Not sure if this has been posted before, apologies if it has. I not particularly familiar with the Premier league rules and regulations bu Rule R7 is very interesting, Are these rules strictly adhered to because if so it would seem to me that we are not complying with this rule. http://www.premierleague.com/conten...handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf R.7. Concessionary prices must be available for: R.7.1. senior citizens; and R.7.2. junior supporters
If that is the rule it seems like a ridiculously obvious oversight by the club. Considering the team was at the sharp end of the promotion race for most of the season and were one of the favorites to be promoted you'd think they have looked at the rule book of a competition we'd likely be playing in before implementing a new pricing structure.
They're taking a long time to respond to requests for confirmation that the rule will be enforced, maybe they're talking to City before announcing anything.
Very interesting. Will PL R7 be something that helps them decide to speed up the sale as it would otherwise mean them doing an embarrassing about turn? Or will they stay and twist it into 'we've listened to the fans and 'fine-tuned' the scheme to give our loyal valued juniors and seniors concessions' #together ? Hmmn. Please, the former. ASAP
Rule R7 doesn't state the level of concession. Technically, £1 per month off membership fees for juniors and OAPs is a concession.
That would be even dafter than what they've done already, they'll be climbing down by reinstating concessions, but not by enough to get people back on board, it would be the worst of all worlds for them.
I read it, with a lawyers perspective, as must be "available". They are available. You can choose to take them and sit in a designated area. You can choose not to take them and sit where you want. I don't see the club are breaching the rule as it reads currently.
If the Premier League insist on it, they've no option but to change it. If we're sold, it will be changed anyway.
They can't insist on it as far as I can see. That would be creating a new rule which the club could challenge, having had no warning. They could argue rule 7 should be more ruthlessly applied, but Hull could easily appeal the decision on a judicial review and would invariably win as it is so vaguely drafted. Unless there is elaboration somewhere I think it's a non starter for the league to do anything more than ask nicely.
The Premier League isn't the FA, if they tell you what to do, you do it, or they withhold payment until you do.
That's not true at all. They are still bound by governance and contracts, rules and regulations. So that statement makes no sense. Interestingly, I hadn't realised that concessions are the same price as everyone else in that zone, so there is potentially something in it... I assumed, wrongly, that OAPs had a reduced rate but had to be in zone 1. I can see there is just a flat rate for that zone. So the issue isn't clear.
The fact it's a membership not a season ticket could be their get out. You're buying a membership not a ticket. Tickets are just one benefit of membership. They'll just include concessions in match day prices. Also I know adults are now allowed to remain in the south stand but new members will have to be families right? So families can get the cheapest seats.
If they had concession prices for match day tickets, then no seniors or kids would buy memberships, the match day prices are zoned the same as the membership (and they really couldn't argue what you suggest as the only thing you are guaranteed with a membership is match ticket).
The rule is a bag of toss, to be honest, and is clear as mud. There are many ways round it but is giving priority on seats a concession? Not so sure. I am at a bit of a loss why the oldies pay the same as the rest in zone one. Seems a schoolboy error to not have a slight discount. Not quite the sword of Damocles for the scheme some think it could be, more a hindrance.
Aye, I posted similar with a link to the Rule previously. The Rules do seem contradictory, but some say 'must' and others say 'should'. The rules say that the concessions should reflect the local community, which leaves a bit of wriggle room. I'd guess that one proof would be the take up. If we end up with an age demographic that's representative, the club could argue they're right.
I can't see anything ever getting near a court room, or enforced, o the back of R7. It's about as much use as a chocolate fire guard as it is currently drafted.
