When you say 'I' - I presumed you meant you - clearly there is a use of the word 'I' that I wasn't aware of - just for clarity when I referred to I, I actually meant me, just in case we're not seeing eye to eye
Another good, measured and considered interview from Geoff Bielby. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03q33cl
Can't you twats give it a rest whinging about anything and everything the club does? Finally something good comes along that's going to save lots of people a lot of money but you hve a tantrum because one or two might hve to spend a little bit more if they want to remain in their precious seat. Boo ****ing hoo.
I don't know what else has taken place before and around this release, but I would hope that a confidential approach was made, allowing them to respond, without the threat of what would happen if they did not meet the proposals. I know there is a timeline at play in all of this, but 48hrs would have been reasonable for the club to respond before this paragraph was issued. The Trust make it very difficult for any business to change direction when faced with ultimatums such as this. It may come across as assertive and wise, but it really isn't; it is fight-picking, it is arrogant and I am glad it no longer represents me.
I keep posting this Mr Hat,but here I go again. I am a senior so it will cost me significantly more, whats more my 4yr old grandson's pass goes from £60 to £400. I would really like to see you justify that. One more thing just as important,we sit in Upper West so we have to move.
The FWG, of which the Trust is a part, have been trying to get a meeting for weeks, but without success. The members of the FWG were given a copy of this release in advance, including the club, they could have acted to change things should they have wished.
Was that all or some of the FWG? I've just asked some that generally go, and they knew nothing about the meeting or other goings on..
did everybody get there pack before end of play Thursday as promised? I didn't, maybe im not invited..
But if you move you would end up paying less. The child's ticket alone would cost more but with the parent included the overall cost is lower. These new prices make the club affordable to a lot of adults who until now were priced out, the trade off being everyone has to pay the same and some will have to move in order to save money. I think that's fair and helps get more people in the ground. More people = more atmosphere, specially as those the lower price bands are likely to attract are towards the bottom of the social food chain who's miserable lives don't offer much excitement so they're more likely to give it everything at footy and create some noise. If the club had just knocked a little bit off all adult season tickets, everyone would be paying more than under the current pricing and none of this whining would be happening. The other huge positive from this scheme is it enables us to milk all the cash cows that visit the away end.
So it was only some of the FWG then. Why were the others not invited, or included in the other discussions?
And who decided who they were? Why did HCST do nothing to stand up for those members of the FWG who were omitted?
Adult prices are still higher than they ought to be. They needed to be lowered closer to the old seniors prices for the scheme to have had a chance. Also stand closures and compulsory seat moves are a no no for most. What this scheme has shown is that a large number of fans have a social conscience about the consequences for concessions and breaking up of friendships and they oppose the scheme even though they themselves are adult winners from the scheme.
I would say it's pretty selfish of those who are unwilling to sit on a different bit of plastic in order to make the club more affordable for a wider range of people. I agree that prices needed dropping anyway but my point was they could have just shaved a bit off the current prices and, whilst everyone would say it's still too high, there wouldn't be all this uproar despite almost everyone having to pay more.
The others are on the clubs group email. But it's a shame nobody there thought to check who's missing. Still, now you're aware, you can feed back and hopefully the group can be more inclusive rather than a sub-group.
That's a nice wish. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that those included saw their exclusivity as an opportunity to push their own agenda with less interference, as is usually the case with the elitist individuals involved. It's a shame too, as if consultation had included the right people from a broader spectrum, all of these issues could have been avoided.
I can't believe that some people are resorting to WUM-ing and arguing the nitty-gritty with people who are doing their best to organise a response to this mad scheme. The current owners seem to think they will get their own way if they split the opposition and set fan against fan and you're falling for it all over again.