Another Yorkshire Boycott

Tuesday night sees a Yorkshire Derby at Bramall Lane. One of the biggest matches of the season, as last season's play off finalists (and pre-season favourites for promotion) Huddersfield Town take on the Blades. With the Blades top of the league and the Terriers in 5th it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to expect a crowd of around 25,000. The Town support numbered near 5,000 across the city at Hillsborough last year, but it is unlikely to be repeated in S2.

Empty seats in the Bramall Lane Stand - more of the same when Huddersfield visit

An internet forum campaign for away fans to boycott the match, because of ticket prices charged by the Blades, has gathered momentum. Originating on Huddersfield's fan website Down at the Mac, it has now been picked up by fans of other clubs and also the Football Supporters' Federation.

The match is one of four this season for which the Blades are charging Category A prices. That means an away seat in either the Bramall Lane Lower or Upper tier will cost Town fans £28.50, which they rightly claim is an extremely high price for a League One match. As I mentioned on A United View a couple of weeks ago, I attended an entertaining Premier League game between Bolton Wanderers and Manchester City at the Reebok Stadium for fifty pence less. I also attended a Europa League game between Anderlecht and Bursaspor in the best seats for €24.

To be fair, the price is high and the Blades have already lost revenue this season as a result of pricing policies, but not necessarily from away support. A True Blades are at the Lane promotion launched last spring was used to push season ticket sales at the expense of match-day customers. Season ticket holders, quite rightly, felt anger at the number of one off match promotions the Blades had offered last season, in a desperate attempt to fill the ground and back the team to safety. A friend of mine came close to renewing and one didn't on the basis that, “the club want your money earlier and earlier, yet with a couple of matches missed through work commitments might as well have turned up and paid on the day.” They weren't the only ones to feel that way.

True Blades are at the Lane aimed to remove the frustrations of season ticket holders by defining the season ticket prices (give or take the same as last season) and providing a guaranteed saving against heavily inflated match-day prices for football in a division below.

In my eyes, my season ticket still offers great value, it works out at around £13 per game and relegation was never going to stop me attending. However with increases for new season ticket holders, flat renewal prices and higher match day prices alongside relegation and an unpopular managerial appointment, it has inevitably led to season ticket sales falling and walk-up supporters being deterred by the prices. Interestingly enough, the brains trust behind the ticketing for this season and the man who put his name to the letters telling them that only True Blades are at the Lane (the rest of you..... aren’t), Steve Lewis, recently left his role of Head of Commercial after just eight months.

So if I have an issue with the pricing at Bramall Lane, why have I an issue with the Huddersfield protest? Because it pointing the finger at United, they are ignoring their own club’s pricing policy and the relative prices elsewhere. They are the equivalent of the Three Wise Monkeys where The Terriers are concerned, Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil.

It is interesting that, throughout the campaign, Huddersfield don't appear to be making any public statement on the matter. Maybe this is because they appear to offer the same categorisation of games and not dissimilar pricing themselves. At the Galpharm Stadium, the Category A prices range from £23 to £28. The Family Stand is opposite the away stand and charges £23 in the lower tier and £25 for the upper tier. Not a significant price differential to what United are charging.

Part of the issue appears to be that Huddersfield fans saw that Bury fans paid £14 for the same seats a couple of weeks ago, but that was one of 4 Category C games United have a season. Funnily enough, Huddersfield have Category C games, they charge a minimum of £19 for them and you can bet your bottom dollar when the Blades visit we will not be a Category C match, nor a Category B one.

The big issue is pricing in general across the game and establishing a tipping point, beyond which it is determined that a price is too high for that division or for the facilities and quality of experience on offer. For instance, although Huddersfield fans complain about paying a couple of pounds more than the equivalent seats in the opposite end, it is worth noting that the Bramall Lane Stand is opposite our Kop, which doesn't have indoor concourses, covered food outlets and under cover toilet facilities. It also has bloody great pillars in the way of our view. Added to which the upper tier of the away end has one of the best views in the ground.

Can comparisons of equivalent home ends be a valid comparison? I think United were basing the price on what home fans are charged in the corner adjacent to the away end and also what they are charged for the upper tier of the Bramall Lane stand when it is not given over to away support. In principle that basis is not unreasonable, although the base price may be to start with.

How does the price, view facilities at Bramall Lane compare with what Terriers' fans got for £20 at Rochdale, £25 at Hartlepool, £23 at Oldham and what they will get for upcoming games at Brentford (£21 seats, £20 to stand!) and MK Dons (£25)? It is also worth noting that at most of these grounds, the under 16 price is broadly similar to the £14 charged by United as well.

One other factor to throw into the mix is the cost of travel to these grounds. Will those fans be happy spending much more money going to watch the Terriers at Hartlepool, Brentford and MK? To my mind, away support is about more than a match ticket alone. I used to base my trip on what I can afford, if the coach, ticket food etc was out of my budget I wouldn't go. I can't help feeling that the complainants here were not regular away match goers and were just looking for an excuse not to go. The excuse, in this case a seat costing a whole £3.50 more than one at the Galpharm, was convenient enough to make them do it.

I am not denying there is a problem and that fans across the leagues need to find a voice to rise up and defend themselves from exploitation. If they feel a protest involving not supporting their team is the way to do it so be it. But throwing brickbats at United seems a rather futile way of dealing with a bigger and more widespread problem. Will United change their pricing policy for away fans? Probably not. Will other clubs sit up and take notice? Probably not.

A couple of weeks ago the Huddersfield supporters seem to think otherwise. Neil Waine, a regular poster on the Down at The Mac forum was happy to complain to the Huddersfield Examiner;

“I know friends that will still go because they don’t want to miss it. They’re playing on fans’ loyalties. I think there’ll be a lot of empty seats at Bramall Lane. I think this will backfire at the Blades because they will lose revenue.”

Assessing the situation now suggests that the campaign can only be seen as a partial success. Over a thousand fans are expected at Bramall Lane, far more than the organisers of the boycott would have hoped for. Maybe the pull of the game was enough to withstand the price increases, maybe these fans realised that there are better ways to fight this than a flawed and mis-informed campaign based on one match.

We are already seeing the prices of tickets reach exorbitant levels in the Premier League and that price inflation is now affecting other divisions, but aside from price reductions at QPR (where fan power had to be allied with a change of ownership for it to happen) is there anything fans can do apart from stay away? If they do stay away does it really matter to the clubs?

It would be great for the football league to get involved and agree a price limit for away fans in each division, but while ever it is an unregulated free market clubs can charge what they want and bare the consequences either way. In fact, you could argue that football clubs are being placed in a position now where the extra costs of policing and stewarding a decent sized away support might actually deter them from offering attractive ticket prices.

This is an issue affecting supporters of a majority of clubs and it needs a unified approach from organisations such as the FSF to confront the authorities and say enough is enough. I am not sure that arbitrarily picking on one club, especially when they are not acting in a significantly different way from both the norm and the club of the complainants, is the way to go about it.

How to gain friends and influence people?

In the past, the fans had a voice, in the literal sense, and the way to effect change was to use it. Cries of "Sack the board", "[Insert name of failing manager] out!" would echo from the terrace and often that would be enough to make the boardroom quake and eventually give way to the wishes of the faithful. But the times are a changing, the nature of football club ownership is changing and society is changing, both in terms of behaviour and culture.

At my club, the death knell for any manager used to be when the fans took to the South Stand car park. Chanting for change right underneath the directors' suite. But this is less effective than it once was.   

It was enough to lead to the departure of Adrian Heath, but not even the waving of shoes, "Shoes off if you want Robson out", led to the immediate departure of Bryan Robson and, despite periodic demands for the head of Kevin Blackwell, the timing of his departure was surprising to the majority.

South Stand protest Copyright:The Sun 

Across the city, Owls fans protested in a traditional manner, outside the ground, following last week's home defeat to Southampton. It got a reaction, with chairman (and former player & manager) Howard Wilkinson coming out to make his points and state the reasons why the board would not be going anywhere. But the behaviour of some of the supporters, some of the questions they asked, the points they made and the manner in which they made them  were embarrassing. Mobile phones and the Internet now mean actions like this have a wider audience. Is witnessing this going to attract the potential investment that Wednesday need?

What is more noticeable is the vitriolic outpourings within these demonstrations. Fuelled by alcohol and changes in what the public consider acceptable behaviour, some of the vicious personal abuse, targeted at Robson in particular, did not sit comfortably with a majority of Blades fans.  With Internet forums and social networking sites giving free reign to fans wanting to proffer their opinions on players, management, club staff, fellow fans and the tea lady, the boundaries are further extended and this permeates the outside world. The Internet also gives fans the opportunity to mobilise themselves in a much more organised way and this is not limited to just physical mobilisation.

When dealing with the new breed of football club owner, not used to English football culture, the traditional methods of protest appear to be no longer effective. With Manchester United and Liverpool fans unhappy with the way their clubs are being run, marches and protests have been arranged. These gain publicity and media coverage for the cause, but seemingly had little impact on those that they were targeting.

Some may suggest that the protests might be more effective if the fans march went away from the ground to another location, leaving empty seats in the ground. The recent example from Germany, where Borussia Dortmund fans boycotted their game at Schalke in protest at hikes taking the cheapest ticket prices above 20 Euros, was effective, but only because it was against their rival club and not against their own. It would be difficult to make it work over here, particularly when so many fans have season tickets and the club has the money banked already. All they would lose out on is the discretionary spend at the match and the fans would miss out on a match they have paid at least £30 to attend.

The exception might be cup games, which already suffer from lower attendances anyway, and the Liverpool crowd of 25,000 against Steaua in the Europa League could be seen as a combination of supporter apathy with both the club's owners and competition. I have to say though, the idea of a "supporter" voluntarily choosing not to watch their team, doesn't sit easily with me.

Now things are moving on and more innovative fan mobilisation has come to the fore. This includes an email bombardment of Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan, from Liverpool fans who perceived them to be a potential source of financing for Messrs Gillet and Hicks. On the Kop Faithful website there is a standard email to send to Stephen Hester (Group Chief Executive of RBS) along with many others who might be able to call off any potential re-financing of the Americans' RBS loans. In summary, it suggests the sender will seek a parliamentary or public enquiry if RBS fail to seize the assets (Liverpool FC) and force a sale at a market price. Extreme threats.

Whilst their upset is understandable and their determination and organisation is to be applauded, their actions have to be perceived as risky.  In not just targeting the owners and the directors, but involving financiers and other professionals who may well end up working for/influencing new owners down the line, are they not having a potentially negative impact on any sale and on the club's working relationships with these entities afterwards?  

Might these protests and organised disruption to business cause potential owners to walk away? Do these wealthy investors look at what the fans are doing and question whether they should put themselves in that situation, potentially becoming the recipients of such actions when things turn sour at some future date? Many of these investors come from deeply religious countries/states with moral codes of conduct, the negative attention and bad publicity may well scare them off. Would you want to buy a club that has clearly inherent problems with its fan base? A fan base that is well organised and reacts so aggressively to a lack of success. Could you honestly believe that you will be given the, probably quite lengthy, time needed to effect change in those circumstances?

Fans need to have a voice, they are the major stakeholder in a football club, but what they say and do with it is important. The fans are revolting, but they need to be careful. What they don't need, is for those who might save them to view them as revolting in an entirely different way.