The board

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Fulham are squarely aiming that pricing at tourists. Remember they were the first club to have a "neutral" end for neither home nor away fans. It's incredibly cynical and insulting to their own fans.

Uli Hoeness at Bayern hit the nail on the head:

“We could charge more than £104. Let's say we charged £300. We'd get £2m more in income, but what's £2m to us? In a transfer discussion you argue about that sum for five minutes. But the difference between £104 and £300 is huge for the fan. We do not think the fans are like cows, who you milk. Football has got to be for everybody. That's the biggest difference between us and England.”

I know people who live in Barnes just over the River. Craven Cottage is their nearest gym/leisure club now. Will be plenty in the area using that.

[Shade]

Uli Hoeness at Bayern hit the nail on the head:

“We could charge more than £104. Let's say we charged £300. We'd get £2m more in income, but what's £2m to us? In a transfer discussion you argue about that sum for five minutes. But the difference between £104 and £300 is huge for the fan. We do not think the fans are like cows, who you milk. Football has got to be for everybody. That's the biggest difference between us and England.”

I'd imagine the line where the price of ST's actually makes a big difference to clubs is mid table League One downwards. The PL, Champ and most of the top half of L1 could probably give ST's away and not have it affect them too much. Obviously, for clubs like ours, it's a huge source of income. It's a disgrace that there are kids and young adults in, for example, North London who will be massive Arsenal or Spurs fans who might never, or maybe only once or twice, have been able to attend a home game because the club would rather charge ridiculous amounts and have a stadium half full of tourists, when it makes little difference to their budget.