Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74

Thread: Is Wenger being selfish?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    On one hand you are insisting that market rules apply, and fans are just stupid versions of customers for coming back, but if those customers demand value for money, as customers do in every other business you lampoon this as absurd. Can't have it both ways, imo.

    Perhaps a way to understand it is to recognise that the football club holds a monopoly over supporters of that football club.
    I don't regard anyone who demands value for money as absurd. They are perfectly entitled to expect value for money, but only if they are prepared to use the other part of the customer's bargain and withdraw their custom if they don't get it. If they refuse to do that, they have no right to expect anything other than to get screwed.

    As for your monopoly argument, it falls down on the basis that the monopoly is emotional and imposed purely by the customer on him- or herself. It's voluntary and imaginary, not imposed or real.

    Now if you argued that the mere act of going to the football - that physical act of belonging - is actually what they're paying for, then you'd have a better case. However, if you accept that, then there is no way of defining what 'value for money' means in that context and thus no grounds for customer complaint as long as the club keeps letting them in.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Your parallel with the tube is absurd. No-one goes on the tube for their amusement. They do it because they have to and there is in many cases no alternative. No-one needs to go to football. It is a leisure activity and nothing more. If people treat it as something more, more fool them.
    Message reported to Fash (RIP).

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by SWv2 View Post
    Message reported to Fash (RIP).
    Yes, but he's a special case may the Good Lord Baby Jesus rest his soul.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    Travelling on the tube might well be a financial necessity. Going to watch your football team is an emotional, subjective decision. If you can't control your emotions you probably shouldn't be allowed out without an adult, should you?
    It might well not be, as well. They could cycle, run, walk, take a bus or drive for that matter. Just as someone who supports a football club could choose another hobby or even support another club. But that doesn't really matter because the motivation isn't the point.

    The point is that they have chosen to take the Underground or support a particular club because they want to, it makes their life better. So to suggest that they have no right to complain once they have taken that decision simply because they have other options is a nonsense.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post
    It might well not be, as well. They could cycle, run, walk, take a bus or drive for that matter. Just as someone who supports a football club could choose another hobby or even support another club. But that doesn't really matter because the motivation isn't the point.

    The point is that they have chosen to take the Underground or support a particular club because they want to, it makes their life better. So to suggest that they have no right to complain once they have taken that decision simply because they have other options is a nonsense.
    This is madness. Suppose I choose to eat steak bought from Tesco, because I think eating steak makes my life better, but then find that the steak at Tesco is mass-produced, underhung, badly butchered rubbish; yet I continue to buy it and continue to moan about it and refuse to take my custom to a specialist butcher, or even to try the lamb. You would tell me I was a moron.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    I don't regard anyone who demands value for money as absurd. They are perfectly entitled to expect value for money, but only if they are prepared to use the other part of the customer's bargain and withdraw their custom if they don't get it. If they refuse to do that, they have no right to expect anything other than to get screwed.

    As for your monopoly argument, it falls down on the basis that the monopoly is emotional and imposed purely by the customer on him- or herself. It's voluntary and imaginary, not imposed or real.

    Now if you argued that the mere act of going to the football - that physical act of belonging - is actually what they're paying for, then you'd have a better case. However, if you accept that, then there is no way of defining what 'value for money' means in that context and thus no grounds for customer complaint as long as the club keeps letting them in.
    There is no elasticity of supply, though. We can't say "I'll come back in a years time please when you've debugged this iteration of the product" because there are only a limited number available. Most people aren't actually demanding trophies (though if they don't they get castigated by the pundosphere for accepting 'mediocrity'), but they are expecting the 11 massively-paid cůnts on the pitch to at least make some kind of effort. They should also expect a level of competence from the officials, with any technological help they may need, as with all other sports.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    We can't say "I'll come back in a years time please when you've debugged this iteration of the product"
    Yes. Yes you can. That's the point. There is no legal, moral or physical imperative making you go to the football. You can simply choose not to go because what you see on the pitch does not match what your expectations based on what you're paying. You just don't get to watch live games and save yourself plenty quid. Or you can go to another club like a lower-league team.

    Indeed, one could argue that, by not withdrawing your custom (and thus allowing the club to carry on with what it's doing with no financial penalty), the fans are actually perpetuating what they see as the problem. So, far from being victims in this situation, by failing to act decisively, they are complicit.
    Last edited by Burney; 03-20-2017 at 05:09 PM.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Yes. Yes you can. That's the point. There is no legal, moral or physical imperative making you go to the football. Indeed, one could argue that, by not withdrawing your custom (and thus allowing the club to carry on with what it's doing with no financial penalty), the fans are actually perpetuating what they see as the problem. So, far from being victims in this situation, by failing to act decisively, they are complicit.
    You can walk away, but you can't come back in a year's time, because you'll have given up your ST. (Unless you've loaned it). That's what I mean by inelasticity of supply.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Now if you argued that the mere act of going to the football - that physical act of belonging - is actually what they're paying for, then you'd have a better case. However, if you accept that, then there is no way of defining what 'value for money' means in that context and thus no grounds for customer complaint as long as the club keeps letting them in.
    No, it's more like me complaining about my daughter's American Express bill; the bitterness and resentment felt is in no way intended to imply a refusal, of any kind, to settle up on time and in full and forever. As Williams suggests (rather knowingly, I thought, for him. He must be having one of his days), it is at most just talk as one is, fundamentally, committed and wouldn't actually have it any other way in any case.

    One may only take your view if one isn't, or doesn't feel, duty-bound or responsible. It's about what you believe in; I kept my season tickets even though I haven't regularly attended in over twenty years and anyway was never going to be the sort of middle-aged dad to go to the football. No, it's because I believed my (inevitable) sons should go.

    It's as Kevin Keegan told us, years ago; at the end of the day, London trendies often have better things to do with their money than go to the football. Fair enough, everyone must make that choice for themselves. But to banter off those who do pledge to do so, while putting on dog about how great Wenger or Özil are the while, and at the same time refusing to actually contribute to their wages is rather inseemly, in my view.
    "Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.

    "But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Yes. Yes you can. That's the point. There is no legal, moral or physical imperative making you go to the football. You can simply choose not to go because what you see on the pitch does not match what your expectations based on what you're paying. You just don't get to watch live games and save yourself plenty quid. Or you can go to another club like a lower-league team.

    Indeed, one could argue that, by not withdrawing your custom (and thus allowing the club to carry on with what it's doing with no financial penalty), the fans are actually perpetuating what they see as the problem. So, far from being victims in this situation, by failing to act decisively, they are complicit.
    No, it's more like paying tax; everyone still does it regardless. In fact, it's *exactly* like paying tax, albeit with a personal, private imperative, rather than merely a legally-imposed one.
    "Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.

    "But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •