Should add, I'm not arguing the blind necessarily should get in free, just that their tickets are discounted somewhat relative to the reduction in the experience that not being able to see brings, much like the TV licence is. Thought experiment: How much would you pay to go to a match blindfolded?
The TV license itself is not the product which the buyer wants to enjoy. It is the TV, for which a blind person would presumably have to pay full price, which provides the utility. Furthermore, TV licensing is a government requirement and so it makes sense that someone who gets less use out of his TV, but still wishes to use it, should pay less for the obligatory license. It wouldn't make sense, on the other hand, for the company that sold him his TV to give him a discount. Tesco and Southampton FC are both companies who seek to sell their limited supply for a profit. The license fee is a tax.
Ok, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Here's what I meant: TV Licence = paying to watch TV Football ticket = paying to attend a football match With your football ticket you don't get a physical product, so the licence comparison is a better one than groceries.
Answer: I wouldn't go More appropriate thought experiment: How much would a club be willing to charge you to attend a match blindfolded?
No, but that's the logical conclusion of your assertion that "all disabilities should be treated the same". What about wheelchair ramps? They cost money to install, so maybe we shouldn't bother as dyslexics don't need them?
If you don't want to go, that's your choice, but some people don't let their handicaps stop them from enjoying themselves. Imagine you did want to go, what would you say is a fair price? Ha, ok I think we're living in different dimensions here so maybe I'll give up
Moot point. Full price. What part of the match isn't physical? Your seat? The ball? The players? The net? The other fans? ****ing hell, if you don't understand what "physical" means then it's probably for the best that you give up.
You are just trying to start a debate were there is none, all disabilities need there own help. Such as brail, ramps etc knowing that is common sense. But all disabilities should be treated fairly, even if you are blind you are still being entertained so should pay. £300 for both you and your handler for a season ticket is not bad at all.
Joe, I'm really trying to be civil here but it seems like you're just being intentionally contrary. Groceries are something you go to the shop, buy, and take home with you. A football match is not, it is something you sit in a seat and enjoy from a distance, like a TV programme. The licence fee is something you pay so that you can watch TV programmes, the ticket price is something you pay so you can watch a football match. It's really not that hard is it?
Ok, you think the ticket is good value, that's fine. But since you acknowledge all disabilities need different treatment, you must understand my point? All disabilities do not impact on your enjoyment of a football match to the same degree, so it's easier to argue that a blind person should get a discount than someone whose experience of the match is not impaired, although they are disabled.
Yes, that's what a disagreement is! What a weird way of looking at things. The license fee is something that you are required by the government to pay if you wish to enjoy your TV, which you have already paid for. The TV itself is a far more appropriate comparison to a football match than the license.
I'm off to perform surgery on my laptop now, so I'll leave you with the following conclusion: Football match - product Groceries - product Tv - product Tax - not a product It's been fun teaching you.
No actually if I'm arguing with someone and they present a compelling argument, I might even change my mind! If not I will at least try to understand the point they are trying to make, but you don't seem willing or able to do that for some reason. No, I'm no expert on this stuff I just feel it's self-evident that people should be treated fairly, and that doesn't always mean treating them the same.
I'm with Joe. Football is a product, Southampton are entitled to charge as much as they want for tickets, the fact that they are discounting them so heavily is very good of them. I don't see what part of Joe's arguement you disagree with?
I've never said it's not up to the club to decide, just that they can afford to give blind people free tickets as they have done before. They've obviously decided not to do that in future and that's their decision, although the fact they still offer a discount suggests that they at least partly agree with me. I can't speak for blind people or other disabled people but I've offered an alternative viewpoint to all those who rather uncharitably said (paraphrasing) "they should pay full price or they can stay at home!" I accept that football is a 'product' but it's not the same as an apple. It's an experience you pay for, not something tangible. They're quite different concepts. As for Joe, well as far as I can tell, he told me my analogy was garbage and then when presented with an explanation preferred to go into some sort of logical death spiral rather than acknowledge that any part of what I said was correct...
Haha. It is a very contentious issue, and the only real answer I can come up with is to just do what other clubs do. I haven't looked into it though, so I'm not really too sure what the majority do? I definitely agree with you that there should be discount taken into account for disabilities (as well as for seniors and children for that matter.)
