It's Official (apparently)

[openEnd]

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=48414

'the extra price of the Dolman central seats was not based on the development'

'our application forms did not make any reference to it being based on development'

Explain this one then Colin, I'm at a loss

http://www.bcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFile...327~2076,00.pdf

[fRed]

I don't think Colin will answer this one

[RedM]

I was always under the impression that the price increases were to cover the lost capacity, and the lost capacity was because of the redevelopment of the Eastend. I remenber thinking 'what happens next year when it's all built, will the prices come down again?' I decided we would be playing Championship football that season anyway so the prices would have stayed high to account for this!!! How wrong can you be.

Although my ST in the Dolman didn't go up as it wasn't in the 'prime seats,' each of my children's went up by £25. That increase itself was a huge rise for a child. Add to that the fact that most children need an adult to accompany them and you are held to ransom.

Mind you, how many ST's do we have to sell to pay a players wages for a month!

[BB.]

In view of the limited capacity, we have had to review the return per seat in the ground, which has led to an increase in under-16 prices and the cost of prime seating in the Dolman Stand

It's all there in black and white. The increase in prices was directly linked to the "reduced capacity".

They said it was and now say it wasn't.

[NailseaRed]

that's an excellent come back, have you posted it on the ask Steve L forum to see what his response is? I would be interested to see what is said

[openEnd]

that's an excellent come back, have you posted it on the ask Steve L forum to see what his response is? I would be interested to see what is said

ColinS is/was reading this thread (Click on his name). If there is no response within the next hour or so I will re-post it in the ASK SL forum.

[BB.]

that's an excellent come back, have you posted it on the ask Steve L forum to see what his response is? I would be interested to see what is said

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

Steve

P.s. There will be no refund

[cheshire_red]

Hmmm, yet more alienation of the core support, interesting.

[CodeRed]

This club just makes it up as it goes along

The letter CLEARLY states "...........the redeveloment of the Wedlock stand will be underway resulting in a reduced capacity.............in view of the limited capacity we have had to review the return per seat, leading to an increase in under 16 and the cost of prime seating in the Dolman........"

The letter (an invitation to renew S/T's) was signed by Steve Lansdown

Now according to Sexstone's answer on ask SL the above paragraph is .......untrue !!

Sexstone's answer

"Whilst everybody at the club (especially those of us who have worked for months on this project) is disappointed not to be going ahead with the new stand, the extra price of the Dolman central seats was not based on the development. It was based on a premium for excellent seats "

Why do the club insist on treating loyal supporters like idiots ?

The letter also request support (ie - please buy a S/T) "..as the club need to retain our best players (specifically mentions Lita) and for this we need your support....."

Well they got record S/T sales and we know what happened next.

The letter was also signed by Tinnion, who perhaps should have kept a copy in his pocket and looked at it now and again - especially the bit about retaining our best players

[BB.]

Whilst our application forms did not make any reference to the new development, a letter sent out to existing 2004/05 season ticket holders with the club's early-bird forms did indicate we had reviewed the return per seat in view of the proposed development of the Wedlock Stand.

I reply to all postings in good faith and apologise for this omission.

At this point we were intent on the new stand going ahead and therefore felt we were justified in increasing prices for the central blocks of the Dolman Stand.

The main seling point of a season ticket, however, remains the benefits listed in my previous reply. Although we did "tie" this into the proposed development in the above letter we did not state there would be a decrease, or refund offered, if the stand did not go ahead.

Having said that we will look to take this into account when setting prices for 2006/07.

There will, therefore, be no refund offered.

Colin

Because they didn't say there would be a refund if the stand didn't go ahead.

So, (hypethetically) if you paid for a seat in the middle of the Dolman and they gave you a seat somewhere else and they didn't state you could get a refund if this happened, would that be O.K?

Or am I being silly now?

[BB.]

At this point we were intent on the new stand going ahead and therefore felt we were justified in increasing prices for the central blocks of the Dolman Stand.

Does this mean, (now the stand is no longer being built this season) they know that they are unjustified in increasing prices?

Also, he hasn't mentioned that children prices got increased for the same reason.

[Guest North Street]

Sharp business practice or fibbing?

Perhaps they thought the hoi polloi would not notice!

[England]

Steve has said he doesn't lie - that's why he got Colin to answer it, allegedly

[Red Cloud]

did you know it takes just over 366 ST holders in "premium" section of Dolman just to pay Scotty Murray's wages for a year!

[DOLMANDAN]

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=48414

'the extra price of the Dolman central seats was not based on the development'

'our application forms did not make any reference to it being based on development'

Explain this one then Colin, I'm at a loss

http://www.bcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFile...327~2076,00.pdf

Every question i have asked has been either ducked or edited he wont answer lily liverd man he is well go on then delete it hide away from the truth

[Sir Colby-Tit]

Your comments are noted

PS actually no they're not

PPS no refunds will be given

[Keep the Faith]

I've tried to stay behind the board despite some of the recent goings on but this outright lie to people who have supported the club for years is ridiculous. Did they not realise the outrage this would cause when everyone found out they;ve been lied to.

It's a real shame that this has happened.

[BB.]

The muppets that currently 'run' this club couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery

And if they did it would be not much drinking, no swearing, no standing, no smoking, you would be asked to sit at a different table every 5 minutes and because of reduced drinking, it would be £7 a pint.

[CodeRed]

And if they did it would be not much drinking, no swearing, no standing, no smoking, you would be asked to sit at a different table every 5 minutes and because of reduced drinking, it would be £7 a pint.

And having handed over the £7 they would say.......actually we've sold all that beer - you can't have a refund - but we've borrowed some (inferior) beer from a brewery in south london so you have to drink that or nothing..............and you can't have another decent beer till January !!!

[freezer]

Good job done again Colin, it keeps getting better and better.

Now how can I save more money but still support City, because I feel as though most fans are purely looked at in a financial way by the club. Fair enough when the product is top rate, but at the moment it's desperate, not the right time to upset already saddened fans.

What's next, something good maybe?.

[openEnd]

Hmmmm, not one reply to this thread, in defence of the board and CS.

Come on, I'm sure someone must be able to justify the club stance on this issue?

I'm particularly interested in RedTop and Robbored's take on the evidence in this thread. I could do with a laugh.

[Keep the Faith]

I fail to see how you can justify lying to the fans like this. If they were going to increase the prices for thatreason then say, don't make up something else and hope no-one wil notice and that it will all blow over.

[Guest redphilc]

Hmmmm, not one reply to this thread, in defence of the board and CS.

Come on, I'm sure someone must be able to justify the club stance on this issue?

I'm particularly interested in RedTop and Robbored's take on the evidence in this thread. I could do with a laugh.

I suspect they are at the AGM. Wish I had bought shares now and had an invite as tonight could be interesting....

[Guest]

Thats the East End, Williams and Dolman boys and girls well and truly miffed off; : how about the Atyeo next they have got away with far to much, close it down

[cheshire_red]

Wonder if the mention of CS reading this thread has led to the inability to now see who is reading what?

[Nibor]

Wonder if the mention of CS reading this thread has led to the inability to now see who is reading what?

I'm guessing that's more likely down to the problems the forum was having yesterday, the "who's reading what" feature is usually one of the first things to get switched off by the admins when the board goes fubarred.

Nibor

[RedTop]

I'm particularly interested in RedTop and Robbored's take on the evidence in this thread. I could do with a laugh.

I'd say it's there in black and white. I'd say you have a very good case. As I said in another thread, the club should have simply explained the changes as an extension of the way of linking the price of seats to the quality of the view, as happens with prices differing between stands. It's logical that a seat in the middle of the stand should command a higher price than one in the corners.

But the letter is pretty explicit in directly linking the price rises - ill-advisedly - with the reduced capacity through redevelopment, and the club must take the consequences of that; either offering a percentage of the difference back or taking a big hit in terms of trust from fans who feel duped and who, given the letter published above, have every right to feel that way in my opinion.

In my view it's a big mistake by the club and I feel ColinS owes those of you who feel conned an explanation and an apology at the very least.

[freezer]

I'd say it's there in black and white. I'd say you have a very good case. As I said in another thread, the club should have simply explained the changes as an extension of the way of linking the price of seats to the quality of the view, as happens with prices differing between stands. It's logical that a seat in the middle of the stand should command a higher price than one in the corners.

But the letter is pretty explicit in directly linking the price rises - ill-advisedly - with the reduced capacity through redevelopment, and the club must take the consequences of that; either offering a percentage of the difference back or taking a big hit in terms of trust from fans who feel duped and who, given the letter published above, have every right to feel that way in my opinion.

In my view it's a big mistake by the club and I feel ColinS owes those of you who feel conned an explanation and an apology at the very least.

Good response RedTop. Some thought you wouldn't post, you did and seem to agree with the general consensus of opinion. Thankyou.

Why is it only logical this season that certain blocks are higher priced than others, normally the best entertainment is at the goalmouth ends than midfield.Why is this season different.Only better value for away fans surely.

If I read Mr Sextones-not Mr Lansdowns one liner reply- then ("consideration"- will be made, with regard to next seasons ticket renewals in these "prime and excellent" positions, (MARK THOSE WORDS, I WON'T FORGET))- and, even though, no refund will be available now that the Wedlock/East End development will not take place, I still feel that being duped(doped) will continue, as long as the current board/system is in place.

Don't want to be too negative, but look after the regular fans. Lately, and before that, things are becoming a joke.

And yes, a simple apology would mean a lot, but I'm not sure if the club can accept any blame on many points and that is unacceptable.

You give it out, you take it take back.

If you're wrong, admit it.

Not that hard is it.

A pee'ed off Shyte heed.

ps and yes, I have been drinking. It's not often on a Friday that I'm unrestrained. Hold that goat.

[openEnd]

I'd say it's there in black and white. I'd say you have a very good case. As I said in another thread, the club should have simply explained the changes as an extension of the way of linking the price of seats to the quality of the view, as happens with prices differing between stands. It's logical that a seat in the middle of the stand should command a higher price than one in the corners.

But the letter is pretty explicit in directly linking the price rises - ill-advisedly - with the reduced capacity through redevelopment, and the club must take the consequences of that; either offering a percentage of the difference back or taking a big hit in terms of trust from fans who feel duped and who, given the letter published above, have every right to feel that way in my opinion.

In my view it's a big mistake by the club and I feel ColinS owes those of you who feel conned an explanation and an apology at the very least.

Very gracious of you, thankyou

... but as someone pointed out in an earlier (deleted/edited) post in this thread, even a tabloid journo would struggle to defend the indefensible.

I think thats the first of many loud slirps from the RedTop espresso machine, and the aroma is starting to spread. Give it a couple more similar episodes and your nostrils will be overwhelmed.

Now where's that Robbored, was that a Cappaccino Sir?

[freezer]

Very gracious of you, thankyou

... but as someone pointed out in an earlier (deleted/edited) post in this thread, even a tabloid journo would struggle to defend the indefensible.

I think thats the first of many loud slirps from the RedTop espresso machine, and the aroma is starting to spread. Give it a couple more similar episodes and your nostrils will be overwhelmed.

Now where's that Robbored, was that a Cappaccino Sir?

Two sugars please.

[BB.]

What about the increase in child pricing?

It's not logical or justifyable to have such an increase for them. (even less so now the stand isn't being built this season).

Think of the Children!!!