The ballot...

[The Omega Man]

You really think it hasn't been thought through ? Just some kind of mistake that there are these restrictions ?

I think it has been thought through very carefully

In my experience, this happens everyday. I work under regulations that after people actually started to use them, the faults appeared. The best example of which was that one of the objectives was to reduce the number of forms you had to fill in. We used to have to carry, 3 forms written on 5 pages, now we have 12 forms and up to 30 pages.
The Membership Scheme looked great on paper at the first read, but it took a couple of days for people to see that it was flawed.
These thing happen.

 

[balkan tiger]

In my experience, this happens everyday. I work under regulations that after people actually started to use them, the faults appeared. The best example of which was that one of the objectives was to reduce the number of forms you had to fill in. We used to have to carry, 3 forms written on 5 pages, now we have 12 forms and up to 30 pages.
The Membership Scheme looked great on paper at the first read, but it took a couple of days for people to see that it was flawed.
These thing happen.

Apparently that Strawberry company had spent 2 years working on the membership scheme, when it was presented to the FWG meeting some of the members blew holes right through it in minutes.

 

[Fez]

The Trust are already pushing for the restrictions to be removed and they're doing so with the aim of getting it implemented before they go out for next season.

Thanks, that’s as I expected; it will be interesting to see the outcome, as everything is still promise and expectation.

TOM is of the opinion that the glaring faults and omissions of the so-called concessions are an oversight, do you agree?

 

[The Omega Man]

A couple of questions:

Regardless of whether someone votes for, against or abstains, what is to stop the Trust (or anyone else) campaigning for proper concessions rather than the so-called concessions everyone is being encouraged to vote for?

If the outcome of the vote is to go with the imperfect concessions, am I correct in believing that they will be in place for the entirety of the 2018-19 season and that any negotiated amendments would only take place in the following 2019-20 season (which is when I believe we will see a change of ownership)?

On your first point, the vote would not be my first choice of method, to sort out this issue. But it is what we have on the table now and it needs to be followed through.

There is nothing to suggest that the concessions introduced will not be changed during the season.

It should not be forgotten that the original proposal was only to introduce concessions pricing to match day tickets and not membership, with a delayed introduction to changes to the membership scheme for next season.

 

[TreeHugger]

I'm absolutely astounded that anyone could possibly consider the current system to be better than the one proposed.

I don't see why. Many families will be worse off. Barely none will be significantly better off. Nobody in zone 2 is better off but many will be worse off (not just adults, adults with 14 year olds too). But hey, it's concessions, everybody including people with concessions should pay more just to say they have concessions.

Just noticed that Category C games have gone too. That means the cheapest match ticket an adult and U14 can go to is now £30 as opposed to £24 last season. That does also mean the most expensive is now £36 not £48 though. Without knowing a breakdown of how many there would be it's not possible to know which works out best overall.

This season there are 6 As, 10 Bs and 7 Cs. Assuming a 12/11 split next season it would be on average £2.70/£2.30 cheaper, but poorer familes who could only afford the lower category will pay more.

I can't decide how to vote.

 

[TreeHugger]

Because voting for no concessions means exactly that. You're happy with no concessions. The Trust are then ****ed, because "hey, the fans voted for no concessions".

Not voting at all just says you're not arsed one way or the other, regardless of what you actually think or your reasons for not voting.

Voting for concessions, as ****e as they are, shows there's a desire for concessions and gives the Trust etc the mandate to try and get improvements on them.

Yes its ****e. Yes its what we expect. But one option gives a glimmer, the rest are just a big **** you to anyone who should be getting concessions.

Why does a vote for no concessions mean you're happy with no concessions yet a vote for those concessions doesn't mean you're happy with those concessions?

 

[The Omega Man]

Apparently that Strawberry company had spent 2 years working on the membership scheme, when it was presented to the FWG meeting some of the members blew holes right through it in minutes.

I do not remember it that way, but not being at the meeting I have no idea what was said and only after the details were detailed by Burnsy was there any debate on the content on here. Those present at the meeting, were under non disclosure agreements and it was only when the scheme was published that the flaws were pointed out publically.

The scheme was published on 16 March and the first reaction from a FWG member that I saw was on an email on 21 March at about 8.30 and my reply at 9pm was,

"As for the scheme, it simply cannot work. Taking concessions out makes too big a gap, sure there are lots of supporters who gain, but the core will be priced out.
I have attached a spreadsheet for you to look at. I have based it on the non discounted prices for this season."

 

[City1904]

Like most of these things, there is not some sinister rational behind the concession pricing, they simply have not been thought through enough. Are you really saying that you do not have any faith in the trust? I can imagine why supporters do not trust the OSC, given what has happened in the past, but...

I believe that the outcomes of those meetings was decided before they took place, the trust and no-one at those meetings in my eyes had an impact. The reason they had to act was the protests, but I believe they decided on this scheme and the use of the name before the meetings ever took place. That pricing has been thought through, I believe it is naive to think that it hasn't.

I do not trust the Allams, how can I?

Do I trust the trust? Interesting questions, I do but when you are dealing with individuals like the Allams (Which unfortunately recently I have done on a monthly basis) you can't believe a word they say. So whether I trust the trust isn't the issue, the issue is those people they are trying to negotiate with. They don't negotiate, even in business (Property related) they don't negotiate they believe it is there way or the highway. In football they can get away with it and they will continue to do so until we take a stance.

My stance is to boycott and that won't change. However, I will be at Birmingham on Saturday supporting the boys!

But you have no choice, they have brought you into play.
Don't vote = apathy / they said your not bothered
vote no = they said it's not a big issue to you
vote yes = they will do as you ask cos they care

Don't vote and continually protest to make my feelings known is my preferred choice as I am not giving legitimacy to a concessions scheme that is terrible and does not do anything to address the issues.

This is a vote for a specific scheme and not a principle and I do not agree with this specific scheme.

 

[The Omega Man]

I believe that the outcomes of those meetings was decided before they took place, the trust and no-one at those meetings in my eyes had an impact. The reason they had to act was the protests, but I believe they decided on this scheme and the use of the name before the meetings ever took place. That pricing has been thought through, I believe it is naive to think that it hasn't.

I do not trust the Allams, how can I?

Do I trust the trust? Interesting questions, I do but when you are dealing with individuals like the Allams (Which unfortunately recently I have done on a monthly basis) you can't believe a word they say. So whether I trust the trust isn't the issue, the issue is those people they are trying to negotiate with. They don't negotiate, even in business (Property related) they don't negotiate they believe it is there way or the highway. In football they can get away with it and they will continue to do so until we take a stance.

My stance is to boycott and that won't change. However, I will be at Birmingham on Saturday supporting the boys!



Don't vote and continually protest to make my feelings known is my preferred choice as I am not giving legitimacy to a concessions scheme that is terrible and does not do anything to address the issues.

This is a vote for a specific scheme and not a principle and I do not agree with this specific scheme.

I deal with people in business just about everyday some I trust and it is misplaced and some I would not trust to tell me the right time. Look I could have a go at you for doing business with people who you do not trust, but I get your point. But the fact is that what you are forgetting is this, in November last year Ehab Allam stated in public that there would never be concessions whilst he was at the club.
Concessions are the prime reason for voting, its not about the price, it has to be about the principle and I welcome the opportunity to have my say.

 

[Kempton]

I honestly don't get this analogies, like Kemps and his die of thirst one.



None of them make any sense.

The choice here is simple. Vote against concessions. Or vote for the principle of them, on the basis the Trust, and others, will then be in a position to push for better concessions.

Voting against them simply means bye to concessions.

Honestly, it's that simple.

Bolloks! I don't want "the principle of concessions", I want concessions.

As for the Trust then carrying on talks...
That'll end in tears for those that believed they'd come to something worthwhile.

When will we ever learn. Making the same mistake over and over again, is...

 

[originallambrettaman]

I don't see why. Many families will be worse off. Barely none will be significantly better off. Nobody in zone 2 is better off but many will be worse off (not just adults, adults with 14 year olds too). But hey, it's concessions, everybody including people with concessions should pay more just to say they have concessions.

Just noticed that Category C games have gone too. That means the cheapest match ticket an adult and U14 can go to is now £30 as opposed to £24 last season. That does also mean the most expensive is now £36 not £48 though. Without knowing a breakdown of how many there would be it's not possible to know which works out best overall.

This season there are 6 As, 10 Bs and 7 Cs. Assuming a 12/11 split next season it would be on average £2.70/£2.30 cheaper, but poorer familes who could only afford the lower category will pay more.

I can't decide how to vote.

Your calculations simply aren't accurate, mainly because you're ignoring the fact that most expensive zone has been scrapped.

North and South - Currently £21 per person, so £42 for 2, £63 for 3 etc... New scheme £27 per adult, £36 for adult with U14, or £45 for adult with 15-17, or £36 for 2 15-17 who want to go on their own. There's an increase for an adult on their own (as there was always going to be with the return of concessions) and a slight increase for an adult with a 15-17 year old, everyone else is better off.

East and West - Currently £27 or £39 per person, but in the new scheme almost all of the old Zone 2 has gone (it's only in the corners, where adults pay a bit more, concessions pay the same and kids pay less), so we're really looking at £39 becoming £36 for an adult for most people, £78 becoming £54 for an adult and U14, or £63 for an adult and 15-17. Most lone adults are better off and adults with kids are much all better off.

 

[TreeHugger]

Your calculations simply aren't accurate, mainly because you're ignoring the fact that most expensive zone has been scrapped.

North and South - Currently £21 per person, so £42 for 2, £63 for 3 etc... New scheme £27 per adult, £36 for adult with U14, or £45 for adult with 15-17, or £36 for 2 15-17 who want to go on their own. There's an increase for an adult on their own (as there was always going to be with the return of concessions) and a slight increase for an adult with a 15-17 year old, everyone else is better off.

East and West - Currently £27 or £30 per person, but in the new scheme almost all of the old Zone 2 has gone (it's only in the corners, where adults pay a bit more, concessions pay the same and kids pay less), so we're really looking at £39 becoming £36 for an adult for most people, £78 becoming £54 for an adult and U14, or £63 for an adult and 15-17. Most lone adults are better off and adults with kids are much all better off.

Again you're telling me I've ignored something I've mentioned more then once. Please try reading properly. I've acknowledged the abolishment of zone 3 which makes them all beter off and is the main reason I would vote for concessions if I do, which is ironic since it has nothing to do with concessions.

You ignore zone 2 who are either worse off or paying the same.

The proposed concessions in Zone 1 will result in some families paying more, some paying a bit less and some having no change. Isn't the idea of concessions to make it more affordable for families rather than this pot luck approach as to whether it is more or less affordable depending on how many adults and how many children you have and how old your children are?
Some examples for zone 1:
1 adult and 1 under 14 = £36 = £6 saving.
2 adults and 1 under 14 = £63 = no change
1 OAP and 1 under 14 = £36 = £6 saving
1 adult and 1 14 year old = £45 = £3 extra
2 adults and 1 14 year old = £72 = £9 extra
2 adults and 2 14 year olds = £90 = £6 extra
2 adults and 2 under 14 year olds = £72 = £12 saving.

Some are cheaper, some aren't. Some are more which is the total opposite of what concessions should be.

As I've said more than once (or ignored apparently), the biggest plus of the proposal is not the concessions but the removal of zone C.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Again you're telling me I've ignored something I've mentioned more then once. Please try reading properly. I've acknowledged the abolishment of zone 3 which makes them all beter off and is the main reason I would vote for concessions if I do, which is ironic since it has nothing to do with concessions.

You ignore zone 2 who are either worse off or paying the same.

The proposed concessions in Zone 1 will result in some families paying more, some paying a bit less and some having no change. Isn't the idea of concessions to make it more affordable for families rather than this pot luck approach as to whether it is more or less affordable depending on how many adults and how many children you have and how old your children are?
Some examples for zone 1:
1 adult and 1 under 14 = £36 = £6 saving.
2 adults and 1 under 14 = £63 = no change
1 OAP and 1 under 14 = £36 = £6 saving
1 adult and 1 14 year old = £45 = £3 extra
2 adults and 1 14 year old = £72 = £9 extra
2 adults and 2 14 year olds = £90 = £6 extra
2 adults and 2 under 14 year olds = £72 = £12 saving.

Some are cheaper, some aren't. Some are more which is the total opposite of what concessions should be.

As I've said more than once (or ignored apparently), the biggest plus of the proposal is not the concessions but the removal of zone C.

Your assuming that all families want to go in the South Stand, they don't, that's why your numbers are wrong.

Basically, you're looking at only a worst case scenario, rather than how it actually effects the support in the entire ground.

Scrap the daft restrictions on who can take kids and how many of them, increase the concession age to 21 and it's job sorted.

 

[TreeHugger]

Your assuming that all families want to go in the South Stand, they don't, that's why your numbers are wrong.

Basically, you're looking at only a worst case scenario, rather than how it actually effects the support in the entire ground.

Scrap the daft restrictions on who can take kids and how many of them, increase the concession age to 21 and it's job sorted.

No I'm not assuming families want to be in the South Stand. The calculations are for zone 1 which includes the North Stand. There is no point calculating Zone 2 since everybody in there pays the same or more, I can do if you like though:
1 adult and 1 under 14 = £54 = no change.
2 adults and 1 under 14 = £90 = £9 extra
1 OAP and 1 under 14 = £54 = no change
1 adult and 1 14 year old = £63 = £9 extra
2 adults and 1 14 year old = £99 = £18 extra
2 adults and 2 14 year olds = £126 = £18 extra
2 adults and 2 under 14 year olds = £108 = no change. So if you sit in Zone 2 you are screwed.

The removal of Zone 3 makes everybody their cheaper as I've said many times, but it has nothing to do with concessions.

Your suggestions about the ages and restrictions is what should happen I agree, but it's irrelevant to this vote.

 

[Happy Tiger]

Bolloks! I don't want "the principle of concessions", I want concessions.

As for the Trust then carrying on talks...
That'll end in tears for those that believed they'd come to something worthwhile.

When will we ever learn. Making the same mistake over and over again, is...

Great. So you have 2 options in your view?

Vote for no change because you think the concessions on offer suck, and wont be changed.

Or

Don't vote, thus registering your disgust at the 2 options. Which will be interpreted in the final count as "CBA and doesn't care enough to vote". This is essentially sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "LALALALALALALA" btw.

We don't like the cards we've been dealt, but, we can use them to our advantage unless we just fold immediately.

 

[Happy Tiger]

Why does a vote for no concessions mean you're happy with no concessions yet a vote for those concessions doesn't mean you're happy with those concessions?

Well a vote against concessions is quite self explanatory.

A Vote for concessions is a mandate to the Trust to fight to change the ones on offer.

They'll have a job fighting against a "no, we the majority who could be arsed to vote decided to go with the existing scheme without concessions".

How is this all not REALLY obvious?

 

[TreeHugger]

Well a vote against concessions is quite self explanatory.

A Vote for concessions is a mandate to the Trust to fight to change the ones on offer.

They'll have a job fighting against a "no, we the majority who could be arsed to vote decided to go with the existing scheme without concessions".

How is this all not REALLY obvious?

Why will they?

Basically afterwards both sides have options on how to spin it.

Concessions win
The Club: "The people have voted and like our proposals. They will be put in place"
The Trust: "The people voted for concessions but these concessions aren't good enough, we want changes."

No concessions win
Club: "The people have voted, they do not want concessions. Prices remain as they are"
Trust: "The people have voted against the flawed concessions scheme. We want better concessions. We want changes".

So either way the club say "we'll do what the vote said". The Trust say "we want more changes".

It doesn't have to be a concessions vote to keep up the protests/demands.

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

Why will they?

Basically afterwards both sides have options on how to spin it.

Concessions win
The Club: "The people have voted and like our proposals. They will be put in place"
The Trust: "The people voted for concessions but these concessions aren't good enough, we want changes."

No concessions win
Club: "The people have voted, they do not want concessions. Prices remain as they are"
Trust: "The people have voted against the flawed concessions scheme. We want better concessions. We want changes".

So either way the club say "we'll do what the vote said". The Trust say "we want more changes".

It doesn't have to be a concessions vote to keep up the protests/demands.

If there’s a “no concessions” victory in the ballot there will be no further discussions. No matter how hard the Trust push for more the club will see no need to continue as the democratic mandate supports “no concessions”. They’ll support the majority.

 

[The Omega Man]

Thanks, that’s as I expected; it will be interesting to see the outcome, as everything is still promise and expectation.

TOM is of the opinion that the glaring faults and omissions of the so-called concessions are an oversight, do you agree?

Fez, I don't think they are an oversight, nor do I think that they are done on purpose.
One of the conversations that I have had privately with a poster on here, is relevant. He pointed out that any figures that are put forward without the full demographic of the current membership being used are just guesswork and they have no real value. The club cannot say how many juniors or over 65's it has as members as it does not know, it can only guess, based on previous years. So it is bound to get elements of the calculation wrong.

Once a scheme with concessions is in place a proper financially sound proposal can be sorted out.

Treehuggers argument about 2 adults and 1 child being an increase is right on paper, but in fact, why should any adult get a reduction?

 

[TreeHugger]

If there’s a “no concessions” victory in the ballot there will be no further discussions. No matter how hard the Trust push for more the club will see no need to continue as the democratic mandate supports “no concessions”. They’ll support the majority.

I have virtually no doubt you are correct. I also have virtually no doubt that they would not change a pricing plan that the majority support if the vote goes the other way.