| Andy Holt, part #3949672 13:57 - Nov 19 with 4157 views | itfc_bucks |
After flouncing around at the end of last season and putting the club up for sale, he's currently engaging in a one sided twitter spat with Wryan Wreynolds and Wrexham.
The bloke is a certifiable loon. |  | | |  |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 14:06 - Nov 19 with 4081 views | Stu_Magoo |
Had a browse of his feed. Bloke is even more of a tw@t that I'd assumed (post all the Morsy stuff). Practically begging Reynolds to reply. |  | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 14:18 - Nov 19 with 4017 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
So's Andy Holt. |  |
| |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:33 - Nov 19 with 3809 views | Sharkey |
As I understand it, Accrington have done nothing wrong/ strange here. They have different prices for different categories of game. Quite a few clubs do this. To me Wrexham are trying to give the impression they’re being picked on ‘cos they’re famous. Wrexham say they’re going to hike their prices for the game in Wales. Probably most Wrexham fans have season tickets . Clubs like Accrington say they’ll have varying prices across the season as a way of encouraging people to buy season tickets. [Post edited 19 Nov 2023 20:06]
|  | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:41 - Nov 19 with 3772 views | gtsb1966 |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:33 - Nov 19 by Sharkey |
As I understand it, Accrington have done nothing wrong/ strange here. They have different prices for different categories of game. Quite a few clubs do this. To me Wrexham are trying to give the impression they’re being picked on ‘cos they’re famous. Wrexham say they’re going to hike their prices for the game in Wales. Probably most Wrexham fans have season tickets . Clubs like Accrington say they’ll have varying prices across the season as a way of encouraging people to buy season tickets. [Post edited 19 Nov 2023 20:06]
|
Categories for games is completely wrong imho. Just because one team has a better following than another shouldn't mean fans pay more. If everyone did that ITFC away fans would be hammered simply because we have superb away support. |  | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:44 - Nov 19 with 3754 views | PhilTWTD |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:33 - Nov 19 by Sharkey |
As I understand it, Accrington have done nothing wrong/ strange here. They have different prices for different categories of game. Quite a few clubs do this. To me Wrexham are trying to give the impression they’re being picked on ‘cos they’re famous. Wrexham say they’re going to hike their prices for the game in Wales. Probably most Wrexham fans have season tickets . Clubs like Accrington say they’ll have varying prices across the season as a way of encouraging people to buy season tickets. [Post edited 19 Nov 2023 20:06]
|
Accrington increased the prices because the police wanted more money to cover the game if they gave Wrexham their full allocation. Andy Holt has said if they play again they'll get a lower allocation at the lower price as they won't need to increase the price to cover the additional policing. |  | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 17:03 - Nov 19 with 3650 views | glasso |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:44 - Nov 19 by PhilTWTD |
Accrington increased the prices because the police wanted more money to cover the game if they gave Wrexham their full allocation. Andy Holt has said if they play again they'll get a lower allocation at the lower price as they won't need to increase the price to cover the additional policing. |
I used to quite like Holt pre-his Morsy hissy fit, because he was one of the few owners who seemed really open and honest about all aspects of running a club. He's posted about how little they make though some aspects of the club, and how much they made through others, for instance.
I dunno why he didn't just do that here.
"This is how much a regular game costs to police, this is how much it costs us if Wrexham have a full allocation."
Would be pretty straight forward. But it seems he's now onto complaining that Wrexham made loads of money out of selling their TV rights when Accrington "paid for the game to be put on"
That was the same flounce he had last year - upset that big clubs with more fans get more money.
I'm sure policing Portman Road costs more than policing their place, but we charge more or less the same as them. | | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 17:37 - Nov 19 with 3579 views | PhilTWTD |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 17:03 - Nov 19 by glasso |
I used to quite like Holt pre-his Morsy hissy fit, because he was one of the few owners who seemed really open and honest about all aspects of running a club. He's posted about how little they make though some aspects of the club, and how much they made through others, for instance.
I dunno why he didn't just do that here.
"This is how much a regular game costs to police, this is how much it costs us if Wrexham have a full allocation."
Would be pretty straight forward. But it seems he's now onto complaining that Wrexham made loads of money out of selling their TV rights when Accrington "paid for the game to be put on"
That was the same flounce he had last year - upset that big clubs with more fans get more money.
I'm sure policing Portman Road costs more than policing their place, but we charge more or less the same as them. |
I think the issue is that the additional away fans at the regular price don't cover the increase costs in policing, so I can see the point, although he is unnecessarily combative on Twitter and I'd not want to see the owner of my club involving himself in the way he does.
I do have some sympathy with him over iFollow as well. As he says, they're the ones putting on the event and it's the other club making money out of that. I get that it's the other club's fans paying the money, but it still feels wrong that the club staging the game makes so little out of it. | | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 18:27 - Nov 19 with 3432 views | NeedhamChris |
I don't see what's wrong here though tbf - another case of people taking an opinion based on the person involved and not the issue. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 19:19 - Nov 19 with 3334 views | Sharkey |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 17:37 - Nov 19 by PhilTWTD |
I think the issue is that the additional away fans at the regular price don't cover the increase costs in policing, so I can see the point, although he is unnecessarily combative on Twitter and I'd not want to see the owner of my club involving himself in the way he does.
I do have some sympathy with him over iFollow as well. As he says, they're the ones putting on the event and it's the other club making money out of that. I get that it's the other club's fans paying the money, but it still feels wrong that the club staging the game makes so little out of it. |
The more I read about it, the more I think Holt is right. | | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 20:07 - Nov 19 with 3213 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:33 - Nov 19 by Sharkey |
As I understand it, Accrington have done nothing wrong/ strange here. They have different prices for different categories of game. Quite a few clubs do this. To me Wrexham are trying to give the impression they’re being picked on ‘cos they’re famous. Wrexham say they’re going to hike their prices for the game in Wales. Probably most Wrexham fans have season tickets . Clubs like Accrington say they’ll have varying prices across the season as a way of encouraging people to buy season tickets. [Post edited 19 Nov 2023 20:06]
|
The opposite. Wrexham are reducing the prices for the return fixture to balance out the increase charged by Accrington. Holt has got the funk on that they tweeted this out before the game. |  |
| |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 20:10 - Nov 19 with 3195 views | Dyland |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 17:37 - Nov 19 by PhilTWTD |
I think the issue is that the additional away fans at the regular price don't cover the increase costs in policing, so I can see the point, although he is unnecessarily combative on Twitter and I'd not want to see the owner of my club involving himself in the way he does.
I do have some sympathy with him over iFollow as well. As he says, they're the ones putting on the event and it's the other club making money out of that. I get that it's the other club's fans paying the money, but it still feels wrong that the club staging the game makes so little out of it. |
;)
Agree on the Wrexham thing (oh god shut up Wrexham), but not the iFollow. There aren't extra costs for the host club if more away fans log in, right?
Seriously though, as a general principle, there is something in his rantings really just from the distribution of cash in the game and how out of whack it is, and if we like the diversity of our professional pyramid.... well, there's the rub I guess... plenty of power brokers in the game don't give a sh1t about it. |  |
| |
| Well yeh, and they are taking the piss on 20:13 - Nov 19 with 3187 views | Dyland |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 20:07 - Nov 19 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
The opposite. Wrexham are reducing the prices for the return fixture to balance out the increase charged by Accrington. Holt has got the funk on that they tweeted this out before the game. |
No surprise Holt bites, given how volatile and forthright he is on social media.
I wonder how Wrexham would deal with FFP in the Championship if they continue their ascent. New ground? Make a silly film? | |
| |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 20:18 - Nov 19 with 3153 views | PhilTWTD |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 20:10 - Nov 19 by Dyland |
;)
Agree on the Wrexham thing (oh god shut up Wrexham), but not the iFollow. There aren't extra costs for the host club if more away fans log in, right?
Seriously though, as a general principle, there is something in his rantings really just from the distribution of cash in the game and how out of whack it is, and if we like the diversity of our professional pyramid.... well, there's the rub I guess... plenty of power brokers in the game don't give a sh1t about it. |
Exactly, it's more cash flowing to the bigger clubs even at that level. | | | |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 20:26 - Nov 19 with 3111 views | Dyland |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 20:18 - Nov 19 by PhilTWTD |
Exactly, it's more cash flowing to the bigger clubs even at that level. |
Although in the case of iFollow revenue it's directly linked to the customer base of each club. I take the point though, that whether we like it or not, us fans are also customers of the league/federation/etc... | |
| |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 20:58 - Nov 19 with 3046 views | ITFC1977 |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 16:41 - Nov 19 by gtsb1966 |
Categories for games is completely wrong imho. Just because one team has a better following than another shouldn't mean fans pay more. If everyone did that ITFC away fans would be hammered simply because we have superb away support. |
I think it’s more about making not so popular games cheaper to encourage fans. If it was one price for everyone it would probably be the higher price all season. | | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 21:01 - Nov 19 with 3031 views | bournemouthblue |
I'm surprised he doesn't want some of the streaming revenue from Disney+ for their home game! |  |
| |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 21:12 - Nov 19 with 3005 views | Sharkey |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 20:07 - Nov 19 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
The opposite. Wrexham are reducing the prices for the return fixture to balance out the increase charged by Accrington. Holt has got the funk on that they tweeted this out before the game. |
Yes, my mistake. | | | |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 22:32 - Nov 19 with 2794 views | SmithersJones |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 20:26 - Nov 19 by Dyland |
Although in the case of iFollow revenue it's directly linked to the customer base of each club. I take the point though, that whether we like it or not, us fans are also customers of the league/federation/etc... |
I think he’s absolutely right about iFollow. The home club stands to lose revenue through the game being televised live so why do the visiting club keep the iFollow revenue? If you make the case that “it’s them that brings the audience” then that principle should be applied to gate money as well.
I know that in our case we sold out our allocation anyway so they weren’t losing revenue but in League 1 we were the exception not the rule, and that’s even more the case now they’re in League 2. Just because we didn’t like what he did re Morsy we shouldn’t assume that everything he says is wrong. As far as owners are concerned he’s definitely one of the good guys. | | | |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 07:55 - Nov 20 with 2520 views | Sharkey |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 22:32 - Nov 19 by SmithersJones |
I think he’s absolutely right about iFollow. The home club stands to lose revenue through the game being televised live so why do the visiting club keep the iFollow revenue? If you make the case that “it’s them that brings the audience” then that principle should be applied to gate money as well.
I know that in our case we sold out our allocation anyway so they weren’t losing revenue but in League 1 we were the exception not the rule, and that’s even more the case now they’re in League 2. Just because we didn’t like what he did re Morsy we shouldn’t assume that everything he says is wrong. As far as owners are concerned he’s definitely one of the good guys. |
Yes, we're in a situation now that in a sense you're doing more to support a club (if not a team) by watching an away game on IPlayer than you are by traveling to the game. But you're doing more to support English football (as we know and love it) if you go to the game. | | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 08:20 - Nov 20 with 2478 views | hoppy |
Is he related to Grant in any way? |  |
| |
| I don't disagree in principle on 09:13 - Nov 20 with 2354 views | Dyland |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 22:32 - Nov 19 by SmithersJones |
I think he’s absolutely right about iFollow. The home club stands to lose revenue through the game being televised live so why do the visiting club keep the iFollow revenue? If you make the case that “it’s them that brings the audience” then that principle should be applied to gate money as well.
I know that in our case we sold out our allocation anyway so they weren’t losing revenue but in League 1 we were the exception not the rule, and that’s even more the case now they’re in League 2. Just because we didn’t like what he did re Morsy we shouldn’t assume that everything he says is wrong. As far as owners are concerned he’s definitely one of the good guys. |
"I know that in our case we sold out our allocation anyway so they weren’t losing revenue but in League 1 we were the exception not the rule, and that’s even more the case now they’re in League 2."
I guess my point was about Town specifically.
I also suppose one can't put an accurate figure on who would attend if the game was not on iFollow, and in that sense I agree with you and others that it's more fair to share all the iFollow rev based on a standard template. Which goes to the heart of the matter, better distributing wealth in the football pyramid to help all levels including grass roots survive and flourish. | |
| |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 12:32 - Nov 20 with 2132 views | glasso |
| Nah don't talk bobbins Hammers on 22:32 - Nov 19 by SmithersJones |
I think he’s absolutely right about iFollow. The home club stands to lose revenue through the game being televised live so why do the visiting club keep the iFollow revenue? If you make the case that “it’s them that brings the audience” then that principle should be applied to gate money as well.
I know that in our case we sold out our allocation anyway so they weren’t losing revenue but in League 1 we were the exception not the rule, and that’s even more the case now they’re in League 2. Just because we didn’t like what he did re Morsy we shouldn’t assume that everything he says is wrong. As far as owners are concerned he’s definitely one of the good guys. |
I'm not arguing with your point, btw, but is there actually any evidence to suggest that clubs lose revenue through the games being televised?
There's always been this big idea that fans stay at home to watch games, but do they really? I'd rather be at the games, but often can't go.If I can't go, I watch it on telly.
I can genuinely say that there's never once been a time when I've decided to just not go *because* it's on the telly.
If I did make that decision, I can only imagine it being due to the costs of watching games at stadiums (drinks, food, tickets etc), which doesn't really stack up against his decision to charge more for the tickets. | | | |
| Andy Holt, part #3949672 on 12:46 - Nov 20 with 2077 views | Skip_Intro |
who? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
