Seems long winded to me. I was thinking more about someone contacting one of the supporters groups, or at least hoping they'd contact ours out of politeness and for some local background information or even gestures of support for any protests. Then I'm not planning a protest.
The Hull City Supporters Trust was fully supportive of their campaign, whatever Hull City's pricing is for future seasons was irrelevant to the overall point. "The HCST is concerned that ordinary supporters are being priced out of attending Premier League fixtures, including Category A matches at the KC Stadium such as this one against Liverpool, though as supporters of Hull City we will be sorry that the atmosphere will be less intense due to the absence of Liverpool fans. We entirely understand and support their actions and the Trust applauds the actions of Liverpool fans in making a stand against high ticket prices, and will continue to lobby Hull City and the Premier League (in conjunction with other Trusts, Supporters Direct and the Football Supporters Federation) to see a fair deal put in place for all fans attending on match days." http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/support-from-hull-city-supporters-trust
They were being charged three times as much as several other clubs for the same fixture this season, what happens next season doesn't change that and they're protesting about away prices generally anyway, not just ours, so as Tobes says, it's largely irrelevant to the point being made.
Let's boycott a game to get something done, at a game where it's already going to happen and then pay extra for a game where it isn't.
Part of the argument was that they couldn't know that they were campaigning against a club that effectively agreed with them on the differential part. You've pointed at one way they could have.
Have City confirmed their away pricing for next season? Is there a club statement that spells out that they agree that the pricing structure is both wrong and vastly over priced and that it'll be significantly reduced for next season? If so please post both However, that doesn't alter the simple fact, that the argument about future pricing at City was no-one's but yours, it was completely irrelevant to their protest this season about PL pricing across the spectrum.
Isn't that a personal question? Anyway, as you ask, it's because I saw something in a pub that just reminded me very much of Tobes.
What's all this rubbish about boycotting away prices in general? In their blogs/statements or whatever all they rambled about was how Stoke paid £16 so they should as well. There was no mention of other clubs prices. Why was the more expensive Chelsea away game not boycotted?
It was quite obviously easier to arrange a boycott of a week-night game against Hull City, than one of their biggest games of the season on a Saturday afternoon, particularly when they were the same price. Chelsea put restrictions on child ticket sales to prevent them repeating the exercise anyway.
The Blue Union @TheBlueUnion Representatives from ourselves and @spiritofshankly had a very encouraging meeting today with @Barclays re: ticket prices & sponsorship.
Will the differential between categories be reduced? That after all is the main gripe. They seem willing to pay more at other grounds with higher prices and less differential. Were they told what the club had said? City, like all clubs take revenue from ticket sales, it's how it's broken up that's the issue. A consequence of the current differential is that Liverpool subsidise smaller teams for us. Perhaps a campaign for equality on spending the Prem money would be fairer? Instead of player wages, it went on fans. Okay, some of the bigger teams perhaps couldn't atract the players they do, but it'd be fairer for fans and coukd make the league more competitive.
That's never been their main gripe over ticket prices http://www.spiritofshankly.com/news/meeting-with-lfc-on-ticket-prices
We don't yet know, that was my point. You expect the Liverpool fans to know, yet we don't even know ourselves. James Mooney has said the differential will be reduced, but he also said we'd see some benefit from the ASI fund, that disabled concessions would be reviewed and that refunds would be given if the name changed, all of which turned out to be bollocks.
