A tale of two stadia
Why have we moved to Sixfields, is it the result of a petty jealousy over the council's nice stadium that they refuse to sell the Freehold at a peppercorn price or sound business sense from our club's owners? I think it's the former not the latter and will now attempt to show why the business case for the move to Sixfields doesn't add up.
In retail as is probably true in most if not all businesses you want to make the most money that you can. You therefore try to maximise the potential of your sales by placing the best selling products at eye level in prominent place. You don't stick them on a bottom shelf where your customers will find it hard to locate them. Yes some people will have a look for the product if it isn't immediately obvious where it is but many won't. You also miss out on those customers who just decide to make an impulse purchase when they see the item. If these are your biggest sellers then you want to maximise the number of potential purchasers not reduce them. More sales are generated this way and you find this in other business areas such as television. This is why Eastenders and Coronation Street aren't shown at 3pm in the afternoon, they're shown during Primetime. The reason is not enough customers or viewers can watch at 3pm, they're mostly out at work. The people that are watching television during the day are also not the same people as watch at night. The image of the product also affects sales and to improve the image you have advertising the better the advertising of the product normally the better the sales.
So what does this have to do with us Sky Blue supporters? Well we're the customers in this case and the club is the retailer, SISU being the owner of the shop. Despite all that I've learned and know about selling I still can't find a good business case for our move to Sixfields. The maximum number of customers that Sixfields can accommodate is less than our home at the Ricoh. From the fans who do travel the only guaranteed revenue that they generate is ticket sales. Now the number of customers who are prepared to travel to watch the team is inversely proportional to the distance they have to travel. Coventry would be the eye level shelf in a prime position, in the retail context and Northampton the back of the shop close to the floor.
So we're already down on numbers of customers and thus potential guaranteed revenue, look at season tickets for example. Now Tim has said that it's a better deal for us at Sixfields because of the cheaper rent and extra revenue streams we're getting from the deal with Mr Cardoza. However most people have a budget for entertainment just as they do for food, clothes, utilities etc. The extra cost of travel to Sixfields would reduce what people have to spend at the stadium when they get there. So to cover for this extra expense, SISU reduced the ticket prices in an attempt to make the move have less of an impact financially on supporters.
However even if that means that the cost of a ticket and travel is the same as a ticket to the Ricoh it doesn't increase the amount they have to spend. All it does is reduce the guaranteed revenue that SISU get in ticket sales thanks to the reduction in price. There is no guarantee that those of us fans who choose to travel to Sixfields will spend any money in the stadium. Apparently the burger van outside does better food than inside and those travelling supporters may choose to purchase their food and beverages there. No one is forcing you to use the official coach or the official car park so no guarantees of revenue there and the coach costs the same to hire if it's full or empty. Moving to Sixfields also reduces the number of impromptu walk up supporters who decide at 2:30pm they fancy watching the match rather than clothes shopping with the other half. Advertising is actually done by the team and that isn't something that the club/SISU can affect except by the purchase of players and choice of manager.
The only thing that makes sense for the move to Sixfields is if SISU are keen still to distress ACL further by reducing their income. There has been no attempt to demonstrate a willingness to build a new ground and after the comments this morning I believe now more than ever that there never will be. There isn't a sound financial case for the move as far as I can see and in my opinion leaves us worse off financially or SISU should they continue to fund the losses. I would however be interested if anyone has any thoughts that are different from this.
Oh and whether or not it starves them out I'm not giving them my money.
