Cortese Questions

[The Kraken]

Good point. I agree with you there.

 

I just hate 'additional fees', especially the ubiquitous 'booking fee' surcharge (as such I'll never fly Ryanair). I like all costs to be kept simple.

 

I don't understand why it's £3 in advance (phone/web), but £2 on the day (via ticket office). Surely the processing time is similar? Is it postage fees? Anyhow, I'm going off topic. I'm not slating Cortese over this, I don't consider it to be a mistake, just I always get annoyed whenever anything has addtional fees attached. All I want is to be told the cost, and pay the price, without someone then saying that there is a 'transaction surcharge' or something.

 

Actually, on this one I will disagree with you. True, Ryanair are complete shysters in extracting every last penny from the customer, but I'm not sure if the analogy is fair in this case.

 

If the club were trying to keep ticket prices down, but simply trying to cover costs for online and telephone ordering, then charging a booking fee is actually a fair way to do it, in principle. But not at £3 per transaction, that's obviously too high. A reasonable fee, say £1 to cover the cost of postage and envelope would be a fair way to cover the actual extra costs involved in relation to over the counter sales. If you turned up at the ticket office in advance of the game then you shouldn't be liable to pay those extra costs.

 

The £2 extra on the day is a decent way to try and get people to pay beforehand, but only if the booking fee is less than that. At a £3 booking fee it distorts the whole thing and makes the rationale for a single person buying over the phone in advance a completely pointless excercise. I think this was poorly thought through.

[Joensuu]

I guess there just seems to be such a demarcation between "pro" and "anti"; it's probably the fault of this site, I see the lables thrown around so often that it's used as a divisive accusation. A bit like "Lowe luvvies", where you couldn't avoid being associated with this moniker if you even dared to agree with just one of Lowe's better decisions. i just think its too easy for some to use the lables in order to try and "win" a petty internet argument than it is to actually debate the real issues. Your stance on Cortese is actually probably consistent with the majority of people who can see the situation rationally; I just find it needless to separate fans into pro and anti factions.

 

Agree. 'Lowe luvvie' is a biased term, used to put down people who were pro-Lowe. Using 'pro' or 'anti' comes with less bias, I consider it merely as a way of grouping people together to make it easier to explain your point... By using pro and anti, I'm just trying to help make my arguments clearer, not get a 'win' on what you rightly point out is a petty internet argument! I think pro and anti are useful descriptions, whereas 'luvvie' or 'obsessive' are merely used by some to provoke and antagonise (as such, I think it's okay to contine using pro and anti, do you agree?). What I mean is it's very hard to talk about what some other posters are talking about unless you have some term to collectively refer to their line of argument (pro and anti are collective terms, which are about as unbiased as I can think of).

 

FWIW, I guess I started off being 'pro' Lowe, but from about 2003 onwards (when Strachan wasn't sensibly replaced, when club funds were instead used to artificually inflate the share price rather than invest in the team) I felt Lowe's bad decisions had begun to outweigh his good decisions, do I drifted from being 'pro' to being broadly 'anti'. I don't feel that you are always fixed in a category, it's a temporal thing, over time, people's opinions change, and anyone can move from being broadly pro to anti or vice versa. I think this holds true for Lowe, Cortese, Labour, Tory's, pretty much anything really.

[Joensuu]

Actually, on this one I will disagree with you. True, Ryanair are complete shysters in extracting every last penny from the customer, but I'm not sure if the analogy is fair in this case.

 

If the club were trying to keep ticket prices down, but simply trying to cover costs for online and telephone ordering, then charging a booking fee is actually a fair way to do it, in principle. But not at £3 per transaction, that's obviously too high. A reasonable fee, say £1 to cover the cost of postage and envelope would be a fair way to cover the actual extra costs involved in relation to over the counter sales. If you turned up at the ticket office in advance of the game then you shouldn't be liable to pay those extra costs.

 

The £2 extra on the day is a decent way to try and get people to pay beforehand, but only if the booking fee is less than that. At a £3 booking fee it distorts the whole thing and makes the rationale for a single person buying over the phone in advance a completely pointless excercise. I think this was poorly thought through.

 

I agree with that. If you wanted to keep queues down at the ticket office, you'd skew the balance of the booking fee so that more people bought online... To be honest, for me this is just a minor quibble, I'm not that bothered, I just resent paying any 'additional fee' for anything. Think the point is, that my biggest quibble with Cortese is a minor side issue. I really can't understand why so many people have seemed to take such a dislike to him over the last few weeks based on nothing but rumor.

[Joensuu]

I take it you havn't been to the US where they don't display their sales tax, bloody annoying.

 

Oh, I have... don't even get me started...

[The Kraken]

I agree with that. If you wanted to keep queues down at the ticket office, you'd skew the balance of the booking fee so that more people bought online... To be honest, for me this is just a minor quibble, I'm not that bothered, I just resent paying any 'additional fee' for anything. Think the point is, that my biggest quibble with Cortese is a minor side issue. I really can't understand why so many people have seemed to take such a dislike to him over the last few weeks based on nothing but rumor.

 

And I think that's where we completely agree. I found the whole Sun "Clotese" thing pretty funny; as club decisions go it was a fairly trivial one, but utterly stupid on his behalf, and he rightly received criticism for it. The removal of the ST payment plan and half season tickets was pretty shameful IMO, but much more for the fact of the way it was done rather than the decision itself. And again, it was for this that he was rightly criticised for. But some of the over the top comments I've read on here over the last 2 to 3 weeks, without being in posession of the full facts, have been quite distateful. I'll readily criticise Cortese when its justified, but he's been crucified on here only for some to completely retract their accusations later, which is just plain daft.

[doddisalegend]

Here we go again. Someone posts some stuff and immediately it gets treated like it was gospel and NC is a nut job.

 

No I said he made him sound like a nut Job. I never at any point said he was one. I made the point that I'd be worried about anyone carrying that much bagage around. Purely personal opinion I believe I'm allowed such a thing. Proves my point though anything that pro NC posters percive as critiscm of the great one results in major handbags as they rush to defend him.

Edited 14 September, 2010 by doddisalegend

[derry]

Some of the comments on here about Cortese are deluded. It's not a democracy, it's a privately owned business, if anybody thinks they are going to drive out Cortese they are nuts. If you want to go to the matches, pay the asking price and go, then again if you don't want to pay, don't go, it's your choice. Whilst Cortese could have done things differently none of the things have affected me and many others, I for one really don't give a rats arse what he does, if he annoys me, I'll do something else. I know that last year we were down and bloody near out whilst, this year, whatever the short term fiasco the team is going through, brought on by the stupid low key pre season, we are in a bloody good position and I for one have no interest in an anti Cortese campaign.

[The9]

I think the problem with opinions on Cortese seems to be that his decisions are gospel and even when there are other options, people are drawn into Pro- or Anti- slanging matches.

 

For instance, 300 defaulters is clearly a problem. However, the admin delay was the only reason why we used direct debit in the first place, and it had never been the method the club had offered to pay for STs previously, which had always been a finance agreement with instalments which were paid by the start of the season.

 

Had the club wanted to provide this option they would have had to have put ST information in the public domain in March, as we had done in most of the previous 5 seasons (March Madness etc) and fans could have signed up to instalments which paid off the ST cost before the season even began. This was not done, and there are no reasons given why it wasn't the case.

 

But somehow, this oversight, and the removal of instalment plan is acceptable, because Cortese decided that the defaulters were adequate reason for removing the instalment plan, as if there weren't any other options which could have prevented people defaulting.

[Joensuu]

Of course The9, last March we had a cup final to prepare for, and didn't know which division we'd be in this year. Ticket prices etc would have probably been on-hold. Imagine if in May while ticket prices were being discussed, Cortese stumbles across the fact that many defaulters have been getting in for free. His first action would have been to delay any decisions being made about ticket pricing, and then get some quotes from automatic ticket machine vendors to see whether they could meet the budget & timescales. It could easily have taken a month or more to get a tender out, then get quotes back... meaning you could well be going into July still unsure whether you will be able to offer the installment plan for the following season...

 

I guess some form of public statement should have been made in June, but what could the club say other than: 'We recognise that supporters are waiting longer than they are used to for ticket pricing information, but as of yet we aren't sure what we will be doing, as we are waiting to see if we can install automatic ticket machines. As such we have no information to give you. However, there is a good chance that if we can't install machines before the start of next season, that we will have to put an end to the installment plan. So in the mean time we'd suggest that fans who might have previously relied upon installments to get a 0% credit card, or start saving asap, just incase we can't offer you installments'.

 

Of course I don't know the sequence of events... but this all sounds plausible to me.

[St_Tel49]

No I said he made him sound like a nut Job. I never at any point said he was one. I made the point that I'd be worried about anyone carrying that much bagage around. Purely personal opinion I believe I'm allowed such a thing. Proves my point though anything that pro NC posters percive as critiscm of the great one results in major handbags as they rush to defend him.

Your reply is making assumptions about my stance on Cortese but leave that. I fully accept what you are saying about what you meant, but it SOUNDED like you half believed that he was a nutcase. My point is that far too often people take some post such as Up and Away's (which I suspect is only his personal view of Cortese) and attribute a veracity to it that was probably not intended by the OP and then go on a rant on how Cortese is running the club. By all means let us comment on his actions - agree or disagree with them - but at least have those comments based on known fact rather than rumour.

[doddisalegend]

Your reply is making assumptions about my stance on Cortese but leave that. I fully accept what you are saying about what you meant, but it SOUNDED like you half believed that he was a nutcase. My point is that far too often people take some post such as Up and Away's (which I suspect is only his personal view of Cortese) and attribute a veracity to it that was probably not intended by the OP and then go on a rant on how Cortese is running the club. By all means let us comment on his actions - agree or disagree with them - but at least have those comments based on known fact rather than rumour.

 

Blimey if this place sticks to facts the only thing round here will be the tumbleweed. Having said that up and away started his post with From my brief encounters with Cortese, I know very little apart from the focus, but snippets coming back from his wife are a concern. which kind of suggests a level of ITK rather than personal opinion.

[St_Tel49]

Blimey if this place sticks to facts the only thing round here will be the tumbleweed. Having said that up and away started his post with From my brief encounters with Cortese, I know very little apart from the focus, but snippets coming back from his wife are a concern. which kind of suggests a level of ITK rather than personal opinion.

With respect, I think that those comments should be treated with a great deal of caution. Brief acquaintances can be very misleading and "snippets" are precisely that - and probably out of context - we can't tell. I would be hesitant to make a judgment on anyone on such tenuous evidence.

[saintjay77]

Good point. I agree with you there.

 

I just hate 'additional fees', especially the ubiquitous 'booking fee' surcharge (as such I'll never fly Ryanair). I like all costs to be kept simple.

 

I don't understand why it's £3 in advance (phone/web), but £2 on the day (via ticket office). Surely the processing time is similar? Is it postage fees? Anyhow, I'm going off topic. I'm not slating Cortese over this, I don't consider it to be a mistake, just I always get annoyed whenever anything has addtional fees attached. All I want is to be told the cost, and pay the price, without someone then saying that there is a 'transaction surcharge' or something.

 

I think its about how the information is delivered to the customer. If you go to buy something for £20 to only find out there is an additional £3 booking fee you feel like your being stiched up. If you go to buy something for £23 and get told that costs includes a £3 booking fee there are no suprises and you dont feel robbed.

 

Telling you there is a booking fee is all about transparency. I dont understand why they need to be transparent about the £3 booking fee but dont tell you how the rest of the money is divided up around the club. If they want transparency then why not go the whole hog?

[stevegrant]

I think its about how the information is delivered to the customer. If you go to buy something for £20 to only find out there is an additional £3 booking fee you feel like your being stiched up. If you go to buy something for £23 and get told that costs includes a £3 booking fee there are no suprises and you dont feel robbed.

 

Telling you there is a booking fee is all about transparency. I dont understand why they need to be transparent about the £3 booking fee but dont tell you how the rest of the money is divided up around the club. If they want transparency then why not go the whole hog?

The thing that confuses me the most about that particular issue is that last season, the match tickets were £24 in the wings and Northam stand. Then at Christmas, they brought in the £2 matchday surcharge (which made sense, particularly if anybody had seen some of the pre-match queues at the ticket office).

 

This season, they've reduced the matchday price by £2 to £22, but brought in the transaction tax, claiming (justifiably, to an extent) that all departments within the club have to be self-sufficient. Surely the best way to ensure the ticketing operation remained self-sufficient/profitable/whatever* would have been to maintain last season's pricing structure, as they'd have brought in much more money?

 

It's more a psychological thing than a numbers thing - once people start to be charged add-ons over and above the price of the ticket itself, many will raise objections. However, if the price itself covers any costs, they don't mind paying. It's the "stealth" feel that gets people irritated, IMO.

 

* - that of course raises issues surrounding the ticket scanning system the club are supposedly looking to install, if it's going to cost £2m (really?!? Clubs like Southend have it, and I can't imagine they paid £2m for it), I would assume it's going to be as a result of passing it onto the customer...

[jam]

The thing that confuses me the most about that particular issue is that last season, the match tickets were £24 in the wings and Northam stand. Then at Christmas, they brought in the £2 matchday surcharge (which made sense, particularly if anybody had seen some of the pre-match queues at the ticket office).

 

This season, they've reduced the matchday price by £2 to £22, but brought in the transaction tax, claiming (justifiably, to an extent) that all departments within the club have to be self-sufficient. Surely the best way to ensure the ticketing operation remained self-sufficient/profitable/whatever* would have been to maintain last season's pricing structure, as they'd have brought in much more money?

 

It's more a psychological thing than a numbers thing - once people start to be charged add-ons over and above the price of the ticket itself, many will raise objections. However, if the price itself covers any costs, they don't mind paying. It's the "stealth" feel that gets people irritated, IMO.

 

* - that of course raises issues surrounding the ticket scanning system the club are supposedly looking to install, if it's going to cost £2m (really?!? Clubs like Southend have it, and I can't imagine they paid £2m for it), I would assume it's going to be as a result of passing it onto the customer...

 

I agree with this point although it seems an interesting contradiction that the booking charge "feels" like a stealth charge when it's actually more transparent than simply putting £2 on every ticket.

[saintjay77]

The thing that confuses me the most about that particular issue is that last season, the match tickets were £24 in the wings and Northam stand. Then at Christmas, they brought in the £2 matchday surcharge (which made sense, particularly if anybody had seen some of the pre-match queues at the ticket office).

 

This season, they've reduced the matchday price by £2 to £22, but brought in the transaction tax, claiming (justifiably, to an extent) that all departments within the club have to be self-sufficient. Surely the best way to ensure the ticketing operation remained self-sufficient/profitable/whatever* would have been to maintain last season's pricing structure, as they'd have brought in much more money?

 

It's more a psychological thing than a numbers thing - once people start to be charged add-ons over and above the price of the ticket itself, many will raise objections. However, if the price itself covers any costs, they don't mind paying. It's the "stealth" feel that gets people irritated, IMO.

 

* - that of course raises issues surrounding the ticket scanning system the club are supposedly looking to install, if it's going to cost £2m (really?!? Clubs like Southend have it, and I can't imagine they paid £2m for it), I would assume it's going to be as a result of passing it onto the customer...

 

Which is why how its delivered that will make the difference. The way it has been done has got peoples backs up and it seems like its an extra cost. But as you have just explained, the club would have got more by keeping things as they were. Im sure they could have delivered this tax better and made it easier to accept but its a bit late now.

 

I wonder if the £2m cost would have been to impliment it this season. I dont understand how it should cost that much if rolled out correctly but if it was a rush job then the club would have no doubt had to pay over the odds to get it in. To get it done next season with proper planning and negotiations should get the cost down much below that £2m IMO

[buctootim]

I understand the rationale for the per transaction booking fee - the more tickets you buy the cheaper it is - but as others have said, even if it makes logical sense it doesnt 'feel' right - in the same way as I'd rather see items advertised for £1 than 99p.

Edited 15 September, 2010 by buctootim

[eelpie]

A question I would have liked to ask had I been invited is when will he be holding open forums for supporters? Even Lowe did that (reluctantly) though he had to answer to shareholders

[Doctoroncall]

A question I would have liked to ask had I been invited is when will he be holding open forums for supporters? Even Lowe did that (reluctantly) though he had to answer to shareholders

 

It was stated (somewhere in this thread) that it is being looked into with Radio Solent, however no date was given. HTH.

[RonManager]

A question I would have liked to ask had I been invited is when will he be holding open forums for supporters? Even Lowe did that (reluctantly) though he had to answer to shareholders

 

The question was asked. i have clipped the relevant passage from the 'dinner party' report in the Echo.

 

Some of us argued that he was damaging his reputation and that specific concerns of the fans do need addressing, perhaps by using the broadcast media where his words can’t be twisted. He accepted that he had been too quiet over the summer and said that a radio fans forum was being organised.

Edited 15 September, 2010 by RonManager
see posts 162 & 163 for the full transcripts

[Doctoroncall]

 

that of course raises issues surrounding the ticket scanning system the club are supposedly looking to install, if it's going to cost £2m (really?!? Clubs like Southend have it, and I can't imagine they paid £2m for it), I would assume it's going to be as a result of passing it onto the customer...

 

It depends on what the requirements are, the operation process and whether it fits into the existing infrastructure, vendor support etc. E.g. is it purely a ticket entry system or also a vending facility? Is it a system that sits on PC or is networked to entry gates etc...

 

Also, as I'm sure you realise, it has to be sufficiently tested as I'm sure if it goes wrong there will be some mightly pee'd off people, and that will add to the costs.

[Daren W]

That's quite a distortion of the truth you've come out with there, Daren. But forget it, you have bigger things on your plate at the moment.

 

My sincerest sympathies, btw.

 

But it's not though Alpine is it? You did criticise fans for not budgetting and having to prioritise without remembering that the club had promised fans that installment plans and half season tickets would still be available and did so right up until the prices were released.

 

Why are people being labelled as anti Cortese when they question him? I am in no way shape or form anti him, if it were not for him we'd have no club, and that's a fact. But that doesn't make him faultless and mistakes have been made.... Season tickets probably the worst of them...

 

I'd remind you that people on here cricised me for saying the sacking of Pardew "de-railled" our promotion bid. Having heard something about the issue on here I'd agree with the dissmisal but not the way it was handled and I think it has well and truly blown things for us.. The truth needs to be told there I think, to hell with reputations...

 

And before some tosser accuses me of "enjoying the plight" I'd say I want us to not only to win it for Markus, but win it for my mum...

 

And Alps, your timing sucked but I appreciate the words... Thank you...

[leftback]

He has hardly showered himself in glory so far. Personally I think he's acted incompetently far too many times to consider him good at his job. I just hope that him having to go cap in hand to The Sun has brought him down a peg or two and he learns from what must have been a hard pill to swallow.

 

ive said it elsewhere,the,(what may be fatal mistake as far as promotion is concerned),appointment of wilkins and hunter to "steady the ship" decision must have been given to les reed by nc, reed obviosly complicit in which coach stayed and which one left,could murdoch and or downes have done any worse?? if reed is in charge of staplewood he must have had input into who the players would respond best to in the interim!! this man has no clue. nc accountable to nobody since ML sad departure,get rid of pardew by all means but look at the mess you and reed created to hand over to na

[St. Jason]

This board nearly imploded over the withdrawal of the instalment plan and NC received an enormous amount of abuse from certain posters. He now confirms what many of us had thought must have been the case. They didn't pay!!

 

The reason Mr. Cortese got stick from loyal season ticket holders like myself was because of his decision and more notably his complete lack of communication and notification of his plans leaving me (season ticket holder for 21 years) and my son (season ticket holder for 4 years) unable to re-new!

 

Also where is the proof of this supposed fraudulent activity? There may have been some fans who cancelled the DD, but how would anyone know they were still using the tickets, and where has this figure of 300 come, telling a couple of fans over dinner is one thing but actually releasing details via an official statement seems to be beyond him/the club!

[Matthew Le God]

* - that of course raises issues surrounding the ticket scanning system the club are supposedly looking to install, if it's going to cost £2m (really?!? Clubs like Southend have it, and I can't imagine they paid £2m for it), I would assume it's going to be as a result of passing it onto the customer...

 

Southend United don't have a 32k stadium, with the number of turnstiles required for a 32k stadium. So it would be a lot cheaper for them.

[Weston Saint]

The one set of Turnstiles at the Rose Bowl cost circa £800,000

[St. Jason]

Southend United don't have a 32k stadium, with the number of turnstiles required for a 32k stadium. So it would be a lot cheaper for them.

 

Its all relative though Matt isn't it? For it to cost us £2m would mean a cost of £62.50 per seat meaning Southend would of had to pay £781,250 on that basis, so not that cheap when you consider each clubs respective turnover!!!!

[Matthew Le God]

Its all relative though Matt isn't it? For it to cost us £2m would mean a cost of £62.50 per seat meaning Southend would of had to pay £781,250 on that basis, so not that cheap when you consider each clubs respective turnover!!!!

 

Roots Hall was initially built in the 1950's and doesn't have the same turnstile per seat ratio that St Mary's does. So it is not as simple as just looking at St Mary's 32k and Roots Hall's 12k.

[St. Jason]

Roots Hall was initially built in the 1950's and doesn't have the same turnstile per seat ratio that St Mary's does. So it is not as simple as just looking at St Mary's 32k and Roots Hall's 12k.

 

Fair comment mate, would still say it's relative, turnover, fans cost!!!