St Helen's Blue, this is directed at you as the tone of your posts is, imo, just not on.
Consider this. Peppered throughout this thread are various sentences from you where you state something akin to “I have empathy with people that are priced out.”
A good start, fair enough, you might think. However, everything else you state screams the complete opposite.
We are in politician, spin land here. Just because you state something, it does not mean that it is automatically true if all your other actions/statements then go on to suggest otherwise. We criticise politicians for that sort of duplicity. And I am criticising you for it here.
Your posts are peppered with this ludicrous suggestion that people should swallow whatever price increases come their way by “getting rid of sky” and “making choices.”
Proof, if ever there was, that your empathy comment is totally unfounded. Let me give you a basic definition of empathy. Empathy is the ability to identify with the feelings and situations experienced by others, even though they may be different to your own.
Yet you constantly relate the circumstances of any City fan who is threatened by such ludicrous prices to your own 'Sky decision'. Or to a similar 'sacrifice' that it would be possible for YOU to make. That is not empathy. That is the complete opposite of empathy. Being unable to see anything other than through a prism of how such a circumstance would affect you as an individual.
This lack of empathy is summed up elsewhere where you reveal your true feelings where you compare such circumstances to you not being able to afford a Ferrari and state that “people who can wouldn't empathise with you.” Well, perhaps they wouldn't. Perhaps you equate being able to afford a Ferrari as being the same level of luxury item as being able to watch your team every other week.
However, the really interesting thing about that comparison is that it gets to the crux of your opinion. And that is that empathy is just a word. One that is not shown to you and, as such, something that you suggest, even though your spin suggests otherwise, should not really be shown to anyone adversely affected by this price rise.
Here's a scenario for you.
I would estimate, due to family circumstances, I possible might be in the fortunate situation whereby I have more disposable income than you. That isn't some sort of boast, it is just that our circumstances differ, given what you have stated earlier in this thread.
I reckon it would be possible for me to find £150 for a ticket for each game (I wouldn't but that is another story). Perhaps you could too, but let's assume, like most family men, you couldn't. I could probably, with discipline, find £200 per ticket (again, I definitely wouldn't though).
Now, let's hypothesise that City decide next week that they can just about fill the ground with a demographic that can afford this and alter prices to reflect this. I suggest (and I might be wrong, I'm not going for the Billy Big Bollocks routine here, it is a hypothetical situation) that you might, as most family men would be, priced out at this point.
If I came on here and stated the following, would it make sense?
“Well, anyone unable to afford it should make the choice to get rid of their Sky. And if they have already done that then perhaps they should consider not eating out every other evening. Make that choice. And then they should make the choice to sell a kidney, cos that is what I would do if I couldn't afford to go – but remember everyone, I can. And get the kid's up the chimney too. It's a matter of choice and if you can't afford £150 a game and don't make these choices then, well, that's the way of the world. I can't afford Windsor Castle but you don't hear me bleating about it or se the Queen giving me sympathy.
PS: I empathise with anyone priced out.”
The above is an exaggerated version of your contributions on this thread. It totally misses the point.
I have no idea as to how other people spend their money. That is not the debate. The debate is whether £50 (or £200) per game is a fair and reasonable price to watch Manchester City Football Club each week. (Not 'The Champions', we don't support 'The Champions' and price out support accordingly, we support Manchester City, whether they are winning the Champion's League or in Division 2).
Now, I suggest that you might think that £150 is out of your reach. I also suggest that you would see this as a stupid, outrageous price that is just not on and unrealistic. Well, guess what, the same applies to many people with this price.
You'll also note that my final line of, “I empathise” sounds particularly hollow and false, given what has come before it. My bullshit about choices and sacrifices is not based on any realisitic appreciation of the situations of others, just glib assumptions, yet I finish by saying “I empathise.” A bit at odds with each other, don't you think?
You also ask elsewhere in the thread, “why do people blame the club for this?” My question to you, if we are throwing the B word about, is who are the other candidates to 'blame?' As has been covered extensively in this thread, the benefit to the club, in the larger scheme of things is negligible. No-one has held a gun to their head and no one forces them to set prices at a particular level.
I'll finish by saying that I haven't read this back and have just come in and spent 10 minutes typing out a stream of conciousness. I know it will come across as antagonistic. That is my writing style somewhat. I don't mean to get personal and hopefully I have just stuck to the arguments, rather than doing that. Your contributions just stand out for their volume and persistence with the same argument. There are plenty others on here saying the same thing. I probably shouldn't have addressed this in a personal way and I apologise now if it comes across badly. As you might be able to tell, this is an issue that I feel particularly strongly about.
