I don't think that anyone is criticising what Glover has done or for what reason he has done it for. The simple fact was that, at the time he took over, you were looking down and out and needed to secure as many of the licence criteria as possible. One of those was the crowd figures and to breed a positive atmosphere at the club.
The difficult thing is that the pricing policy clearly isn't sustainable and I disagree - he isn't maximising income, at least through ST sales. The income you've got from 4000 ST holders paying £125 is equivalent (assuming they're adults) to 2500 paying £200.00. Compared to ST sales 4/5 years ago that, fair enough, is a considerable increase. But do you really believe that as a club if the price was increased you wouldn't achieve 2500?
Sooner or later, the deal is going to have to be increased/flipped (possibly £150 next season). I'd be surprised if the average ST price across SL is not £200.00, though. It will certainly be interesting to see if this can be sustained/maintained. With a loss of £1.2m in first season, though, I think this is - returning back to topic - what SF is highlighting. Clubs in general cannot rely on benefactors, making substantial losses and not spending what they earn. Criteria of licensing, permitting it remains, should be about sustainability and much more stringent financial policing. Perhaps something like the Financial Fair Play system in the lower leagues in football wouldn't go amiss?
