I'm still in touch with the Trust and I'm aware that with regard to the West Upper, there were far more complaints about being moved than there were about prices and they were mainly from seniors.
Rule R7
- Thread starter wavygravy
- 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
-
I'm still in touch with the Trust and I'm aware that with regard to the West Upper, there were far more complaints about being moved than there were about prices and they were mainly from seniors.
I'm not surprised
It does seem strange then that there seems to be much less being done to campaign about that than about concessions, unless I'm missing something?
Sadly, the previous **** up can't be undone, but even if it could, I wouldn't want to get the old, better set up back, if it was at the expense of some other poor sod being put through what we endured.
Mind you, I have heard people saying '**** 'em, they never helped us'. That's certainly not a view I hold.
It's sad that no real lessons seemed to have been learned.
To return concessions and retain the Membership Scheme is relatively simple to do. Designate zones where concessions are granted and move those who want them (with group members) into those zones - increase zones according to demand. Scrap the concept of a Family zone and just have a concession zone(s), you would hope you would achieve the same outcome. Some of this is already happening, it just needs a tweak and a revision on pricing.
Unfortunately there will be a revenue shortfall, but they can afford it and will address it later.
I agree there can fairly be a reasonable price gap between child and oldie, an oldie should be classified by State Pension age. Anyone one in their group would pay a full price for a similar zone. Oldies and children not wanting to sit in a concession zone pay the going rate.
I don't like the idea of away supporters in WU but SAG will decide that one, if it happens so-be-it, as it is difficult to say it won't work without trying it.
There will be some evictions, unfortunately I believe them inevitable, but most will be seat migration, nothing more.
Unfortunately there will be a revenue shortfall, but they can afford it and will address it later.
I agree there can fairly be a reasonable price gap between child and oldie, an oldie should be classified by State Pension age. Anyone one in their group would pay a full price for a similar zone. Oldies and children not wanting to sit in a concession zone pay the going rate.
I don't like the idea of away supporters in WU but SAG will decide that one, if it happens so-be-it, as it is difficult to say it won't work without trying it.
There will be some evictions, unfortunately I believe them inevitable, but most will be seat migration, nothing more.
On the away fans one, if it's because the Allams don't want them to be seen on TV? Why don't we keep them where they are & move the tv stand to east side so we get a better view of the stadium with the west on view? I've always thought it's a crap view on the TV when we tend to see the top of the stands a lot. Just a thought.
Misunderstood? Misinformed? I've no idea, but what I've posted is accurate.
The campaign is [HASHTAG]#ScrapTheScheme[/HASHTAG], not [HASHTAG]#RepriceTheScheme[/HASHTAG]. The campaign is about letting people stay where they are and reintroducing concessions.
The Trust have objected to the seat moves, the lack of concessions and the terms & conditions of the new scheme, I'm not sure why you think the campaign is only about the prices?
The side the camera's go at is determined by which way the stadium faces (due to the position of the sun at normal match times), they don't just pick a side.
I'm not saying that, although maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. Mind you I'm certainly not talking about repricing!
My point was that it seems to me, although I could be wrong, that with the focus, and the name of the campaign, being about scrapping the scheme, it is possible that the evictions are lost in that because they aren't necessarily linked in my mind
The scheme could be scrapped completely and yet people could still be evicted from Upper West because the two things are separate issues.
If there was no scheme and concessions applied the same as last season the club would likely still look to put away fans in UW
Which would still result in evictions
I'm not having a go at the Trust either, I'm a member and I'm extremely grateful for the campaigning on my behalf...and the time people are taking to do that
I just think, and by the sounds of it you do too, that there are a fair amount of people who are happy for people to be evicted to try moving the away fans. I think that's a shame because I think it has more effect than people who haven't been moved realise, and as you said the majority of complaints from those in UW have been about that rather than the scheme itself.
I think it would be interesting to find out if that was the case, and then if the battle regarding the scheme was won then it would be clear what steps might want to be taken about the evictions if they still continued
That can't be totally right, as grounds like Wembley have the main cameras in the south, but most televised games have various cameras anyway.
Wembley ends are east/west, our ends are north/south. I presume the telly cameras have to be positioned near to the halfway line so that the sun is behind them as much as possible. Hence in the West stand at the KC, as most matches are afternoon/evening and the sun will be in a westerly position at that time.
Similarly, at Wemberley the South stand would be better than the North for the sun position
They're also in the east and north east at the KC for live games, they don't just have the one camera.
At 3.00pm the sun shines directly onto the East Stand, you can't shoot into the sun, hence the main camera points are in the West (it also allows them raised camera points on the West Upper). The close up camera's are positioned all round grounds, but the main camera's shoot with the sun behind them.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how practical it is to campaign against two different things at once (and campaigning against moving the away fans would have to be completely separate to the membership scheme campaign).
Personally, I don't think it's practical unless another group takes it up as a separate campaign, but it's not my call.
That's possibly why the other cameras, such as the one in the east, is higher up, where the sun doesn't reach. It's one of the ones they use to show the players coming out of the west stand tunnel at three o'clock kick offs.
That's all I was saying really
Hopefully they'll sell and the new owner will turn the whole fiasco over...
If not I foresee plenty of campaigning
I'm not sure
SAG don't meet yet so it can't be 100% it's happening anyway yet
Although obviously most will have chosen new seats by now anyway