Scrub that, the ****ers aren't going to count them...
You must log in or register to see images
Membership scheme vote - Concessions to return...
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Ultimately there is an option on the table to bring back concessions, with no limits and no bullshit restrictions. Noted, there is a concern about what happens to the people in the North stand. Even so, I think we've come so far to get to a point where there is a genuine opportunity to get concessions back that we shouldn't dismiss it off hand.
Like I said earlier, I hate the Allams, but I don't see any point in refusing an opportunity to limit or start to reverse some of the damage they've done to the club.
If we vote for option B then we'll have almost entirely sorted out the two biggest issues the Allams have caused. I say almost because there's still a few remnants of the Hull City Tigers bullshit here and there which need changing. I really didn't think a year ago that we'd be in this position.
**** I'm on jollies, so can't be bothered to read up on it. When is the deadline for voting?
First thoughts without looking at detail, please tell me if I'm way off the mark.
We've had two ballots, do we just carry on until he gets desired result?
I assume if we vote for concessions then we have to pay for it? I don't mind as we have been subsidised for years by kids and OAP's but it will stop people voting for concessions.
Voting for concessions seems to be linked to another stand move? They know people don't generally like change.
It's only open to those who despite the concessions are still attending. So overall (I don't include myself) that group who despise the no concessions slightly less than those who have walked away (mainly because of this issue).
Anyway, 'all inclusive' opens shortly. Bye
First thoughts without looking at detail, please tell me if I'm way off the mark.
We've had two ballots, do we just carry on until he gets desired result?
I assume if we vote for concessions then we have to pay for it? I don't mind as we have been subsidised for years by kids and OAP's but it will stop people voting for concessions.
Voting for concessions seems to be linked to another stand move? They know people don't generally like change.
It's only open to those who despite the concessions are still attending. So overall (I don't include myself) that group who despise the no concessions slightly less than those who have walked away (mainly because of this issue).
Anyway, 'all inclusive' opens shortly. Bye
The whole idea of the membership scheme is that kids/OAPs aren't cheaper. So I would have guessed the 10 of you could all go in together should option A win. However, it does say "The Family Bundle is a proposed cheaper way for families to support the Club throughout the season and would be available to all dependents, grandparents and grandchildren" Not a very clear sentence, I guess they are trying to claim it is just like concessions but they could say that they meant that to mean there must be dependants in a group.
A bit that sticks out to me is:
"To be representative of the current Membership base, the vote must have at least a 40% turn-out
rate in order for significant changes to be implemented"
I guess that signficant changes would mean concessions. Does this mean Option A would be implemented as a default should less than 40% vote?
I like how they've made the current scheme + Family Bundle pages all bright, happy and orange but concessions is black and white and formal.
Exactly, hence my query. As some of us are family by marriage, we don't all have the same surname. We don't even all sit together. We just meet up for a pint before the game. What is there to stop a group of friends claiming to be cousins.
To be fair, I prefer option b.
To be fair, I prefer option b.
It say the prices will be implemented no later than October. Although if they announce it on 31st May as the document say they could get it in for September. Although if everybody is cheaper under option A then they could implement that earlier.
The vote has been rigged so that either Option A wins, or there's not enough votes to change anything, so there'll be no need to worry about the deadline, it will simply carry on as before, but with some people switching to the new Family Bundle.
So they aren't actually letting you vote and you think they are sincerely looking for compromise ?
Yes , my thoughts as well .I just wondered if anybody at the club had answered the question . Maybe I should actually get on twitter or something
because they need to be called out on this .
To use the old adage, if it's not broken, don't fix it! Just simply reinstate the original season ticket arrangements with concessions! Oh and and if you are so worried Ehab about concessions being abused, put people back on the turnstiles; the increased attendances will more than cover their cost.
No need for the bo**ocks of a vote Ehab, you are over complicating things!
Family tickets don't include cousins for heaven's sake. Or brothers. Or brother in laws.
They are for parents and dependent children or grandparents and children and grandchildren.
To be fair that's exactly what option B is. The only real issue with it is this bit about the north stand. And there's still no disabled concessions.
I agree PLT, however in the strange world of the prescribed and 'loaded' agenda of the Allams, with a 40% of the active membership required to effect change, I anticipate as others have mentioned that it ultimately is a PR exercise which eventually will lead to the Allams doing what they want to with the vote having zero influence on the outcome. I hope I am wrong of course.
One thing stands out from all of this. They still think we're all dumb pond life.
Well not all. That's why only 'members' are allowed a vote.
Well not all. That's why only 'members' are allowed a vote.