Ok, If I'm honest, I can't claim to be in the know on this subject and rarely go to away games. However I have stumbled across articles/ posts etc which gave me the impression prices had peaked and then reduced over the last few years? I may only have read the good news stories then. I thought I had seen that if the proposed prices (ie 2015/16 admissions) went through, we would be 2nd highest in the league? I am sure we weren't in 2015-16.
Actually you’d pay more than twice what you pay now It would go up from £21 per month to £45 per month
Good post Some people think that when the Allams leave that everybody will return and the place will be packed to the Rafters. Not gonna happen!!
Folk should start with the Ticket T&Cs of the FA and then try PL clubs down - they (the ones I have looked at) will only transfer subject to a written application and approval being granted. It seems to me that the club are simply laying out a common policy for the avoidance of future doubt; enforcing it on simple seat filling, by a friend, would be highly unlikely - just as the projected prices are not credible. Folk need to consider this more and slow down. I totally agree with a no-vote now, just as it should have been in the first ballot.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/41482931 How do we compare now and under the proposals (will other clubs increase, too?)?
I’m not surprised at all that passing your ticket on isn’t allowed, at many places. It is weird how much they’re stressing it in this vote though There’s no need to even mention it at this stage, you just include it in the Ts and Cs when it comes in, but there’s more words about how strongly it will be enforced than about the rest of the entire proposal The only reason I can think is because they don’t want people to vote for it.
Those don't give the full picture though. Compare someone wanting to take kids or an OAP wanting to take grandkids and it is a different matter. We don't look as good then. As with Wolves whose figures for pay on the day look,more than ours but as I said previously for ne as an OAP wanting to take my 2grandkids to watch my team play Leeds would have been £72 at the KC and £25 at Wolves Norwich look expensive compared to us at moment. But if we had the 2015/16 prices adults would pay slightly more but anyone wanting to take kids under 18 and OAPs on their own or taking grandkids would be better off. In their equivalent of North Stand with the 2015/16 season ticket prices we would be £40 more for an adult, £33 less for under 12s, £5 less for under 18s and over 12s, £30 more for £19 and 20 year old, though they start paying the highest figure at 21 but 22 at City. So it would be cheaper at City even with what seem high prices for a parent with any kids under 18 or an OAP taking grandkids by quite some margin. Similar examples all over. The figures on there only tell a small part of the story.
I see that they are adopting the "Twenty's plenty" campaign only, rather than relating it to match day prices, they are relating it to desired attendances next season (they might get more than 20 attendees by making the youth players buy tickets).
Tickets, whether football, music, theatre, parking, whatever, are very rarely, if ever, transferable. There are good reasons for it. At a popular, well supported venue, those reasons look sensible; at a poorly supported one they don't, but the rules are the rules - although a blind-eye is often turned. They are able to argue that they are ensuring that customers should be clear of their rights, or lack of them - it is clear, from the confusion on here, that's not a bad idea. But hang-on, I'm told there is no confusion. But they are also bullies; they always have been. They know all of the answers; or, as we know, maybe not. We know they have a threatening style of management and this is simply an extension of that. It's what they do and they know, that technically, they are okay doing it. It is sometimes a useful tactic to layout the hard line of policy, make the wider audience of opposition (that's how they see supporters) understand their rights, and then soften them, in a magnanimous, but thoroughly insincere gesture of care. Quite a sharp use of that confusion that doesn't exist. Taking part in the first ballot - it was of little consequence what you voted for - simply gave their manipulation credence. Everyone, who discussed it on here, claimed to be voting for something they didn't like - that, in itself, was a concern. It was stated there was a real concern over turnout being low; in fact it was given as a reason against a no-vote. (Laziness, lack of social responsibility and the usual biased tosh, was also thrown out to discredit the unwanted no-vote) The gamble was taken and the turnout, it would appear, was very low; low enough to let them manipulate it. So now, all of a sudden, a no-vote is the answer; but that's not surprising, as it always was - or, to be more precise, it was the clear option of not supporting a loaded ballot that was... ..But now that seems to be happening. It's funny how things turn out...
Sorry if this has been covered, I've not read all the thread, but given a fair amount of long term fans are not eligible to vote, is this being flagged up and addressed anywhere? It's discrimination to not provide people with the opportunity to abstain.
The Trust was pressing for all fans on the database to get a vote, as the original plan was to only allow current members a vote, they extended it to include the season before the memberships, but that's as far as they'd go.
Almost all football clubs allow you to transfer your ticket to someone else if you're unable to attend, it's simply common sense.
Another chance to call me an idiot but here goes. Everyone refuses to vote in anymore of the clubs rigged ballots. The HCST hold their own online ballot with their own suggested prices eg £35 adult, £15 OAP, £5 under 18. They could use the references provided by the club on the last ballot for verification, it could be monitored by their contacts at the FA, invite the club to also verify. It would show we are willing to accept a price increase for the re-introduction of concessions and people will bother to vote if the options are suitable
