You seem awfully keen to state things as facts, where is your actual proof of what was said both for and against this proposal? What about the proposed increase in the away fans fund? Do you have any actual verifiable facts? We're certainly not mentioned in that Guardian article and Arsenal actually deny they were against it.It appeared there was a vote, as per a claim from a member of the FSF, now it doesn't. What is known now is that there were discussions about this proposal between the PL and every PL club. What is clear is that our club was one of several clubs to oppose the proposal, so it didn't even reach the stage where votes were cast as it was clear there wouldn't be the necessary support for it.
You're running dangerously close to defending the indefensible here.
There might be some other PR management token gesture being discussed by the PL and those against this proposal, but this was the real litmus test, and our club are known to have opposed it.
You cannot defend that. Don't bother trying. Doesn't reflect well.
The amount of people I saw on Twitter mocking the Liverpool walk out was disappointing. It's stuff like that, that all fans need to unite together with otherwise it will become £100 per ticket. Look at the prices yhe NFL get. Don't be niave and think the FA haven't noticed and aren't heading that way.
I mocked them because what does it solve? They paid through their arse and nose for that match and left early. Did it affect the clubs coffers? No. Will it make them reassess their ideas on their pricing structure? Most likely not.
They basically provided yet another oxymoron of a protest. The simple fact of a protest should be that 'you don't buy, the club don't get'.
The directors have a legal obligation for the following
: Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company’s employees,
(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
Dropping and then capping ticket prices is not conducive with these duties and there is still a demand and a willingness of fans to pay these prices. If you as an individual think the prices are too high then stop buying them someone else will take up that seat. When there is no longer a demand the club like any other business will review prices and still be fulfilling their duties but not before.
People need to grow up a little here and just because I was at York away and "helped" the club when they were in the shit doesn't mean that I have a right not to be priced out now we are successful. That I am afraid is the harshness of business and the law of supply and demand.
Read any article it is clear there was not enough support to bother putting it to a vote. Therefore at least 13 other clubs would have rebuffed the idea during discussions.
City hide beghnd their £299 tickets whilst charging away fans £58 per game for the same awful seats.
Apparently Us, spurs, rags, red scouse, chelsea, west ham, & Arsenal