Fiver a game or £70 a season seems reasonable to me for parking 2 minutes from the turnstiles.
Of course the "I'll park anywhere I want and it should be free cos I pay road tax, can't share with anyone cos I like doing my own thing, why is there such a queue after games, who are all these other people and why don't they walk or come on a bus" brigade still won't be happy.
As a customer, I don't pay to park at Tesco's, Homebase or any other out of town business. It's just another example of clubs exploiting the loyalty of their supporters. I know all clubs do it, where they can, but it wasn't always the way and, as I say, other businesses try and attract customers by making it easy for them. If Honebase started charging for parking they know their customers would go elsewhere. As we know, with a football club it's not quite that simple.
& because 'its not quite that simple' the comparison is spurious, if there was a unique shop in the town centre that you really wanted to visit you would pay to park
Also have to remember that the club do not own the land the car park is situated on, as such it is a cost, but at a 100% overnight increase was a step too far!
Perhaps the cinema at Handy Cross is a less spurious comparison. On some occasions it may be the only cinema for miles around showing a particular film, making it 'unique', but they still don't charge their customers to park.
I'm sorry but it's still a poor comparison. The cinema has ample parking - we don't. As such, there has to be some mechanism for rationing the limited parking that is available and charging for it is the obvious way. People can make their own choice as to whether they park nearer to the ground and pay more or further away and pay less or nothing, or get there early and pay nothing. There is free disabled parking in the actual ground car park which is as it should be.
Actually I'm not sure it's a case of limited supply, more a case of making some much needed money for the club. £5 being an ample amount and £10 being ridiculous.
I think that for %90 of games they could just leave the entirety of the carpark unmanned, not charge a penny and there would still be space by 3PM. Of course that is not what they should do though.
They are still facing an uphill battle to improve the finances. Sadly a significant proportion of those who pledged to chip in to the Community Share Scheme haven't taken up the option. It would be good to see an increase in take-up. Perhaps this will happen now that the new season is under way and people become more aware of the need. I really hope so.
@micra for a Community Share Scheme to work, there needs to be a greater level of supporter involvement and consultation. There needs to be real democratic involvement for supporters, and large numbers of them. The model has been successful for villages buying their local or stopping their post office from being closed. It is grassroots involvement in their running that gives people the sense of ownership to want to give money to a cause that they will never see back.
For it to be successful, you can't have one without the other, and I would predict we will see larger amounts of private loans put into the club in order to balance the books.
@peterparrotface As I've said before, I think Damien Irvine will be key in relation to the need for people to feel "wanted" and part of the team. As I understand it, this is something he is keen to foster. If his "hands on" approach on Saturday is anything to go by, he will do just that.
I'm not being critical of Wycombe in particular and, as has been said, they certainly need the money! I think all clubs now charge for parking because it's easy money. I'm just making the point that it's another example where in the modern day football supporters are treated worse than customers of other businesses. It wasn't always the way, I remember going to Scunthorpe and I think Walsall in their first seasons at their new grounds and parking was free.
Doobs, not treated worse just the pricing model is different.
In essence if the total costs of running the club are equivalent of 80000 per game, then the club needs to raise 80000 in revenue to survive. If it averages 4000 per game of which 500 park in its car park, it has a choice. It can either charge all 4000 people £20 and make parking free OR it can charge £5 per car for parking (raising £2500) meaning it can reduce admission fees to £19.38 each.
Question is then is it best to give people the illusion of free parking by effectively making all customers pay for it in higher admission fees whether they park or not OR make the parkers pay and reduce admission fees for the rest. What you cant do in that model is have cheaper admission fees and free parking.
Judgment call which model is the fairer. i think on balance I prefer charging to park.
'Judgment' can be spelt both ways. Actually the Revised version of the Bible uses the 'judgement' spelling and this is also recommended by the Oxford English Dictionary.
@AttitudeEra I think this is pedantry in its most amusing form - that is, wrong.
Both "judgment" and "judgement" are correct in standard English. Lawyers tend to use the former spelling to refer to a court judgment. In this case, "judgement" would be the more common, and equally correct, spelling.
Would it be pedantic to point out that my spelling of judgment was not in fact a principled stand for pedantry in respect of the correct spelling of that word but in fact was simply a result of an apparent misjudgement of the distance between my finger and the letter "e" on the keyboard at the critical time resulting in a crucial error. Over smaller errors great wars have been fought. I apologis.
Please excuse what was in fact a bit of an in joke. I was having a discussion about this very word this morning with a fellow supporter, stemming back from the days when I was incorrectly marked down on an English literature dissertation for 'incorrect' use of the word 'judgement'.
As things go, everyone here is right in that, although there has been debate over the years as to whether one spelling is 'American' or 'legal speak', both are in fact interchangeable in modern British English.
As a point of principle however, I have always favoured 'judgment' since the above referenced dissertation incident!
DevC - you missed some crucial economics in your "500 people pay and extra £5 to park" in that there is a price which will be beyond the current users - so that you may end up with 200 people paying a tenner = £2000 instead of the current 500 paying a £5 = £2500. Elementary my dear boy.
Comments
Fiver a game or £70 a season seems reasonable to me for parking 2 minutes from the turnstiles.
Of course the "I'll park anywhere I want and it should be free cos I pay road tax, can't share with anyone cos I like doing my own thing, why is there such a queue after games, who are all these other people and why don't they walk or come on a bus" brigade still won't be happy.
As a customer, I don't pay to park at Tesco's, Homebase or any other out of town business. It's just another example of clubs exploiting the loyalty of their supporters. I know all clubs do it, where they can, but it wasn't always the way and, as I say, other businesses try and attract customers by making it easy for them. If Honebase started charging for parking they know their customers would go elsewhere. As we know, with a football club it's not quite that simple.
& because 'its not quite that simple' the comparison is spurious, if there was a unique shop in the town centre that you really wanted to visit you would pay to park
Absolutely.
Also have to remember that the club do not own the land the car park is situated on, as such it is a cost, but at a 100% overnight increase was a step too far!
Perhaps the cinema at Handy Cross is a less spurious comparison. On some occasions it may be the only cinema for miles around showing a particular film, making it 'unique', but they still don't charge their customers to park.
I'm sorry but it's still a poor comparison. The cinema has ample parking - we don't. As such, there has to be some mechanism for rationing the limited parking that is available and charging for it is the obvious way. People can make their own choice as to whether they park nearer to the ground and pay more or further away and pay less or nothing, or get there early and pay nothing. There is free disabled parking in the actual ground car park which is as it should be.
Actually I'm not sure it's a case of limited supply, more a case of making some much needed money for the club. £5 being an ample amount and £10 being ridiculous.
I think that for %90 of games they could just leave the entirety of the carpark unmanned, not charge a penny and there would still be space by 3PM. Of course that is not what they should do though.
They are still facing an uphill battle to improve the finances. Sadly a significant proportion of those who pledged to chip in to the Community Share Scheme haven't taken up the option. It would be good to see an increase in take-up. Perhaps this will happen now that the new season is under way and people become more aware of the need. I really hope so.
@micra for a Community Share Scheme to work, there needs to be a greater level of supporter involvement and consultation. There needs to be real democratic involvement for supporters, and large numbers of them. The model has been successful for villages buying their local or stopping their post office from being closed. It is grassroots involvement in their running that gives people the sense of ownership to want to give money to a cause that they will never see back.
For it to be successful, you can't have one without the other, and I would predict we will see larger amounts of private loans put into the club in order to balance the books.
I'm a massive broken record here, so apologies.
@peterparrotface As I've said before, I think Damien Irvine will be key in relation to the need for people to feel "wanted" and part of the team. As I understand it, this is something he is keen to foster. If his "hands on" approach on Saturday is anything to go by, he will do just that.
I'm not being critical of Wycombe in particular and, as has been said, they certainly need the money! I think all clubs now charge for parking because it's easy money. I'm just making the point that it's another example where in the modern day football supporters are treated worse than customers of other businesses. It wasn't always the way, I remember going to Scunthorpe and I think Walsall in their first seasons at their new grounds and parking was free.
Doobs, not treated worse just the pricing model is different.
In essence if the total costs of running the club are equivalent of 80000 per game, then the club needs to raise 80000 in revenue to survive. If it averages 4000 per game of which 500 park in its car park, it has a choice. It can either charge all 4000 people £20 and make parking free OR it can charge £5 per car for parking (raising £2500) meaning it can reduce admission fees to £19.38 each.
Question is then is it best to give people the illusion of free parking by effectively making all customers pay for it in higher admission fees whether they park or not OR make the parkers pay and reduce admission fees for the rest. What you cant do in that model is have cheaper admission fees and free parking.
Judgment call which model is the fairer. i think on balance I prefer charging to park.
@DevC it must be a miracle, someone has spelt 'judgment' correctly!
'Judgment' can be spelt both ways. Actually the Revised version of the Bible uses the 'judgement' spelling and this is also recommended by the Oxford English Dictionary.
@AttitudeEra I think this is pedantry in its most amusing form - that is, wrong.
Both "judgment" and "judgement" are correct in standard English. Lawyers tend to use the former spelling to refer to a court judgment. In this case, "judgement" would be the more common, and equally correct, spelling.
Damn the pedants (or is it dam).
@Morris_Ital. It is, of course, "damn".
Is it pedantic to point out that someone else's attempt at pedantry is, in fact, wrong?
The dam breaks.
The brakes on the brake broke, the brake hit the dam and the damn dam and the damn brake broke?
Would it be pedantic to point out that my spelling of judgment was not in fact a principled stand for pedantry in respect of the correct spelling of that word but in fact was simply a result of an apparent misjudgement of the distance between my finger and the letter "e" on the keyboard at the critical time resulting in a crucial error. Over smaller errors great wars have been fought. I apologis.
Haha what a response!
Please excuse what was in fact a bit of an in joke. I was having a discussion about this very word this morning with a fellow supporter, stemming back from the days when I was incorrectly marked down on an English literature dissertation for 'incorrect' use of the word 'judgement'.
As things go, everyone here is right in that, although there has been debate over the years as to whether one spelling is 'American' or 'legal speak', both are in fact interchangeable in modern British English.
As a point of principle however, I have always favoured 'judgment' since the above referenced dissertation incident!
Dam u all for being so pedantic!
DevC - you missed some crucial economics in your "500 people pay and extra £5 to park" in that there is a price which will be beyond the current users - so that you may end up with 200 people paying a tenner = £2000 instead of the current 500 paying a £5 = £2500. Elementary my dear boy.
Whatever the price, been sat in the car park for 20 minutes and not moved a wheel!
The traffic seems not to be moving at all in Hillbottom Road. Something must have happened