Jump to content
IGNORED

How to counter Bristol Sport's attitude


The Constant Rabbit

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Dave said:

Any wheelchair supporter, who has attended games over the past decade, would be very grateful to SLs investment in Ashton Gate. As they all now have much better facilities.

My view was regularly blocked by subs warming up and then by able bodied City supporters standing up. Now I have an unobstructed view of the game.

These facilities are a legal requirement in any new build.  Bristol Sport/the FC would be breaking the law if they did not exist alongside the redevelopment. 

The rise in prices for the disabled as I highlighted in another thread are not linked/aligned to the payments disabled people receive - DLA/PIP.  The prices are not linked to full engagement with disabled groups, or organisations. This is an arbitrary act.

The pricing strategy (?) is no benchmark of principled values, except uncaring ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Malago said:

If SL walked away tomorrow the club would fold within weeks. Yes a version of BCFC could be reformed by a supporters trust but it would take years to get back into the Football League and without serious investment wouldn't rise above league 1 level.

To be successful every club needs significant investment beyond the income provided by the fans through ticket and other purchase.  It's hypocritical to moan on one hand about lack of investment in January and then moan on the other about increases  in prices.  We all have a choice, pay up or find another interest.

So far worse than when he arrived then. Thanks Steve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although no one likes price increases it’s a reality of life.

I find it also slightly amusing that on one hand fans are slagging off the transfer window policy in January as we didn’t gamble on bigger (more costly) signings and in the next breath complaining about paying 50p more for a drink.

There is a correlation between the two. So the question is do we want a commercially savvy club that want to compete in the championship? 

As we all know money doesn’t grow on trees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beni71 said:

Although no one likes price increases it’s a reality of life.

I find it also slightly amusing that on one hand fans are slagging off the transfer window policy in January as we didn’t gamble on bigger (more costly) signings and in the next breath complaining about paying 50p more for a drink.

There is a correlation between the two. So the question is do we want a commercially savvy club that want to compete in the championship? 

As we all know money doesn’t grow on trees. 

For the hundredth time, we all know and understand and accept that prices need to go up. That is not the problem. It’s the discriminatory nature of the increases. 

Please, why do people not read what’s being ******* said! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry said:

For the hundredth time, we all know and understand and accept that prices need to go up. That is not the problem. It’s the discriminatory nature of the increases. 

Please, why do people not read what’s being ******* said! 

With you all the way Slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lew-T said:

Is point number 3) true? Because a mate of mine and I walked through the gates from the Eastend and the steward stopped us bringing a bottle of water through?

I simply laughed at him.

When I googled that question the majority of answers stated that non alcoholic drinks in a safe container were allowed in. I believe they are allowed to check its not alcohol. A thermos is fine for hot drinks as its designed for it.

If you mean point 2 about the water - that's a direct copy/paste from a UK legal firms website - if they have a licence to sell alcohol, tap water must be provided free of charge when asked for.

Sorry for late reply - been out all night!

 

I do want to clearly state that this is a measure to reinforce a point about the price hikes to encourage movement of patrons. I hope that they rethink and this is not necessary. For those saying it may hurt the team - why?

Steve Lansdown spent 40m on the stadium. I applaud him for that.

However when you are worth 1.5 billion (through his own hard work of course) - that's the equivalent of the average worker throwing in 20 quid.

Perspective - SL's benefaction is more than covered by interest earned on his investments - compare than to a bloke on a zero-hour 9 quid 'contract' having to find an extra 500 quid.

Perspective people, perspective

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SX227 said:

When I googled that question the majority of answers stated that non alcoholic drinks in a safe container were allowed in. I believe they are allowed to check its not alcohol. A thermos is fine for hot drinks as its designed for it.

If you mean point 2 about the water - that's a direct copy/paste from a UK legal firms website - if they have a licence to sell alcohol, tap water must be provided free of charge when asked for.

Sorry for late reply - been out all night!

On the water I hope? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beni71 said:

Although no one likes price increases it’s a reality of life.

I find it also slightly amusing that on one hand fans are slagging off the transfer window policy in January as we didn’t gamble on bigger (more costly) signings and in the next breath complaining about paying 50p more for a drink.

There is a correlation between the two. So the question is do we want a commercially savvy club that want to compete in the championship? 

As we all know money doesn’t grow on trees. 

It may help to read through the threads about ST price increases first.

Fans slagging off the signings (or lack of) were unaware of the pending 'kick in the goolies' for our kids, OAP's and disabled supporters just 28 days later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An ideal.

Why don’t the Club increase the concessions next season by smaller amounts and phase in the increase to the current proposed amounts (plus inflation) over a 5 year period. Policy only applies to those who currently have season tickets. Anyone new gets the proposed prices so are ‘encouraged’ away from the premium seats. 

Seems fair, the Club acknowledge they fooked up the stadium pricing structure, the people getting great deals at the moment get time to adjust (and save up).

The good news is that the Club hierarchy clearly think we are going to give it a right ‘go’ next season for promotion as the pricing strategy only really make sense if the stadium is operating at near capacity. So no repeat of this limp-wristed thought out and applied January transfer window. Yay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Beni71 said:

Although no one likes price increases it’s a reality of life.

I find it also slightly amusing that on one hand fans are slagging off the transfer window policy in January as we didn’t gamble on bigger (more costly) signings and in the next breath complaining about paying 50p more for a drink.

There is a correlation between the two. So the question is do we want a commercially savvy club that want to compete in the championship? 

As we all know money doesn’t grow on trees. 

Platitudes. 

It still needs decisions to be made in who takes the brunt of increases, or whether it is shared out more evenly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

That is not BCFC’s problem to solve.  They either stay on the band wagon or get off and drop to non-league, no other option.  That doesn’t make the obscene salaries of football players right, or moral, but unless football implodes financially, then it’s going to become more and more of an elite.  I can see that the top two leagues become so detached from the rest, that we will be reverting to 3rd division North and South, how else can clubs with 5 - 12K crowds and little other income survive.

The issue is that too many people have continued to comply with what is now little more than a commercial whore.  Supply for demand, market values and all that.

Until the majority rebel against it by not buying into it, it will continue and they will continue to be ripped off.  

That is the hard, cold truth.  We deserve the world we create.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, WTFiGO!?! said:

The issue is that too many people have continued to comply with what is now little more than a commercial whore.  Supply for demand, market values and all that.

Until the majority rebel against it by not buying into it, it will continue and they will continue to be ripped off.  

That is the hard, cold truth.  We deserve the world we create.

That final statement is a little throw-away for me. Sometimes people get the deal they don't deserve. 

We are dealing with individuals and when we look at things at the broader scale we will always have casualties. 

Take a look at Universal Credit and the persecution of the disabled. They don't deserve that, while those that voted the tories in are mostly unaffected. That's the cold truth. 

We have the same here. The collective 'we' might deserve it, but those affected certainly don't. 

The world is full of minorities fighting causes that the majority glibly ignore. Its no less a worthy fight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

That final statement is a little throw-away for me. Sometimes people get the deal they don't deserve. 

We are dealing with individuals and when we look at things at the broader scale we will always have casualties. 

Take a look at Universal Credit and the persecution of the disabled. They don't deserve that, while those that voted the tories in are mostly unaffected. That's the cold truth. 

We have the same here. The collective 'we' might deserve it, but those affected certainly don't. 

The world is full of minorities fighting causes that the majority glibly ignore. Its no less a worthy fight. 

The collective 'we' are not socially conscious enough to consider minority groups due to individualism.  So therefore it is noticable that the collective 'we' has now had its outrage triggered because of the treatment by the authorities of a minority group.  

The powers that be at AG has faced prescious little objection to just about anything, in fact the majority seem to be lapping it up more and more, year on year.  The broader football community is the same.  

I am suggesting that hubris and the supposed lack of consideration of the 'little man' by the authorities' is a direct result of the long-term compliance of the majority.  

Incidentally, there are certain groups on benefits who are financially far better of than some hard-working families who can not afford to go to City.  It could be argued that why should City automatically subsidise tickets because a person is disabled when I know disabled people who are better of than non-disabled people?   But that is not the point - and I await possible abuse for this view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WTFiGO!?! said:

The collective 'we' are not socially conscious enough to consider minority groups due to individualism.  So therefore it is noticable that the collective 'we' has now had its outrage triggered because of the treatment by the authorities of a minority group.  

The powers that be at AG has faced prescious little objection to just about anything, in fact the majority seem to be lapping it up more and more, year on year.  The broader football community is the same.  

I am suggesting that hubris and the supposed lack of consideration of the 'little man' by the authorities' is a direct result of the long-term compliance of the majority.  

Incidentally, there are certain groups on benefits who are financially far better of than some hard-working families who can not afford to go to City.  It could be argued that why should City automatically subsidise tickets because a person is disabled when I know disabled people who are better of than non-disabled people?   But that is not the point - and I await possible abuse for this view. 

Nothing wrong (or indeed incorrect) about that view mate. What I would argue though is that whilst there may be some disabled persons who are better off than some able bodied families, it’s not the norm. Plus, and I may get shtick for this, it’s more difficult for a disabled person to effect change in their life in order to better themselves / their finances than it is for the able bodied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robert the bruce said:

Wake up & smell the coffee..

What coffee?

Maybe some of the KEEP CITY SMALL sorts wanna wake up and smell the coffee.

We are a loss making entity looking to grow and make the step up to the Premiership. That comes at a cost to everyone.

Bristol Sport seem to have made a mistake with carer pricing, trying to move lower priced tickets out of prime areas and a short notice to renew. But the outcry is pathetic in my opinion.

£345 for an ST is great value.

£50 for a child ST is great value.

 

Well done to Bristol Sport for lowering the price for many in times of 3% + inflation and prices rises throughout the rest of society.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

What coffee?

Maybe some of the KEEP CITY SMALL sorts wanna wake up and smell the coffee.

We are a loss making entity looking to grow and make the step up to the Premiership. That comes at a cost to everyone.

Bristol Sport seem to have made a mistake with carer pricing, trying to move lower priced tickets out of prime areas and a short notice to renew. But the outcry is pathetic in my opinion.

£345 for an ST is great value.

£50 for a child ST is great value.

 

Well done to Bristol Sport for lowering the price for many in times of 3% + inflation and prices rises throughout the rest of society.

 

And do you know how much the board will make from these changes? Is it actually enough to massively impact a promotion push at this level?

If the club were that keen on promotion they should've gone for it in January and spent the couple of million required to get a return of over 100 million.

Is cynical and this mentality that we all need to chip in is about 40 years outdated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WTFiGO!?! said:

Incidentally, there are certain groups on benefits who are financially far better of than some hard-working families who can not afford to go to City.  It could be argued that why should City automatically subsidise tickets because a person is disabled when I know disabled people who are better of than non-disabled people?   But that is not the point - and I await possible abuse for this view. 

That view is typically used to justify preexisting prejudice against the disabled. 

Those that spout it never make the effort to find out how many people this might be, but it pervades their opinion of all disabled people. 

Why should those such as the disabled get cheaper tickets? Probably for the same reasons why a civilised society should look after those less fortunate. Its the hallmark of what a society is. Thousands of businesses, likewise, agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

What coffee?

Well done to Bristol Sport for lowering the price for many in times of 3% + inflation and prices rises throughout the rest of society.

 

Could you provide an evidence base as to how the increase in price for Supporters with disabilities is in line with DLA/PIP increased, or decreased payments? 

I will have a tea please.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

That view is typically used to justify preexisting prejudice against the disabled. 

Those that spout it never make the effort to find out how many people this might be, but it pervades their opinion of all disabled people. 

Why should those such as the disabled get cheaper tickets? Probably for the same reasons why a civilised society should look after those less fortunate. Its the hallmark of what a society is. Thousands of businesses, likewise, agree. 

Having experience first hand of the issue I can assure you that the country is looking after those less fortunate a lot better than is typically understood, financially.  

My fiancé used to work in a post office where she had access to numbers and could see for herself that disabled people were on a better income than many of her own community.

I do accept Harry's point that some people can not do anything to affect change to their circumstances, so concessions are validated for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WTFiGO!?! said:

Having experience first hand of the issue I can assure you that the country is looking after those less fortunate a lot better than is typically understood, financially.  

My fiancé used to work in a post office where she had access to numbers and could see for herself that disabled people were on a better income than many of her own community.

I do accept Harry's point that some people can not do anything to affect change to their circumstances, so concessions are validated for that.

I think you'd need to fully understand what that money is for. 

The cost of being disabled is often significant BEFORE you start spending money on the essentials everyone else has to pay for. You might have to pay for extra help or support that the government refuses to fund directly. You will almost certainly have to buy extra equipment in many cases. If you have a disabled child you may not be able to work at all or forego a career even. Everyone's situation is different and can be quite complex. As a family we certainly don't profit from my son's condition, I can assure you. 

The vast majority of disabled people who don't work live in poverty unless they get outside help. 

Universal credit has one objective - to save money. Not to objectively serve disabled people and stump up the resultant cost (as it ought  to be) . And it takes no account of individual collateral damage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WTFiGO!?! said:

Having experience first hand of the issue I can assure you that the country is looking after those less fortunate a lot better than is typically understood, financially.  

My fiancé used to work in a post office where she had access to numbers and could see for herself that disabled people were on a better income than many of her own community.

I do accept Harry's point that some people can not do anything to affect change to their circumstances, so concessions are validated for that.

A person who used to work in a post office would not be privy to the detail of costs involved in care. Payments frequently do not cover care needs and these charges are paid via Council Social service budgets, with individuals making additional payment from associated benefit components. 

Disability allowances are assessed v income, even gifts. £20 a week from a family member can mean a reduction in DLA/PIP. So your highlighted text is a sweeping generalisation, and wildly inaccurate.

Your Fiance if sharing specific individuals payment details was being unprofessional and breaking the law ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cowshed said:

A person who used to work in a post office would not be privy to the detail of costs involved in care. Payments frequently do not cover care needs and these charges are paid via Council Social service budgets, with individuals making additional payment from associated benefit components. 

Disability allowances are assessed v income, even gifts. £20 a week from a family member can mean a reduction in DLA/PIP. So your highlighted text is a sweeping generalisation, and wildly inaccurate.

Your Fiance if sharing specific individuals payment details was being unprofessional and breaking the law ...

It wasn't specific.

We personally know people who have more surplus income, due to the benefit system, than other working families who could not possibly justify the cost of watching City.

The bold statement is a generalisation but not wholly inaccurate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WTFiGO!?! said:

It wasn't specific.

We personally know people who have more surplus income, due to the benefit system, than other working families who could not possibly justify the cost of watching City.

The bold statement is a generalisation but not wholly inaccurate.  

Yes it was not only non specific it was anecdotal. 

I could be a fantasist, or what I have been posting in this and similar threads could be the result of two decades in the field of disability - care and leisure (sport) services.

Your bold statement in my experience was wildly wrong.

The individuals using the services I support overwhelmingly cannot have more disposable income that virtually all in society. They are not allowed to because of means testing. Differing levels of care components leading to larger payments are again means tested leading to large care costs.

The norm is.

Many (the majority) after care costs, living costs barely have  a pot to piss in. This is why the services I work for costs relate to individuals  DLA/PIP and indirect payments from Social services. Bristol Sport take NONE of this into account.

Bristol City Community trust run disabilities teams. If Bristol Sports same rule of thumb applied there (and thankfully it has not yet!!) they would have no players left as the costs would be prohibitive. The Community Trust there do charge prices in line with other clubs (Charities) in the area, sensible prices - Prices that are in line with DLA/PIP.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Yes it was not only non specific it was anecdotal. 

I could be a fantasist, or what I have been posting in this and similar threads could be the result of two decades in the field of disability - care and leisure (sport) services.

Your bold statement in my experience was wildly wrong.

The individuals using the services I support overwhelmingly cannot have more disposable income that virtually all in society. They are not allowed to because of means testing. Differing levels of care components leading to larger payments are again means tested leading to large care costs.

The norm is.

Many (the majority) after care costs, living costs barely have  a pot to piss in. This is why the services I work for costs relate to individuals  DLA/PIP and indirect payments. Bristol Sport taker NONE of this into account.

Bristol City Community trust run disabilities teams. If Bristol Sports same rule of thumb applied there (and thankfully it has not yet!!) they would have no players left as the costs would be prohibitive. The Community Trust there do charge prices in line with other clubs (Charities) in the areas prices, sensible prices - Prices that are in line with DLA/PIP.  

@Matt Parsons BCFCSLO I'd highly recommend passing the above on to Mark Ashton. I don't expect a bloke with his indifference to have even a modicum of empathy, but even dictators have been nice to their pets, so who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...