My Dad is a concession pass holder and he was offered priority on seats at a cheaper price.
I'm not arguing if that constitutes a concession, I am saying it is making a cheaper seat available as a priority.
You could (could!) argue that was making a concession available. That could (could!) be argued as enough to comply with R7.
I have already agreed that it's not the best argument, but neither is the rule the best drafted. It's a mess and I'd be gobsmacked if it could enforced if pushed, when there is some sort of reduced price on offer. The most likely scenario I can see is the league complying with the the rules to change R7 and make it much more specific in time for next season (if a club pushed them by adopting a controversial interpretation).
I'm not supporting the clubs position, just pointing out the difficulties of applying badly drafted governance. The club could refund any pensioner a few pence and say they had complied. The spirit thing is the next argument, but again it's more of a handshake thing than a court enforceable rule!
I'm not arguing if that constitutes a concession, I am saying it is making a cheaper seat available as a priority.
You could (could!) argue that was making a concession available. That could (could!) be argued as enough to comply with R7.
I have already agreed that it's not the best argument, but neither is the rule the best drafted. It's a mess and I'd be gobsmacked if it could enforced if pushed, when there is some sort of reduced price on offer. The most likely scenario I can see is the league complying with the the rules to change R7 and make it much more specific in time for next season (if a club pushed them by adopting a controversial interpretation).
I'm not supporting the clubs position, just pointing out the difficulties of applying badly drafted governance. The club could refund any pensioner a few pence and say they had complied. The spirit thing is the next argument, but again it's more of a handshake thing than a court enforceable rule!