Patrick Cryne's comments in today Chronicle.

RE: "It exists as a charity"

Can't we get some form of tax credit then...

 

Complete lack of control systems when PR took over with PC's cash

someone must be liable for that?

 

I think you've answered your own question/theory, Jay!

The two fundamental (and largest) incomes keeping BFC afloat at this point in time are Patrick's money and the season ticket/day admission income. During the close season BFC had to project Season Ticket/day admission sales and the income raised. Given they had a pretty fair idea of the outgoings for this season, any hard-headed businessman/men would seek to maximise that income. BFC choose to do this by maximising the price they consider the fans are willing to pay for the tickets. You could argue that they should have gone down the route of lowering the prices and hopefully increasing the number of sales - but presumably the Board considered they couldn't afford to take that risk at this point in time. After all, they have no way of knowing how many extra tickets (and therefore income raised) would be generated via this process, and if it fell below expectations then the repercussions are obvious.

They do have ways of estimating ticket sales as a result of a price rise, as they have trends stretching back over previous years where a price rise has occurred. It's understandable therefore, in my opinion, that they took a relatively 'safe' approach, given the current financial instability that exists at Oakwell.

 

I think you've answered your own question/theory, Jay!

The two fundamental (and largest) incomes keeping BFC afloat at this point in time are Patrick's money and the season ticket/day admission income. During the close season BFC had to project Season Ticket/day admission sales and the income raised. Given they had a pretty fair idea of the outgoings for this season, any hard-headed businessman/men would seek to maximise that income. BFC choose to do this by maximising the price they consider the fans are willing to pay for the tickets. You could argue that they should have gone down the route of lowering the prices and hopefully increasing the number of sales - but presumably the Board considered they couldn't afford to take that risk at this point in time. After all, they have no way of knowing how many extra tickets (and therefore income raised) would be generated via this process, and if it fell below expectations then the repercussions are obvious.

They do have ways of estimating ticket sales as a result of a price rise, as they have trends stretching back over previous years where a price rise has occurred. It's understandable therefore, in my opinion, that they took a relatively 'safe' approach, given the current financial instability that exists at Oakwell.

 

I read that to mean that some of his comments were made 'tongue in cheek'.

For example his comments about 'God knows why he's involved in BFC' (when we all know he's involved because he's a fan), 'BFC existing as a charity' and possibly him 'thinking Barnsley will be promoted this season'!! ff

I doubt he would make public comments about Barnsley's finances totally tongue in cheek.

 

RE: I have no doubt that Patrick Cryne's comments are correct

elasticity of demand being discussed on the bbs; we've reached new heights!

 

RE: "the elastic demand of the product"

Yes, Mr Journo, but should we not take into account the Keynsian multiplier effect on the Barnsley fans marginal perpensity to watch the reds.</p>

Economics studies circa 1980.</p>

Post for sados who did Economics</p>

 

RE: "It exists as a charity"

Hiya</p>

Have they let you out of hospital after suffering nervous breakdown on the final day of the ashes  didn't think you've been around for a while</p>

 

.

.