The Anti Supporters Club

jrb said:
Why didn't Kevin Parker consult the OSC members before deciding not to support the fans first protest? He obviously didn't read the room.

Who took that decision? And why did they take that decision? What were their reasons? And why didn't Kevin Parker as the OSC General Secretary canvas the wider OSC membership before taking that decision?

There is an OSC - X page. A poll/vote could have been set up allowing OSC members to vote for or against supporting the first protest.

It works both ways.
Click to expand...
He made that statement under the guise of the OSC, whilst quoting City Matters, when all along it’s just him, his opinion, his triggered response, that’s why I have a problem with it. I understand the OSC should be represented amongst City Matters, why him ? Too many fingers in pies
 
kippax_blueboy said:
We shouldn't have multiple supporters organisations.
It never works, causes division and leaves the club alone.
The fact it's called the OSC is crazy and only because for about 25 years we had two supporters clubs one official and one independent. Eventually common sense prevailed and they merged.
Now we have fans creating other supporter action groups when it would be better if these progressive action groups were part of the OSC.
If KP is not the right man then vote him out and put another leader in.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% and I made the same point a few pages back

I'm guessing that some 1894 Members might also be in the OSC and similarly OSC Members might also contribute to City Matters.
That's without all the other lobbying groups (all of whom need to be heard)

Leaving aside the petty politics and the tedious assumption that 99% are/aren't in total agreement with a specific twitter post, it would surely be more powerful if we all communicated with one voice.
 
Scaring Europe to Death said:
Agree 100% and I made the same point a few pages back

I'm guessing that some 1894 Members might also be in the OSC and similarly OSC Members might also contribute to City Matters.
That's without all the other lobbying groups (all of whom need to be heard)

Leaving aside the petty politics and the tedious assumption that 99% are/aren't in total agreement with a specific twitter post, it would surely be more powerful if we all communicated with one voice.
Click to expand...
I just can't understand how all of a sudden the unite union has become a mouthpiece for city fans. I just don't get it and don't want those far left wreckers involved.
 
jrb said:
Why didn't Kevin Parker consult the OSC members before deciding not to support the fans first protest? He obviously didn't read the room.

Who took that decision? And why did they take that decision? What were their reasons? And why didn't Kevin Parker as the OSC General Secretary canvas the wider OSC membership before taking that decision?

There is an OSC - X page. A poll/vote could have been set up allowing OSC members to vote for or against supporting the first protest.

It works both ways.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t consulted when “the Kippax” display became “Together”. You have people in leadership roles to make decisions.

Just like I would have preferred to have the social media Blue, Luke, involved in the protests rather than putting Big Steve front and centre. We all have opinions but somebody has to make decisions.
 
Last edited:
Scaring Europe to Death said:
Agree 100% and I made the same point a few pages back

I'm guessing that some 1894 Members might also be in the OSC and similarly OSC Members might also contribute to City Matters.
That's without all the other lobbying groups (all of whom need to be heard)

Leaving aside the petty politics and the tedious assumption that 99% are/aren't in total agreement with a specific twitter post, it would surely be more powerful if we all communicated with one voice.
Click to expand...
The supporters need a real leader who can bring all these splintered groups together.
 
jayrea said:
I just can't understand how all of a sudden the unite union has become a mouthpiece for city fans. I just don't get it and don't want those far left wreckers involved.
Click to expand...
I don’t know these Trade Union Blues. I paid into the Union for most of my working life and when I wanted a bit of help they were pretty useless.

There’s many posts about the OSC not liking confrontation and that’s fair enough but we don’t want to be represented by Trots either.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
I wasn’t consulted when “the Kippax” display became “Together”. You have people in leadership roles to make decisions.

Just like I would have preferred to have the social media Blue, Luke, involved in the protests rather than putting Big Steve front and centre. We all have opinions but somebody has to make decisions.
Click to expand...

Big Steve has a big social media presence and reach.

Big Steve has worked for the club and been paid by the club.

But he decided to step back and to support the protest.

He didn’t have to do that.

He could have kept quiet, continued taking the work, and taking the money from the club. He knows what’s right.

I’m not into social media, and I don’t follow social media fans, but fair play to Big Steve for doing that.

His passion for the club, and for the fans, outweighs his need for work and money from the club.

Leadership roles.

Yes you do.

But there are times when those people should and must consult their members. And the fans. Not every decision has to be made by one person or a group of people in secret with no explanation. There’s already enough of that from the club. The OSC doesn’t need to be the same, but it is.
 
Last edited:
Serious question:
What do the supporters actually want the club to do for tickets?

*100% Season tickets only. Tourists can fuck off.

*Season tickets to go in the bin, 100% dynamic ticket system.

*Tickets given out on a lottery basis

*Tickets only given to people with a 10 mile radius and who are not full kit wankers.

*Eternal price freeze.

*Ticket sales via the club shop only.

Does anyone have a proper answer that isn't just moaning because you can't afford one?*


*I can't afford them either.



​
 
jayrea said:
I just can't understand how all of a sudden the unite union has become a mouthpiece for city fans. I just don't get it and don't want those far left wreckers involved.
Click to expand...
I also find it strange and said so when they first came on the scene.
I've nothing against unions and whilst I'm not in one now, I was for many years in a previous role and would have no problem being in one again.

I can understand why we might have a LGBT blues, disabled blues, OAP blues or maybe even female blues but I don't see how happening to be in a union makes up that much of your identity and sets you apart as a distinct group of people to warrant a group.

Afterall, the trade union blues could be made up of 18 year old Tesco shelf stackers, 60 year old heart surgeons and everything in between. They can't be a group of people who are likely to be like minded on a range of subjects.
 
Mr Grumpy said:
Serious question:
What do the supporters actually want the club to do for tickets?

*100% Season tickets only. Tourists can fuck off.

*Season tickets to go in the bin, 100% dynamic ticket system.

*Tickets given out on a lottery basis

*Tickets only given to people with a 10 mile radius and who are not full kit wankers.

*Eternal price freeze.

*Ticket sales via the club shop only.

Does anyone have a proper answer that isn't just moaning because you can't afford one?*


*I can't afford them either.



​
Click to expand...
I can tell you what I'd like to see:
  • If we operate a category pricing model (and we clearly do) then publish that in advance showing the games in each category (say 5 in A, 9 in B and 5 in C) and the prices for each category.
  • Publish a tariff for cup games as well, certainly the early rounds at least. For example, a CL pot 1 opponent will be category A, etc.
  • Review matchday ticket prices and peg those more closely to pro-rata season ticket equivalent prices, so a matchday ticket is never more than 25% higher than the equivalent pro-rata season ticket price.
  • On ticket exchange, repay the ticket holder based on the game category, rather than just 1/19th, so a cat A game returns more than a cat C game (subject to total possible refunds being the same as the season ticket price).
  • If they want to reduce full season ticket numbers over time, down to say 30,000, then be open about that, but also commit to making 50% of season tickets that aren't renewed available to new applicants (and have a proper waiting list).
  • Review Flexi-Gold pricing and make it a genuine alternative to a full season ticket, particularly for people who know they're only going to make 10-12 games per season. Remove the £150 premium and maybe charge people £5 more than the pro-rata season ticket price for a match-day ticket.
  • Then you have the choice of:
    • A full season ticket if you know you're going to attend at least 15 or 16 games.
    • Flexi if you know you're only going to attend half the games.
    • Matchday memebership for those who are only ever going to be occasional attendees.
  • Commit to never increasing prices more than inflation.
 
Last edited:
jrb said:
Big Steve has a big social media presence and reach.

Big Steve has worked for the club and been paid by the club.

But he decided to step back and to support the protest.

He didn’t have to do that.

He could have kept quiet, continued taking the work, and taking the money from the club. He knows what’s right.

I’m not into social media, and I don’t follow social media fans, but fair play to Big Steve for doing that.

His passion for the club, and for the fans, outweighs his need for work and money from the club.

Leadership roles.

Yes you do.

But there are times when those people should and must consult their members. And the fans. Not every decision has to be made by one person or a group of people in secret with no explanation. There’s already enough of that from the club. The OSC doesn’t need to be the same, but it is.
Click to expand...
City decided to use other social media Blues and credit to Big Steve for being honest about that.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
I don’t know these Trade Union Blues. I paid into the Union for most of my working life and when I wanted a bit of help they were pretty useless.

There’s many posts about the OSC not liking confrontation and that’s fair enough but we don’t want to be represented by Trots either.
Click to expand...
I personally don't give a shit if we're represented by Big Jim and His Gang of Hairy Bikers.

This is what I've tried to explain. The current way and the OSC kid gloves approach DOESN'T WORK. That's not an opinion; it is a verifiable, objective, inarguable, undisputable fact. That needs to be stated over and over and over because it is the singular most important point in this whole debate.

This isn't some new debate they're having. They've been having the same debate for a decade, and they have lost every single battle for over a decade using the exact same approach, the "oh well best not offend anyone", the "we're in constructive dialogue" utter bullshit. They are not and have never been in constructive dialogue. Either they THINK they are, in which case they're incompetent and have been getting played by the club for a decade, or they don't think they are, in which case they're bullshitting the membership and the leadership needs to change.

The OSC and in fact other people on here are so behind the times in football, it's shocking.

This isn't a Committee in the Houses of Parliament. That is a conciliatory process. Several groups all sit down to discuss a Bill with their own ideas and nobody really gets what they want but everybody gets something acceptable to them in the draft. Because the PURPOSE of that is to pass the Bill. Everybody wants the Bill to pass, everybody wants the same thing. So it's about meeting in the middle and compromising.

That is absolutely NOT what football fan advocacy is in this globalist era. This is now an adversarial process. We do not want the same things. They want to maximise revenue at any and all costs. We want to be charged less, have more season tickets and a more sane ticketing policy. These are diametrically opposed goals. There's no meeting in the middle, there's no "everybody gets something", there's a clear winner and a clear loser. And City have won every single fight on this repeatedly because the people talking to them refuse to use any leverage, refuse to make any noises, and submissively get trailed along with vague future promises for years and years and years. They're losing the game because they don't even understand that they're IN the game. They persist with this idea that City are their mates, that they are sat with furrowed brows detailing how they desperately need to raise prices, reluctantly. City are owned by an effective trillionaire. They made £75m profit last year and £80m the year before. They don't give a shit about you, or me, and certainly not gullible fools like Kevin Parker.

So yeah, I don't give a shit about who represents the fans in meetings any more because the ones who have been entrusted to do so for the last decade or two have failed so badly that we're now in a situation whereby our lowest ticket price in GAP is higher than Liverpool's highest ticket price for the last home game. And if they're that incompetent they are effectively serving no purpose. So let someone else do it. Others seem interested in all these politics of "what groups do what". I don't give a fuck. I want cheaper prices and I'll get behind anyone who is doing something different to achieve that because the way it has been done self evidently hasn't worked.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I can tell you what I'd like to see:
  • If we operate a category pricing model (and we clearly do) then publish that in advance showing the games in each category (say 5 in A, 9 in B and 5 in C) and the prices for each category.
  • Publish a tariff for cup games as well, certainly the early rounds at least. For example, a CL pot 1 opponent will be category A, etc.
  • Review matchday ticket prices and peg those more closely to pro-rata season ticket equivalent prices, so a matchday ticket is never more than 25% higher than the equivalent pro-rata season ticket price.
  • On ticket exchange, repay the ticket holder based on the game category, rather than just 1/19th, so a cat A game returns more than a cat C game (subject to total possible refunds being the same as the season ticket price).
  • If they want to reduce full season ticket numbers over time, down to say 30,000, then be open about that, but also commit to making 50% of season tickets that aren't renewed available to new applicants (and have a proper waiting list).
  • Review Flexi-Gold pricing and make it a genuine alternative to a full season ticket, particularly for people who know they're only going to make 10-12 games per season. Remove the £150 premium and maybe charge people £5 more than the pro-rata season ticket price for a match-day ticket.
  • Then you have the choice of:
    • A full season ticket if you know you're going to attend at least 15 or 16 games.
    • Flexi if you know you're only going to attend half the games.
    • Matchday memebership for those who are only ever going to be occasional attendees.
  • Commit to never increasing prices more than inflation.
Click to expand...

You see, I don't agree with this Col. It's what I'm talking about. Your idea are sensible ideas. But they're toothless, you're asking the club after sustained process to just be a little more open about how they're fucking us and their future plans for fucking us. I don't accept this now.

Here's what I want:

20% drop in GA ticket prices.
Commitment to maintain season ticket percentage of the ground.

That's it. Nothing complicated. I don't even particularly care about Viagogo and stuff like that, though it doesn't exactly make me happy.

I want City to ONLY makr £50m a year pure unadulterated profit and be affordable than make £75-80m a year and be unaffordable. In fact I'd rather watch City in non-league and be able to go than watch us win CLs on the telly.

You know the numbers yourself, what I propose there has almost no effect on them financially. They are making a specific choice in how they are changing the makeup of the attendees in the ground and I want to nip that shit in the bud before it becomes too late.
 
Damocles said:
You see, I don't agree with this Col. It's what I'm talking about. Your idea are sensible ideas. But they're toothless, you're asking the club after sustained process to just be a little more open about how they're fucking us and their future plans for fucking us. I don't accept this now.

Here's what I want:

20% drop in GA ticket prices.
Commitment to maintain season ticket percentage of the ground.

That's it. Nothing complicated. I don't even particularly care about Viagogo and stuff like that, though it doesn't exactly make me happy.

I want City to ONLY makr £50m a year pure unadulterated profit and be affordable than make £75-80m a year and be unaffordable. In fact I'd rather watch City in non-league and be able to go than watch us win CLs on the telly.

You know the numbers yourself, what I propose there has almost no effect on them financially. They are making a specific choice in how they are changing the makeup of the attendees in the ground and I want to nip that shit in the bud before it becomes too late.
Click to expand...
A 20% reduction in GA ticket prices would have resulted in the minimum pricing for the Villa game being £57.00 for adults and £34.00 for children. Better, but still far too expensive.
I want to see a cap on children's prices at £15/£20 depending on where you sit in the stadium.
 
Damocles said:
I personally don't give a shit if we're represented by Big Jim and His Gang of Hairy Bikers.

This is what I've tried to explain. The current way and the OSC kid gloves approach DOESN'T WORK. That's not an opinion; it is a verifiable, objective, inarguable, undisputable fact. That needs to be stated over and over and over because it is the singular most important point in this whole debate.

This isn't some new debate they're having. They've been having the same debate for a decade, and they have lost every single battle for over a decade using the exact same approach, the "oh well best not offend anyone", the "we're in constructive dialogue" utter bullshit. They are not and have never been in constructive dialogue. Either they THINK they are, in which case they're incompetent and have been getting played by the club for a decade, or they don't think they are, in which case they're bullshitting the membership and the leadership needs to change.

The OSC and in fact other people on here are so behind the times in football, it's shocking.

This isn't a Committee in the Houses of Parliament. That is a conciliatory process. Several groups all sit down to discuss a Bill with their own ideas and nobody really gets what they want but everybody gets something acceptable to them in the draft. Because the PURPOSE of that is to pass the Bill. Everybody wants the Bill to pass, everybody wants the same thing. So it's about meeting in the middle and compromising.

That is absolutely NOT what football fan advocacy is in this globalist era. This is now an adversarial process. We do not want the same things. They want to maximise revenue at any and all costs. We want to be charged less, have more season tickets and a more sane ticketing policy. These are diametrically opposed goals. There's no meeting in the middle, there's no "everybody gets something", there's a clear winner and a clear loser. And City have won every single fight on this repeatedly because the people talking to them refuse to use any leverage, refuse to make any noises, and submissively get trailed along with vague future promises for years and years and years. They're losing the game because they don't even understand that they're IN the game. They persist with this idea that City are their mates, that they are sat with furrowed brows detailing how they desperately need to raise prices, reluctantly. City are owned by an effective trillionaire. They made £75m profit last year and £80m the year before. They don't give a shit about you, or me, and certainly not gullible fools like Kevin Parker.

So yeah, I don't give a shit about who represents the fans in meetings any more because the ones who have been entrusted to do so for the last decade or two have failed so badly that we're now in a situation whereby our lowest ticket price in GAP is higher than Liverpool's highest ticket price for the last home game. And if they're that incompetent they are effectively serving no purpose. So let someone else do it. Others seem interested in all these politics of "what groups do what". I don't give a fuck. I want cheaper prices and I'll get behind anyone who is doing something different to achieve that because the way it has been done self evidently hasn't worked.
Click to expand...
The main battles lost include:
- The deterioration in atmosphere (not 1894’s fault who’ve been flagging a dead horse).
- People leaving games early. (Each to their own).
- The hoarding of season cards that’s stopped younger families getting tickets together. The campaign’s cause celebres (aka points whores, an unfortunate term) include people who’ve moved aboard.
- Excessive match day ticket prices and season card increases. Yes you can say the OSC and others haven’t been critical enough of the Club on this. Fairs do. These issues have been raised on a regular basis when Danny and Roel come to the OSC meeting.

Wins include:
- Free flights to Porto for the Champs League final
- Value gold season cards
- The most successful period in the club’s history on the pitch.
- Vast numbers of City fans are OSC members
- Kun Aguero fighting stewards to help a fan at Bournemouth
- ensuring foreign,, loyal Blues were defended from hate campaigners.
- The Face Value pages who’ve done more for working class fans than anyone else.

There will be more wins and losses and it’s to say who can claim credit and blame for many of these. These TU Blues have been taking credit for the season card freeze and nobody knows who they are. That’s why I’ve mentioned them. I’ve also mentioned when campaigners have been funded by ticket agencies. Kevin Parker gets a lot of criticism for a lot less.

If I was to pickna day when our passion as a fan base hasn’t fully recovered from, it would be the day Mark Hughes got sacked. I know he was considered a rag but he was treated shoddily and I was expecting a protest outside the ground, that never materialised. Some of us veterans of the Swales Out campaign never really recovered from that day.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I can tell you what I'd like to see:
  • If we operate a category pricing model (and we clearly do) then publish that in advance showing the games in each category (say 5 in A, 9 in B and 5 in C) and the prices for each category.
  • Publish a tariff for cup games as well, certainly the early rounds at least. For example, a CL pot 1 opponent will be category A, etc.
  • Review matchday ticket prices and peg those more closely to pro-rata season ticket equivalent prices, so a matchday ticket is never more than 25% higher than the equivalent pro-rata season ticket price.
  • On ticket exchange, repay the ticket holder based on the game category, rather than just 1/19th, so a cat A game returns more than a cat C game (subject to total possible refunds being the same as the season ticket price).
  • If they want to reduce full season ticket numbers over time, down to say 30,000, then be open about that, but also commit to making 50% of season tickets that aren't renewed available to new applicants (and have a proper waiting list).
  • Review Flexi-Gold pricing and make it a genuine alternative to a full season ticket, particularly for people who know they're only going to make 10-12 games per season. Remove the £150 premium and maybe charge people £5 more than the pro-rata season ticket price for a match-day ticket.
  • Then you have the choice of:
    • A full season ticket if you know you're going to attend at least 15 or 16 games.
    • Flexi if you know you're only going to attend half the games.
    • Matchday memebership for those who are only ever going to be occasional attendees.
  • Commit to never increasing prices more than inflation.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of that but think the club might vary the categories based on importance. For example if the final two home games are category B or C, as they are this season, then the club would want them to be reclassified as category A if we could win the title in either match. Pure greed obviously, but slightly more understandable.
Also some CL opponents will generate an interest level different to the pot. For example one of Real Madrid or Barcelona is likely to be in pot 2 and will generate more interest than Feyenoord or Ajax from pot 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top