New owner confirmed…

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The Omega Man said:
To get to the figure, the under 12 would have had to have had a season pass for 3 years and then missed the 2 deadlines for renewal and not be on the system. Or am I reading the poster wrong? Or is the detail in the small print?

I think the poster is fine except for the amount used.
Click to expand...

Dad who's sat in E5 since the KC opened now wants to start taking his kids with him and doesn't want to move, how much will his kids pass cost him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber
The Omega Man said:
To get to the figure, the under 12 would have had to have had a season pass for 3 years and then missed the 2 deadlines for renewal and not be on the system. Or am I reading the poster wrong? Or is the detail in the small print?

I think the poster is fine except for the amount used.
Click to expand...

It's the price for one specific age (can't remember exactly but think it was something like 15 or 16; it says in the smallprint) and in one specific seat (E5). Doesn't matter if it's the same individual every year or if it's a different 15/16 year old every season.
 
PLT said:
It's the price for one specific age (can't remember exactly but think it was something like 15 or 16; it says in the smallprint) and in one specific seat (E5). Doesn't matter if it's the same individual every year or if it's a different 15/16 year old every season.
Click to expand...

It's based on an U10 pass and an U12 pass (as they changed the age bands between seasons).
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT
The Omega Man said:
To get to the figure, the under 12 would have had to have had a season pass for 3 years and then missed the 2 deadlines for renewal and not be on the system. Or am I reading the poster wrong? Or is the detail in the small print?

I think the poster is fine except for the amount used.
Click to expand...

You would have preferred them to use & report an inaccurate, false & misleading figure? You're stepping into OSC territory now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Party Hull!, Kempton and renegadetiger
I see we're back to the usual "if you dare question anything the trust does, the hordes will do their very best to try and discredit you". Along with the discovery of certain views of a committee member, and the genuinely lack of any contrition when being found out, you have the reason the Trust is not working full time processing new membership applications. Obviously, for those reasons, you won't acknowledge that, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong of course.

TOMs made a valid point there. The poster is good, but again, it appears like you're doing the very thing you accuse Ehab of doing, which is to be beyond criticism and to fudge the truth of things.

Honestly, there's enough bad **** around our club, from Ehab and over the membership scheme that messages like this, especially on billboards, can be really honest and up front and more important, really clear and beyond reproach.

Ren - Grow the **** up, in a debate like this, thats childish and a ****s trick.

The billboard was a great idea. The info on it could have been presented better, or rather, more accurately, without detracting from the message. Suck it up, learn and get better. Stop attacking people who you should be appealing to, the wedges are of your own creation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD and ImperialTiger
Happy Tiger said:
I see we're back to the usual "if you dare question anything the trust does, the hordes will do their very best to try and discredit you". Along with the discovery of certain views of a committee member, and the genuinely lack of any contrition when being found out, you have the reason the Trust is not working full time processing new membership applications. Obviously, for those reasons, you won't acknowledge that, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong of course.

TOMs made a valid point there. The poster is good, but again, it appears like you're doing the very thing you accuse Ehab of doing, which is to be beyond criticism and to fudge the truth of things.

Honestly, there's enough bad **** around our club, from Ehab and over the membership scheme that messages like this, especially on billboards, can be really honest and up front and more important, really clear and beyond reproach.

Ren - Grow the **** up, in a debate like this, thats childish and a ****s trick.

The billboard was a great idea. The info on it could have been presented better, or rather, more accurately, without detracting from the message. Suck it up, learn and get better. Stop attacking people who you should be appealing to, the wedges are of your own creation.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd like to answer my question instead?
 
originallambrettaman said:
Did you miss my question?
Click to expand...

Did you miss, PLT thinking that it applied to a different set of circumstances? Surely that is the point.

The answer is that it would cost £486.00 plus £84.00. which is £570.00. I got the answer from the spreadsheet that I made available to everyone, when the membership scheme was published. I used it to highlight the groups most affected by the scheme and the flaws within it, or did you miss that?
 
The Omega Man said:
Did you miss, PLT thinking that it applied to a different set of circumstances? Surely that is the point.

The answer is that it would cost £486.00 plus £84.00. which is £570.00. I got the answer from the spreadsheet that I made available to everyone, when the membership scheme was published. I used it to highlight the groups most affected by the scheme and the flaws within it, or did you miss that?
Click to expand...

So the billboard is accurate then.

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bergerac28, Doug and PLT
The Omega Man said:
I am surprised by the use of £570. In my humble opinion. It leaves the door open for the club to point out that no family group has to pay more this season and that they should not sell a single membership to someone under 16.

The groups affected by the changes are those family groups were there are more under 12's than adults (1 Adult, 2 or more under 12's and multiples of that) 16-22 year old's and over 65's in the West Stand. All of which are a relatively easy fix and this should in my opinion be the target.

I support the external protest against any increased cost of attending games for ANY supporter and I consider that the club got elements of the scheme wrong, but I do believe that using £570 is a mistake.
Click to expand...
The club may come out and say that, although they haven't commented yet
If they do then great, it opens the door for interviewers to pull their answer apart and really get to the bottom of things
It's factually correct
It's an appropriate tone
It's focussing on targeting their credibility
It's focussing on putting one of the many lies out in the public for all to see

It's all good in my mind...I look forward to the next in the series
 
  • Like
Reactions: s02699, Fez, Kempton and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back