Jump to content


Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About AsioOtus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,629 profile views
  1. another recent case of Alex Damson, totally wrecked her life, from something pretty innocuous https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/hockey/47442343
  2. Been a big problem in rugby and think it's a 23 day protocol before you should return, although think that's club/junior rugby. Probably can be less in professional clubs where there is closer medical supervision. https://www.englandrugby.com/participation/playing/headcase/general-information https://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/concussion
  3. Offical confirmation https://twitter.com/swfc/status/1169988782751453186
  4. Agree with that in the past, was often blowing, but don't think you could level that at him yesterday (or since Christmas tbh). Looks more athletic, less muscular and a bit slimmer. Excellent yesterday along with everyone mentioned above, but Lee my mom, what a player. Even under pressure, very rarely gets it wrong and so much energy.
  5. Totally agree and was in same boat, refusing to buy on principle last year after the way it was presented. Also think its still a bit steep, but I will be buying for me and the kids this year. Think we'd sell more at half this level, but in terms of income (rather than attracting most fans) we'll raise more this way. Also approve of the simplicity this year, but don't understand why there are two junior membership categories (u11 and 11-16) which have identical benefits. Fine if priced differently (which they should be) or they have different benefits, but as they don't would be better keep super clear with just Adult and Junior levels. We had the same split last year, but as far as I remember they were priced differently. Heading in the right direction, which it hasn't felt like for quite a while. UTO
  6. Agree. Had the skill, but wrong mentality with huge chip on his shoulder. Sounds like it was identified at Lillieshaw when he was starting out, shame he couldn't sort it out. Came across as a nightmare to work with and totally unable to take direction. Neon Lights says it all
  7. Sods law, we come down just before parachute payments introduced and we go up just after their scrapped.
  8. We seem to be doing same with keepers as we did with strikers last year. We don't need 5 professional keepers. The interview suggests McCulloch is expecting to play for U23's...surely that's where Wildsmith and/or Westwood should be playing whilst Dawson is no 1. It's great we're bringing kids through and have strength in depth, but we can't afford it. Even if we could afford it l, we can't keep them all happy and shouldn't be doing it. The academy isn't just to bring players through for first team, surely its also to bring the others through at a good enough standard so we can sell them on to othersl teams. At least, that's what everyone else academy seems to do - perhaps after a few first team run outs. We can't just stockpile them and/or wait till they leave us for free. Well we can, but doesn't make any commercial sense I guess we could be in the cycle now, building up a squad with some young saleable assets, but I fear we are repeating previous mistakes. I'm sure it isn't just related to keepers either.
  9. Agree with alot of the earlier comments. The aim should be to increase attendance at each game with an acceptance that the average ticket price will drop as attendance grows. Totally agree the pricing structure is too high to encourage more people. However, it's a difficult balance because X amount of non season people will come to game almost regardless of price because it fits their commitments (they're free that day and we want to come - usually known weeks in advance). The higher the pricing the more this number drops. But X would have come whatever, so reducing the price means less revenue overall. To justify, the price reduction has to encourage another group of people, Y, to attend. (X+Y) * £30 > X * £25 (or whatever ave prices are). Like the idea of a bundle but I think you need to be able to cherry pick. Although opposition plays a part, my decision of whether to travel up for a game is more if I am free for a particular weekend. If I am I come up (from London) and go to a game. I might move commitments for a big game (Blades etc) but usually it's other way around. A pack of 6 games is no good if I can't make 3 of the ones chosen. I think this reduces the potential people who's buy significantly. It only really helps people who want to come regulatly but can't afford it...an important group but I guess much smaller than those whose can't commit to 6 specific games (which also includes loads who also can't afford it) I'd open up online sales for every game at start of the season. Sell membership (preferably with a cheaper and less complicated structure, but with whatever incentives they want). Encourage people to buy multiple tickets at once (games they can choose to commit to) Allows game bands to apply to charge at different prices (ideally less complicated than now) Apply any membership discount Apply another discount ontop for a multiple purchase. Eg. 6 tickets gets an extra 10% or £5 off per game or maybe tiered. 3 games 5%, 6 10%, 9 15% etc. The discount needs careful planning as per equation above, it's got to increase revenue overall compared to not doing any discount. It also needs to keep prices above that of season ticket average although the more games you go to, the closer you should get to that average. Someone who pays individually for 15 games but can't do rest because of whatever reason so doesn't take a ST ought to be treated better (charged less) than someone who can only make 1 or 2 games. In an ideal world, I'd allow the sales to be done over the season rather than having to commit at once. Build up points or something as per away tickets. The more points you get the bigger the discount. If you buy a batch younger there quickly, so encourages commuting early and bring cash in early, but still gives a benefit to those who can only commit on the day each time but do it regularly over the reason. The aim should be to get each fan to go to more games. That might be for 16 to a ST, 8 to 10, 2 to 5 or 0 to 1 (prob no discount here). Everyone has different circumstances and reasons for going/not going. Price it to encourage people to come (cheaper) but calculated so we still make money, so whatever the prices/discount X+Y > X.
  10. Assuming you are right re first team appearances, it makes it an even stranger decision to lock him out. Getting blooded into first team action (ala Clare) would seem to increase his tribunal transfer value, so even if he leaves, we'd be in a better position to be in. Plus he'd have been more likely to see us as the place to stay and develop his career as well as sending out a better message to the rest of the development squad about their futures. I don't really mind if he is picked or not, I'm happy for the manager(s) to decide if he offers more than the rest of the forwards to merit a place. No problem not picking him for football reasons (although it would obviously have been nice to see him) but to lock him out seems to be cutting our nose of to spite our face. I'd still argue for him to available to be picked on merit regardless of the contract position which seem to give upside to everyone - the Owls, Hirst and other youngsters developing or choosing whether to come to us in the future, but assuming the contract value point is correct, it also makes it a poor commercial decision alongside a footballing one.
  11. Hayden White Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2013–2016 Bolton Wanderers 5 (0) 2014 → Carlisle United (loan) 8 (0) 2014–2015 → Bury (loan) 2 (0) 2015 → Notts County (loan) 3 (0) 2015–2016 → Blackpool (loan) 29 (1) 2016–2017 Peterborough United 6 (0) 2017 → Mansfield Town (loan) 18 (1) 2017– Mansfield Town 0 (0) * Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 16:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
  12. Geek post! I've just played around with the percentages and worked back, and it gives a very suspicious round number with only 5k, 10k, 15k, 20k (multiples of 5,000) generating the percentages given for both questions. Whilst possible, the probability of an exact round number of 5,000 multiples responded is very low. Its a pet hate quoting %'s to 2dp - why do we need to know 29.94% responded Yes rather than 29.9% or even better 30% (I could even live with 1/3), just keep it simple. However, the detail allows you to work backwards to estimate the number of respondents. *** To be fair to the club, you can get close to these percentages from a lot of other number of respondents, it you round the results to 2dp, so there are plausible reasons why the number isn't a multiple of 5k, but it is still very suspicious that the only way to get these exact results is in 5k multiples. I think the club need to give more information, ideally with some independent verification, to explain the results. Even if the numbers are verified, as others have pointed out, the survey questions are poorly worded and biased which makes any meaningful analysis impossible. They seem to be designed solely for marketing/PR use rather than to give meaningful insights to help management decision making (or designed by someone who doesn't know what they are doing). The whole exercise seems like a complete waste of time to me (but I've been involved in plenty of similar situations in the past so its no real surprise)
  • Create New...