thuggery that I've encountered by them in the past. And also I can understand the various economic drivers in football and can understand (although not necessarily agree with) those who run football clubs on a business model that tries to maximise income, even if it does mean disenfranchising a whole customer base, so long as there's another, richer, customer base willing to come along to replace it.

As to your other point, GY, from earlier in the thread, I tend to agree that going to watch AFC would be the obvious counter to watching Franchise v Oxford, I'm just not sure that I have it in myself to refrain from supporting Oxford at a nearby away game (I would be prepared to donate the equivalent of the entry fee to AFC though, to assuage my undoubted guilt).
SmileyMan
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1637
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:39 am

Post by SmileyMan »

Just imagine the following scenario. Last match of the season, Oxford are comfortably mid-table, and the scum need just a point to avoid the drop. And they're coming here...... :twisted:
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow »

&quotboris&quot wrote:Yeah, I was playing devil's advocate to an extent (and believe me, the devil doesn't pay well), as I can see the obvious differences between the Chelsea situation and the franchise one, and to some extent my sympathies for Chelsea fans have been shrivelled by all the racist thuggery that I've encountered by them in the past. And also I can understand the various economic drivers in football and can understand (although not necessarily agree with) those who run football clubs on a business model that tries to maximise income, even if it does mean disenfranchising a whole customer base, so long as there's another, richer, customer base willing to come along to replace it.

As to your other point, GY, from earlier in the thread, I tend to agree that going to watch AFC would be the obvious counter to watching Franchise v Oxford, I'm just not sure that I have it in myself to refrain from supporting Oxford at a nearby away game (I would be prepared to donate the equivalent of the entry fee to AFC though, to assuage my undoubted guilt).
Senior committee member of a Supporters Trust will visit Franchise. Your internals must be a bit mixed up. :lol:
DLT
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Post by DLT »

Because I like playing devil's advocate I would like to ask another question or two.

Distance!

When Wimbledon moved from Plough Lane to Selhurst Park they possibly disenfranchised just as many of their original 'local' fans, the ones who used to walk down the road to watch non league football as they did with the second move. But there didn't seem to be any quandery about it from OUFC fans.

The next move to Wimbledon certainly disenfranchised their 'current' fan base who supported them at Selhurst Park. But this was predominantly a fan base of only a relatively short period of history.

So what about the fans OUFC disenfranchised moving from Headington to Greater Leys. From a suburban leafy community to an out of town 'new community'.

:wink: :wink: :wink:
Baboo
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:31 pm

Post by Baboo »

All a long time ago now but my recollection is that if any Wimbledon fans were disenfranchised by the move to Selhurst it was not the club's fault at the time. They wanted to stay within their catchment area but problems with the Council prevent the from doing so.

Dave, if you are going to be the advocate of the Devil you'll have to do better than suggesting that Headington to Greater Leys is equivalent to London to Milton Keynes.
DLT
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Post by DLT »

Surely they could have stayed at Plough Lane?
Boogie
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1656
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:17 pm

Post by Boogie »

Slumdon to go up, not MK please.

My ex-boss is an AFC supporter who worked on the property side of the Trust so I followed the story closely for a while.

Also MK dropping out of the top 5 might get me to the top of Dreamers League (going for the double this season!), talking of which, GY, get your Boot challenge for this Saturday sorted!
boris
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:44 pm
Location: The house with no door

Post by boris »

Another significant difference is that the move to Selhurst Park was always intended as a temporary solution while the club and Merton council tried to sort out a solution to the problems at Plough Lane. Obviously, their tenancy at Selhurst lasted a lot longer than anyone had envisaged, and in the end the return to Plough Lane proved impracticable, but there was certainly no pretence at all that the move to Milton Keynes is anything but permanent.
Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Ethical dilemma : Slumdon or Franchise?

Post by Snake »

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:The third promotion place in the fourth division is between Slumdon and Franchise. Simple question: which of them do you wish to succeed?

(Evasive answers to the effect of &quotneither&quot, invocations of points deductions and so on are taken as read and will not be accepted.)

My vote is for Slumdon.
“My vote is for Slumdon.
Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re: Ethical dilemma : Slumdon or Franchise?

Post by Kernow Yellow »

&quotSnake&quot wrote:p.s. FCUM is an entirely different situation.
Here here (or is it hear hear?).

They can FCUM OFF as far as I'm concerned.
Post Reply