The argument around this seems to change as suits. My understanding is that the stadium has been split into zones (apparently shaped on the quality of the view and/or involvement). Each zone has a price, they seem to vary by increasing in cost as the generally accepted quality improves. In each zone each seat has the same cost. Those below a certain age (children) and those above a certain age (pensioners - for the sake of argument), along with those who must accompany them can have priority to the cheap, poorer quality zones and are, morally, financially excluded from better seating. They are also being charged as much as each other in that circumstance. Due to promotion there is an increase in demand to take children at a reasonable price (let's ignore the fact a reasonable price does not exist). It becomes necessary for children to sit in other zones, or to exercise the clause in the Ts&Cs and start moving, disrupting other supporters and making matters worse than they already are. Do you still think this can and will be accepted as a reasonable interpretation of concessions, as called for by R7. I personally think any decent legal team would relish the opportunity at picking the whole bloody mess apart and not glueing it back together. The club have argued a number of things, that will not change, until they realise there are 17o,000,000 reasons to stop arguing. This is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
And if those changes do come about then concessions will have been introduced and that stringent point of the argument will have been dealt with, but we are discussing the current situation, not what might be.
You're ignoring the fact that the new membership scheme expressly states that there are no concessions and that seats are charged at the same rate for everyone, regardless of age.
The South Stand is cheaper than the North Stand for similar views and is the designated family stand. There are different price zones in the corners, one of which, the cheapest, gives concessions priority. I don't agree with the membership scheme but based solely on price there are differences which the club could argue complies with the rules.
And the club would be wrong to describe them as concessions, in the accepted and well recorded convention of football ticketing. If the PL open the doors to acceptance I will be both extremely surprised and disappointed. For the time being I will go with the fact that the club does not mention or list anything as a concession in their pricing, so didn't think to even try and cover R7.
Do you not get that there are two ways to argue this, and neither are irrefutable. Which is why it's likely to be stalemate, or some minor changes. There is no right interpretation, that's the problem!
Here's Arsenal's ticket prices for 2015-16. Seems there are no concessions outside their family enclosure. http://www.arsenal.com/tickets/member-ticket-prices The concession for children and senior citizens in the south stand is the difference between their monthly payment and that in the north stand. The concession for children and senior citizens in the corners is the difference between their monthly payment and those in similar seats in zone 2. The rules do not say that adults in the same part of the ground cannot pay the same concessionary price.
Not really... Arsenal family enclosure - Adult £84, senior £36.50, junior £32.50 Hull City family enclosure - Adult £30, senior £30, junior £30* *ticket price estimated That's as it stands at the moment.
M'lud....my learned friend ....could the dispute be settled by 'Custom and Practice' when defining Concessions ?
If this is directed at me then yes, I do understand that such an argument can be made. The suggestion of a stalemate is a total nonsense. Changes, minor or otherwise, are exactly that, a change to the non-existence of concessions - recognition that the accepted condition of concessions did not exist, just as I have been explaining to you. The interpretation being right is almost irrelevant, what is relevant is the judgement that decides the outcome. As I said, I very much doubt that judgement (if it gets that far) will see any concessions in the current arrangement; but just as both me and OLM have pointed out, the club does not see those concessions either - unless they try and change their tune. Now that would be amusing, Mr Shoes.
That means nothing. You say that they have concessions. Hull City AFC do not have concessions, they have told you that and a broad reasonable interpretation of the terms would agree with that.
It is a pity you struggle with the basics, to be fair. You jumped in, with a wonderfully pompous diatribe about hypothetical concessions, without even bothering to do your reading,
Doubtful, to be fair, as it is patent that a broad reasonable interpretation isn't being considered either,
