Does anyone think its the categories they have got wrong and not the prices?

I think they have put too many at Cat A, the majority of our games should be at Cat B (£23), each Cat should also be chosen 4-6 weeks before the game and not set out before a season starts, we don't know how that teams going to do.

4-5 games at Cat A (£30) Leeds United/West Ham etc
majority at Cat B (£23)
4-5 games at Cat C (£16) Peterboro/Watford/Palace..

Only around 15% of our home crowd are pay on the day customers so the majority of supporters have had some of the best deals in the league on season tickets. Season tickets could also have been marketed a lot better.

 

There certainly shouldn't by 16 Cat A games, especially when set at the start of the season.

 

There has to be an on-going review to enable a true reflection on how teams are doing at the time and how it would affect the potential gate in terms of their league position. After all, if a so called big club is struggling at the bottom, even the away support from that club will be hard pressed to dig into their pockets to stump up the £30 rip off price. I agree that most games should be based on the category B rating, which in the current climate is a much fairer price.

 

I dont believe in a category system. If I did, then only Donny, Leeds, Forest and West Ham would get my vote as CAT A. But the maximum price for those fixtures would be £25 for both sets of fans.
That would leave 19 fixtures. Id set CAT B prices at £20, and CAT C at £10. These are adult prices btw.
But at the start of the season id have only announced the 4 CAT A games. But id have also announced that the remaining games would be given a category the day the tickets went on sale. And that there would be at least 5 CAT C games. Which would leave 14 possible CAT B games, but with the room to knock them down to CAT C if needed.
But having said all that, I would - if it was my decision - charge a flat rate of £20 for all 23 home fixtures.
As the FSF campaign motto says,
"Twenty Is Plenty"

 

It was only a few months ago that BFC said they would decide on match categories the month before the match. That didn't last.

Would have meant top-of-the-table QPR wouldn't have been ten quid less than bottom-of-the-table Scunny

 

The cost of a game isn't really a big deal to me. Not trying to sound loaded or anything, but I don't have kids and have very few outgoings for someone my age so most of my income is my own. As a result £30 doesn't bother me but I can see how it could be expensive to others. So yes I do think £30 is too high.

I also think that 16 Cat A games is scandalous. I would expect: Leeds, West Ham, and maybe one or two others to be Cat A and to be priced about 27 quid and kids for £15.

I would view the majority of games as Cat B and price them at £20, with kids for a fiver, with the remaining few against southern based teams who won't bring many fans (such as Watford) as Cat C priced at £16 with kids for a quid.

I would also make a concerted effort to get as many schoolkids in to the Cat C games for free en-masse to grow some future fans and to help fill the ground.

As for the cups... I wouldn't even enter the league cup, but if forced, I'd let everyone in for a fiver. FA cup would be priced according to the attraction levels of the tie with a cap at £30 for a big Premier team (kids for £15).

I'd also commission two HUGE BFC tarpaulins to cover the empty seats in West Stand North and the East side of the North stand, to create some ownership and identity of Oakwell and to frankly disguise the feeling of emptiness in the ground.

However, all my opinions are formed with no insight of the financial implications of such a pricing structure.

 

The way i see it is, Barnsley fans are first and foremost going to watch Barnsley, so why charge the home fans more for watching their own team.