Vicky Beercock has confirmed that junior will get his vote, even if they just have to do it manually, but it shouldn’t be this complicated to vote. Most corporate members won’t go through all this fannying around, they just won’t vote (and they must make up over 15% of the members at the moment).
Still undecided how to vote. Personal situation is that it will benefit the 2 nephews I take (or really my 2 sisters) by £3 and £12 a month. It will cost me an extra £6. Even with an extra £6 a month that's still cheap, I'm sure I was paying over £500 a season at one point. It's a bit **** though. Basically it seems in zone 1 (where the 'family' stand is) you only benefit if you have an under 14 with you (as long as you don't have more than 1 adult). A single adult pays more. An adult with just a 15 year old(s) pays more. If you are in zone 2 already then you have the same situation as those stupid earlier proposals where nobody benefits at all, but some pay more. Zone 3 becomes Zone 2 so all of Zone 3 benefit, but not because of concessions. So in all the proposals are pretty ****. But it is concessions, kind of. It will make it more affordable for my nephews to keep going. Hmm.
I voted for concessions even though it will cost me more. I don’t like it, but hey, we need to have concessions and it’s still cheaper than I have paid in the past.
I have no problem with paying more, I expected it and at £324 a year it's good value. If the concessions offered had been proper concessions with no limits on kids and available all over then I'd have had no hesitation.
I own two seats, one for me one for the wife, but because I pay the DD, I only have one membership number, and so I can only vote once. What if my missus wanted to vote differently (even though she does not pay). Surely we should get 2 votes?
I doubt that this reply will go down too well, but anyone who does not vote for concessions on the basis that they do not like the concessions on offer has really missed the point.
Aye, people should consider their options carefully. Drink the dirty infected water or die of thirst???
I agree with you, but I think the issue is some people think that voting for concessions will be taken as a statement that the proposal is perfect and that's the end of it. Others think that a vote against the new proposal will be taken as a statement that they don't want concessions. The reasons I agree with your take on it are that, democratically, you can't go taking a vote to mean anything more than what it explicitly states, and that I know that Geoff on behalf of the trust, will continue to campaign for proper concessions and won't let them think this is the end of it. I also like what I've heard of the new marketing manager at City and believe she's infinitely more competent and reasonable than her predecessors.
But what is the point of concessions that don't benefit anybody? Yes you can say it's about the principle, but if you aren't getting any benefits than you aren't really getting the principle. It's like having this set principle that you must have leather boots, all other boots are no good. Yet when there ony being one pair of leather boots which are battered, worn and full of holes and loads of pairs of high quality non-leather boots in perfect condition, you wouldn't choose the leather boots would you? Or having a principle of never hitting a woman but when a woman is attacking and hurting a lot of people and you could stop it with one punch in the face then you'd drop the principle for the greater good of saving people surely? They don't really make sense (I have a banging headache and can't think straight) but the gist is that it is a bit silly to blindly go for the principle of something, when really they are using the principle to screw you over a bit and most people will be worse off because of the principle. So why go just for the principle?
It's ridiculous, I'm trying to get Vicky to address it now, there's lots of couples, or dads and lads, or families, where everyone should get to vote.
Most people won't be worse off, adults will be worse off and kids will be better off, that's rather the point.
Kids that have to go with adults. The adult generally paying for the kid. A single adult with an under 14 will be better off in zone 1. 2 adults with 1 kid won't be. An adult with a 15 year old will be worse off. So yeah, the proposal are great, if you go as a single adult and have an under 14 with you in zone 1.
Yeah that muddies the waters of concessions or no concessions. They are better off because Zone 3 is gone, but oddly only in the concession scenario. That does sway me slightly towards the concessions vote since it will benefit a number of people. I really annoy myself when making decisions because I see the benefit of both sides usually and rarely feel strongly about either.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that adults are underpaying at the moment, their prices should go up, they were always going to.
I still don't get why people think this is a vote for 'the principal of concessions' it is a vote for these specific concessions. Do you agree with these concessions or not? If anyone truly believes the Allams will put these concessions in place and then review them is deluding themselves. They have come to the table knowing exactly what they are going to offer before even meeting the committee. If we vote for it, in my eyes they will be laughing and use this as an example of them being great owners, listening to the fans etc.... When really he isn't but that's what they will say. The Allams continue to divide fans.
Other than the two times I've mentioned how my ticket is significantly cheaper than it used to be and I totally expected and don't mind paying more you mean? Yeah I guess I did, sorry. I'm not bothered about a small increase in an adult price, but if the proposals are crap and hardly benefit anybody then why vote for change? The biggest benefit seems to be the abolishing of zone 3 not the concessions.
The club have already confirmed to Geoff, that once the vote has been concluded, they'll revisit the issues that the Supporters Committee have with the restrictions. They might well not move any further, but they're certainly well aware that people are not happy with them as they stand.
