| Legacy fans 07:29 - Oct 27 with 1055 views | bobbys_vision |
One of our members has written a piece exploring the origins and meaning of the term "Legacy fan".
We hope to soon do a more in depth article on the German model of fan ownership (50%+1) and how that serves fans' interests in the modern game.
https://www.bobbysvision.co.uk |  | | |  |
| Legacy fans on 10:06 - Oct 27 | ITFC_Essex |
I agree entirely with the angle.
It's unfortunate that these ideas were not really pushed in 2018 where it was clear the only was was down, under Evans, but many of the "legacy" fans were keen to give Evans the benefit of the doubt and pin much of the blame on Mick.
At that point fans buying a stake in the club, however minimal, would have been more attractive, now we're up again (at the moment) it's going to be a hard sell to convince them that the club being owned by American-ultra capitalists is a bad thing.
I agree we are heading towards the tourist model, but we're not our own best friends in this regard. There wasn't much upset in the wider fanbase over the Farage thing, fans are lapping up three new strips every 8 months (which is insanity), and our fourth black kit since the owners took over, shelling out for those, shelling out for mascot packages and meet the players experiences, shelling out for match worn shirts. It's utterly conditioned consumerism, and because people keep buying, they have no reason to stop doing what they are doing and if you can't convince them to stop that, you'll have no chance saving the club from being a tourist attraction long term, because the majority are already backing that with their own actions. [Post edited 27 Oct 10:07]
|  |
| |
| Legacy fans on 15:46 - Oct 27 | Cheltenham_Blue |
Firstly, apologies for the down arrow, accidentally hit it as I was trying to see who what upped or downed it.
I agree with much of the sentiment here, particularly the importance of protecting the identity of the club, maintaining affordable access to football and ensuring supporters have a meaningful voice. Those things should never be sacrificed simply in pursuit of commercial growth.
However, I think there's an important contradiction in criticising supporters for buying shirts, merchandise and experiences while also wanting Ipswich to remain competitive at the highest level.
The introduction of Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) regulations makes commercial revenue more important than ever. What we can spend on players is now directly linked to what the club earns. The uncomfortable reality is that without maximising commercial opportunities, signings such as Palacios become considerably harder to sustain.
We might dislike the commercialisation of football, but unless the whole game adopts a fundamentally different financial model, Ipswich cannot simply opt out without placing itself at a significant competitive disadvantage. We all remember where we were under Marcus Evans, and I certainly wouldn't want to return to that position.
I also think there's a distinction between exploiting supporters and providing commercial opportunities that supporters voluntarily choose to engage with. Nobody needs to buy three shirts a season, but those who want to are contributing to the club's financial strength. That doesn't make them any less authentic as supporters.
None of this means Mark Ashton or Gamechanger should be beyond scrutiny. Ticket pricing, supporter consultation, transparency and protecting the atmosphere at Portman Road are all legitimate concerns.
Indeed, commercial success should provide opportunities to make football more accessible, particularly for less affluent and in particular younger supporters who are, ironically a group that 'Bobby's Vision' has decided to ignore, and by implication define as less legitimate.
For me, the challenge isn't choosing between commercial success and the traditional identity of Ipswich Town. It's ensuring that one supports the other. We should absolutely hold the ownership accountable, but we also need to recognise that the investment and commercial growth we've enjoyed have been instrumental in taking us from League One to where we are today. |  |
| |
| Legacy fans on 16:28 - Oct 27 | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Legacy fans on 15:46 - Oct 27 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Firstly, apologies for the down arrow, accidentally hit it as I was trying to see who what upped or downed it.
I agree with much of the sentiment here, particularly the importance of protecting the identity of the club, maintaining affordable access to football and ensuring supporters have a meaningful voice. Those things should never be sacrificed simply in pursuit of commercial growth.
However, I think there's an important contradiction in criticising supporters for buying shirts, merchandise and experiences while also wanting Ipswich to remain competitive at the highest level.
The introduction of Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) regulations makes commercial revenue more important than ever. What we can spend on players is now directly linked to what the club earns. The uncomfortable reality is that without maximising commercial opportunities, signings such as Palacios become considerably harder to sustain.
We might dislike the commercialisation of football, but unless the whole game adopts a fundamentally different financial model, Ipswich cannot simply opt out without placing itself at a significant competitive disadvantage. We all remember where we were under Marcus Evans, and I certainly wouldn't want to return to that position.
I also think there's a distinction between exploiting supporters and providing commercial opportunities that supporters voluntarily choose to engage with. Nobody needs to buy three shirts a season, but those who want to are contributing to the club's financial strength. That doesn't make them any less authentic as supporters.
None of this means Mark Ashton or Gamechanger should be beyond scrutiny. Ticket pricing, supporter consultation, transparency and protecting the atmosphere at Portman Road are all legitimate concerns.
Indeed, commercial success should provide opportunities to make football more accessible, particularly for less affluent and in particular younger supporters who are, ironically a group that 'Bobby's Vision' has decided to ignore, and by implication define as less legitimate.
For me, the challenge isn't choosing between commercial success and the traditional identity of Ipswich Town. It's ensuring that one supports the other. We should absolutely hold the ownership accountable, but we also need to recognise that the investment and commercial growth we've enjoyed have been instrumental in taking us from League One to where we are today. |
My thoughts are very much aligned with what you have written here - success of a club is very much linked with commercial return.
However, many people allude to this being new, but it is not - football has been driven by making money for over 100 years.
The trend accelerated during the 60s, when wage caps were abolished, player contracts shifted towards the benefit of the player and TV began to influence the sport. The Chester Report cemented this direction, and most likely was the catalyst for the Premier League.
The PL is often accused of turning the sport into a money driven activity, but in truth it was only expanding on what had been happening since the 1930s. Yes, it is orders of magnitude greater now, but any suggestion that commercialisation of the sport is a new development is ignoring the history of the sport for the last 100 years.
Why is this relevant? To illustrate that the sport in this country has been on this road for a very long time, it is fundamental to how it operates today and it is now probably irreversible without completely dismantling the existing infrastructure and institutions. That seems unlikely, as in the short term pretty much everyone would lose out through such an extreme move, and I suspect many clubs would disappear if not forever, certainly for many decades. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
