I put effort and thought into making it two separate things. What a waste of time that turned out to be.
Your're a bit of a cocky ****, aren't you. ;-). I don't know whether or not we have joined, do you? So where would you go to make the minor adjustments (although I wouldn't describe introducing concessions as a minor adjustment)? In the real world I do believe they would be well advised to start again, but I don't believe they will, as they only ever tweak things and generally make them worse. What you have argued has been bullshit. I am defending what I say, it appears it is you who struggles. I know you're not a lawyer; even though your starting post made out you have expert knowledge, it was clear what you aren't. Read what you put, it wasn't the same. Get with your argument.
Are you really this ****ing thick? Do you not think it might be prudent to await something from the club and the PL as they have said they are looking at the matter? It seems that folk want to rewrite what they wrote on here. Barring membership is not the only option; I think it was Dutch who suggested that holding back an element of the £170M was a possibility, although, just like most it was a suggestion in conversation, nothing more. You seem to have tipped your cap at me, fair enough. You'll find it's not me who forgets what I or others have wrote, that's another well known poster . . . and you.
They could introduce concessions for the family stand. They could leave the children's direct debit at £27 per month. They could increase the pensioner's direct debit to £30.45 per month and increase the adults to £34.50. The rest of the ground stays the same. Similar match day prices would apply and be available in the family stand and for away supporters. I would say these are minor adjustments and not a major victory over Ehab and his scheme.
I really don't know why you have posted this. I have never spoke of a major victory over Ehab and his scheme. The discussion was about there being a lack of concessions and that it was in violation of Rule 7 of the Premier League Rules. You and others proceeded to argue that the rule could be interpreted as not meaning a price reduction or discount and that the rule could be met by other means already in place. I disagreed and said the rule was not being met when taking a reasonable interpretation of the term, concession. The Premier League seem to agree with me as far as their most recent communication would lead me to believe; but, as with all things, that might change. You keep coming up with how they might adjust the pricing and meet the requirements of the rules and I keep agreeing that that would probably do it, as concessions would have been introduced. What part of that is difficult for you, or anyone else to grasp? It really is that simple and all of the suppositions and theories are just that until we receive the next statement from club/PL. I would say that to introduce the changes you have mentioned would be something more than a minor adjustment; it would mean reimbursements, marketing changes, financial adjustments - it would also challenge the practicality of the original concept. As for a major victory over Ehab and his scheme, it would certainly be a major dent in his philosophy of 'one price for all'. As for the membership scheme, you would find that I have not knocked the principle of a membership scheme at any time, as I believe that a well constructed scheme would be a positive thing. I have knocked the idea of losing concessions and unnecessary evictions; I still do. I cannot make it any clearer for you than that, are you still confused?
No. We just disagree over whether price increases for seniors and adults should count as concessions.
To be fair, I think there was only Cheshire Ben that has seriously suggested we'd be refused a share in the prem, and as in my previous reply, there may not even need to be compromise. It's the shareholders that decide, and as that amounts to the prem clubs, I don't think they'll be too interested.
Based on that press release, the premier league don't necessarily agree with you. As it stands, it looks more likely that they don't. They responded to a direct question from a reporter. They look into all aspects of the club, which includes ticket prices. From speaking to them, the charges for home fans are not very high on their agenda. I hope that I'm proven wrong.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I am talking about price discounts/reductions for children and oldies, as has always been the case at our club (and all others). I have never discussed price increases as being a concession as it is a nonsense take on the matter.
If kids and seniors are getting cheaper prices than adults, then they're getting concessions, I'm not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.
They appear to have picked up on issues with R7 and that deals solely with concessions, so I think they do believe there is a non-conformity, but what they do about it is another matter and not something I have ever predicted. As I have said, throughout the discussion, it is best left for them to make a further statement on the matter. Something can move up an agenda if a further action gives it more importance.
We are introducing concessions for senior citizens. From the end of the month they will be paying £5.50 a month more than last month. We are also introducing concessions for children. They will be paying the same at the end of the month as they did last month. This amazing offer is only available to those in the family stand.
They didn't pick it up, a reporter asked them about it and they're looking to see if the club comply with all the rules. The fact we're in the prem seems to point to it being a minor issue, if it's even a breach.
