That's a real shame about M block because there's a really good bunch in there and a good atmosphere. I hope the price hike doesn't break it up. I was almost certainly not renewing anyway, for a range of reasons, but if those tickets are going up by a considerable amount, that's the final nail in the coffin.
Headlines stating season tickets frozen yet the reality for those between 60 and 65 and others is different as far as what is written in the programme which is what we were told to refer to.
I thought she was a lawyer not a double crossing tart misselling finance and double glazing pitchhire with tacky videos.
I don't think it's about dishonesty as much as incompetence. The presentation of this - with the promise of information on the website yesterday unfulfilled - has been another mess, because it is muddled and treats supporters as fools. They've also allowed the 60-65 issue to run out of control by revealing it but not setting out how it will apply.
I had to laugh at the bizarre and unprofessional attribution to the piece in the programme: "the club's ticket office outlines". As with the web story, it tells you quite clearly that no one wanted their name on it. Or that it was written by the PR man ...
Not really sure what the issues are here. If I bought my ST a month before this season started, then my seat would cost the same this season.
Seeing as my ST this season was less than the previous season, I'm happy with the pricing structure - though the 60 - 65 limit is slightly underhand. But to be fair, the retirement age now is 66, so the vast majority of those paying a reduced rate aged 60 would still be employment anyway.
Indeed, I'm thinking of 'upgrading' my seat for next year.
I do have a chuckle at the 2 or 3 people on here who would not be renewing their ST next year, now complaining about the new pricing. Why should you care?
Sorry to correct you Addicted I am 63 and still retire at 65. People born before me( by about a year) will increase to I think it is 68/69 dependent on a graduated increase. An exception is if you are a woman when the retirement age goes up to 65, and if you were born in 1954 it is 66 plus a few months. That is subject to ammendment and change. ( ain't that a fact) I know the woman's age is 66 and a few months, as that is my wife's age. You will have noticed that it is effectively a double whammy increase. Some cynics might think that will it stay at 69...... 70 seems a nice round number, and can only see it going up.
There does now seem to be a bit of crowdsourcing in terms of ideas recently.
Except it's done in a haphazard way of teasing and judging reaction rather than actually speaking to people first to stop looking like idiots.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the club asked the Trust to help them, the Trust, for whatever reason declined.
Not quite, but understand why it came across that way. The Supporters' Trust was deflected away from meaningful discussion at board level (yes, that email) and instead Barnie was asked to work with her management team specifically on attendances initiatives. He personally declined, because actually the Supporters' Trust was already doing that.
So what happened to the club not communicating with the trust? It appears not only do they seek assistance from the trust with regards to attendances and they also provide regular contact with a board member. (RM)
I'm also with Addickted on the 60-65 point, if the vast majority of those people are still working, why should they get a dicount ahead of anyone else.
Well, let's look at your "if the vast majority" first and it's a quite large "if" as reliable statistics seem hard to come by. But as far as I can work out only around 50% of 60-65 year old men are in work and only about 40% have full-time jobs. So, it seems the hefty majority do not have well paid employment. Certainly, prior to the last financial crisis, around 50% of men and 30% of women left work before the state retirement age. I assume the figure for women is lower because the state retirement age was lower. Whatever, these individuals may have a (modest?) private/ company pension but are likely to be living on a strict budget at least until the sate pension kicks in. Therefore the 60-65 age group - those that aren't in work - are actually likely to be less well off than those over 65. I'm guessing from personal knowledge of what mates are up to rather than any statisitcal data that quite a few that are in jobs are likely to be those that are doing so on a part-time basis as they wend their way to full blown retirement. In addition they are much less likely to be fully "able-bodied" and might need a little extra incentive to get them out in the cold for a winter's mid-week game. (There is some truth to the "blankets and bovril" concept.)
My empirical evidence would suggest that the club are being rather foolhardy in (a) applying a 70% price increase (in my ticket band) compared with last year's early bird price for those in this demographic, (b) not being entirely specific in its marketing as to what changes it is making, (c) providing any explanation for those changes (d) lying about a price freeze (e) asking for much more money much earlier and (f) giving the impression they don't give a shit while claiming to show a "commitment to affordable football for the entire family."
Now, overall, CAFC's prices aren't bad but unless the club comes out with some early commitment to enhance the playing squad, and not get rid of the manager (again) why would any sane person spend an additional 70% on the off-chance that things might be a little bit more enjoyable than they have over the last two seasons?
That in my view is why this is an own goal of quite huge proportions. (Although I say that not having a clue as to what percentage of season ticket holders is likely to be within this age range.)
I think 60 being the basis of a concession, was when the government was forced to treat men and women as equal with regard to the bus pass, which originally given to women at 60 and men at 65 but changed to 60 for both as they did not want to raise the age for women to 65.
There does now seem to be a bit of crowdsourcing in terms of ideas recently.
Except it's done in a haphazard way of teasing and judging reaction rather than actually speaking to people first to stop looking like idiots.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the club asked the Trust to help them, the Trust, for whatever reason declined.
Not quite, but understand why it came across that way. The Supporters' Trust was deflected away from meaningful discussion at board level (yes, that email) and instead Barnie was asked to work with her management team specifically on attendances initiatives. He personally declined, because actually the Supporters' Trust was already doing that.
So what happened to the club not communicating with the trust? It appears not only do they seek assistance from the trust with regards to attendances and they also provide regular contact with a board member. (RM)
I'm also with Addickted on the 60-65 point, if the vast majority of those people are still working, why should they get a dicount ahead of anyone else.
Well, let's look at your "if the vast majority" first and it's a quite large "if" as reliable statistics seem hard to come by. But as far as I can work out only around 50% of 60-65 year old men are in work and only about 40% have full-time jobs. So, it seems the hefty majority do not have well paid employment. Certainly, prior to the last financial crisis, around 50% of men and 30% of women left work before the state retirement age. I assume the figure for women is lower because the state retirement age was lower. Whatever, these individuals may have a (modest?) private/ company pension but are likely to be living on a strict budget at least until the sate pension kicks in. Therefore the 60-65 age group - those that aren't in work - are actually likely to be less well off than those over 65. I'm guessing from personal knowledge of what mates are up to rather than any statisitcal data that quite a few that are in jobs are likely to be those that are doing so on a part-time basis as they wend their way to full blown retirement. In addition they are much less likely to be fully "able-bodied" and might need a little extra incentive to get them out in the cold for a winter's mid-week game. (There is some truth to the "blankets and bovril" concept.)
My empirical evidence would suggest that the club are being rather foolhardy in (a) applying a 70% price increase (in my ticket band) compared with last year's early bird price for those in this demographic, (b) not being entirely specific in its marketing as to what changes it is making, (c) providing any explanation for those changes (d) lying about a price freeze (e) asking for much more money much earlier and (f) giving the impression they don't give a shit while claiming to show a "commitment to affordable football for the entire family."
Now, overall, CAFC's prices aren't bad but unless the club comes out with some early commitment to enhance the playing squad, and not get rid of the manager (again) why would any sane person spend an additional 70% on the off-chance that things might be a little bit more enjoyable than they have over the last two seasons?
That in my view is why this is an own goal of quite huge proportions. (Although I say that not having a clue as to what percentage of season ticket holders is likely to be within this age range.)
Over 60s are about 25 per cent of season-ticket holders, possibly a bit higher. How many of those fall into the 60-65 age group I couldn't say for certain, but I'd guess at least a quarter, so perhaps 7-8 per cent of the total for argument's sake.
I think 60 being the basis of a concession, was when the government was forced to treat men and women as equal with regard to the bus pass, which originally given to women at 60 and men at 65 but changed to 60 for both as they did not want to raise the age for women to 65.
You may well be right right Dansk Red. Ironically I recieve a free bus/train pass, thanks to Boris...... and last time I looked/checked the OAP state pension age was 65 for myself...... but it is a bit of a moving target. The person I sit next to at the Valley, lives down on the coast and does not obtain free travel.( he is a month younger than me).
Not really sure what the issues are here. If I bought my ST a month before this season started, then my seat would cost the same this season.
Seeing as my ST this season was less than the previous season, I'm happy with the pricing structure - though the 60 - 65 limit is slightly underhand. But to be fair, the retirement age now is 66, so the vast majority of those paying a reduced rate aged 60 would still be employment anyway.
Indeed, I'm thinking of 'upgrading' my seat for next year.
I do have a chuckle at the 2 or 3 people on here who would not be renewing their ST next year, now complaining about the new pricing. Why should you care?
Sorry to correct you Addicted I am 63 and still retire at 65. People born before me( by about a year) will increase to I think it is 68/69 dependent on a graduated increase. An exception is if you are a woman when the retirement age goes up to 65, and if you were born in 1954 it is 66 plus a few months. That is subject to ammendment and change. ( ain't that a fact) I know the woman's age is 66 and a few months, as that is my wife's age. You will have noticed that it is effectively a double whammy increase. Some cynics might think that will it stay at 69...... 70 seems a nice round number, and can only see it going up.
So, despite working full time, you get and have got a reduced priced ST, which I will have to wait another five years to get.
The concession price should be for those drawing their state pension - whatever their age. That's the whole point of it being a concession.
Not really sure what the issues are here. If I bought my ST a month before this season started, then my seat would cost the same this season.
Seeing as my ST this season was less than the previous season, I'm happy with the pricing structure - though the 60 - 65 limit is slightly underhand. But to be fair, the retirement age now is 66, so the vast majority of those paying a reduced rate aged 60 would still be employment anyway.
Indeed, I'm thinking of 'upgrading' my seat for next year.
I do have a chuckle at the 2 or 3 people on here who would not be renewing their ST next year, now complaining about the new pricing. Why should you care?
Sorry to correct you Addicted I am 63 and still retire at 65. People born before me( by about a year) will increase to I think it is 68/69 dependent on a graduated increase. An exception is if you are a woman when the retirement age goes up to 65, and if you were born in 1954 it is 66 plus a few months. That is subject to ammendment and change. ( ain't that a fact) I know the woman's age is 66 and a few months, as that is my wife's age. You will have noticed that it is effectively a double whammy increase. Some cynics might think that will it stay at 69...... 70 seems a nice round number, and can only see it going up.
So, despite working full time, you get and have got a reduced priced ST, which I will have to wait another five years to get.
The concession price should be for those drawing their state pension - whatever their age. That's the whole point of it being a concession.
You make a legitimate point BUT and it's a big but the headline is that season ticket prices are frozen. That is evidently a Katrien lie if you are aged between 60 and 65 and from reading the thread there are other anomalies too.
The issue is as much the spivvy,sleazy deceit as the removal of the concession at least as far as I am concerned anyway.
Those peole who think it is correct to raise the concession age ( proberbly those who want to do away with bus passes) are completley misguided in their thinking . They think it does not effect them. It does because they will be paying the higher price when they get to 60 plus themselves. Do not be taken in by this government myth we are all living longer, we are not, if we were why are people still dying in the 50's and 60;s
Of course it will effect me - and it not too many years.
It won't effect me as much as my state pension age being raised from 65 to 67 and removing the higher rate, without any kind of consultation. And that's despite me paying my full stamp from the age of 18 at the higher rate.
Life's a bitch.
But why the hell should I have a reduced ST price when I hit 60 and am still in well paid full time employment, yet a 22 year old on far less income than me, perhaps struggling to pay a mortgage and deciding whether or not they can afford kids yet, should have to pay the full price?
Of course it will effect me - and it not too many years.
It won't effect me as much as my state pension age being raised from 65 to 67 and removing the higher rate, without any kind of consultation. And that's despite me paying my full stamp from the age of 18 at the higher rate.
Life's a bitch.
But why the hell should I have a reduced ST price when I hit 60 and am still in well paid full time employment, yet a 22 year old on far less income than me, perhaps struggling to pay a mortgage and deciding whether or not they can afford kids yet, should have to pay the full price?
A 32 year old is lucky to have a mortgage these days let alone a 22 year old ;-)
Not really sure what the issues are here. If I bought my ST a month before this season started, then my seat would cost the same this season.
Seeing as my ST this season was less than the previous season, I'm happy with the pricing structure - though the 60 - 65 limit is slightly underhand. But to be fair, the retirement age now is 66, so the vast majority of those paying a reduced rate aged 60 would still be employment anyway.
Indeed, I'm thinking of 'upgrading' my seat for next year.
I do have a chuckle at the 2 or 3 people on here who would not be renewing their ST next year, now complaining about the new pricing. Why should you care?
Sorry to correct you Addicted I am 63 and still retire at 65. People born before me( by about a year) will increase to I think it is 68/69 dependent on a graduated increase. An exception is if you are a woman when the retirement age goes up to 65, and if you were born in 1954 it is 66 plus a few months. That is subject to ammendment and change. ( ain't that a fact) I know the woman's age is 66 and a few months, as that is my wife's age. You will have noticed that it is effectively a double whammy increase. Some cynics might think that will it stay at 69...... 70 seems a nice round number, and can only see it going up.
So, despite working full time, you get and have got a reduced priced ST, which I will have to wait another five years to get.
The concession price should be for those drawing their state pension - whatever their age. That's the whole point of it being a concession.
Is that the whole point though? I'd have thought the whole point is to maximise revenue by making an informed calculation of the price that a particilar demographic are prepared to pay. Hairdressers only do that midweek senior citizen discount to get some revenue in when the shop would otherwise be empty. Not for some altruistic reason. The club should be looking at it the same way. I seriously doubt that it has got the balance right.
Not really sure what the issues are here. If I bought my ST a month before this season started, then my seat would cost the same this season.
Seeing as my ST this season was less than the previous season, I'm happy with the pricing structure - though the 60 - 65 limit is slightly underhand. But to be fair, the retirement age now is 66, so the vast majority of those paying a reduced rate aged 60 would still be employment anyway.
Indeed, I'm thinking of 'upgrading' my seat for next year.
I do have a chuckle at the 2 or 3 people on here who would not be renewing their ST next year, now complaining about the new pricing. Why should you care?
Sorry to correct you Addicted I am 63 and still retire at 65. People born before me( by about a year) will increase to I think it is 68/69 dependent on a graduated increase. An exception is if you are a woman when the retirement age goes up to 65, and if you were born in 1954 it is 66 plus a few months. That is subject to ammendment and change. ( ain't that a fact) I know the woman's age is 66 and a few months, as that is my wife's age. You will have noticed that it is effectively a double whammy increase. Some cynics might think that will it stay at 69...... 70 seems a nice round number, and can only see it going up.
So, despite working full time, you get and have got a reduced priced ST, which I will have to wait another five years to get.
The concession price should be for those drawing their state pension - whatever their age. That's the whole point of it being a concession.
Is that the whole point though? I'd have thought the whole point is to maximise revenue by making an informed calculation of the price that a particilar demographic are prepared to pay. Hairdressers only do that midweek senior citizen discount to get some revenue in when the shop would otherwise be empty. Not for some altruistic reason. The club should be looking at it the same way. I seriously doubt that it has got the balance right.
Absolutely right. And following Addickted's logic, why do people aged 18-21 get concessions if they are in full-time work, as opposed to education or training?
Not really sure what the issues are here. If I bought my ST a month before this season started, then my seat would cost the same this season.
Seeing as my ST this season was less than the previous season, I'm happy with the pricing structure - though the 60 - 65 limit is slightly underhand. But to be fair, the retirement age now is 66, so the vast majority of those paying a reduced rate aged 60 would still be employment anyway.
Indeed, I'm thinking of 'upgrading' my seat for next year.
I do have a chuckle at the 2 or 3 people on here who would not be renewing their ST next year, now complaining about the new pricing. Why should you care?
Sorry to correct you Addicted I am 63 and still retire at 65. People born before me( by about a year) will increase to I think it is 68/69 dependent on a graduated increase. An exception is if you are a woman when the retirement age goes up to 65, and if you were born in 1954 it is 66 plus a few months. That is subject to ammendment and change. ( ain't that a fact) I know the woman's age is 66 and a few months, as that is my wife's age. You will have noticed that it is effectively a double whammy increase. Some cynics might think that will it stay at 69...... 70 seems a nice round number, and can only see it going up.
So, despite working full time, you get and have got a reduced priced ST, which I will have to wait another five years to get.
The concession price should be for those drawing their state pension - whatever their age. That's the whole point of it being a concession.
Is that the whole point though? I'd have thought the whole point is to maximise revenue by making an informed calculation of the price that a particilar demographic are prepared to pay. Hairdressers only do that midweek senior citizen discount to get some revenue in when the shop would otherwise be empty. Not for some altruistic reason. The club should be looking at it the same way. I seriously doubt that it has got the balance right.
Absolutely right. And following Addickted's logic, why do people aged 18-21 get concessions if they are in full-time work, as opposed to education or training?
They shouldn't either.
However, one would have thought the average 18-21 year old ST holder would not be on a significantly higher income.
For God sake, the highest price ST is £525 and the cheapest is £175. You pay that for a single match at Chelsea or Arsenal. If an extra £1.20 a match which is going to your Club is that much of of a pain, then don't buy one.
At the moment, there are certain posters who would be moaning if the Club gave you a ST.
I am surprised that Airman opposes the £175 season tickets . He was part of a regime that kept prices down in the Premiership years and I know that he fought battles with other senior employees at the club about this . The fact that we have kept prices affordable is great in my view whatever the marketing or so called loss of revenue is . It is one of things that has kept Charlton special for me . I accept that they should be stewarded better . Also in terms of revenue for some it might be a major factor in whether or not to renew.
On a day across the River when West Ham were charging £44 to the Nigels , we offered Football for a Fiver . We should celebrate this and publicise the affordability of the Valley.
I am not moaning about paying £1.09 extra per match, but about the headlines and the small print and the lack of information and clarity which leads to speculation.
I am not moaning about paying £1.09 extra per match, but about the headlines and the small print and the lack of information and clarity which leads to speculation.
The information was in yesterday's programme.
The information will be on the website shortly.
The information will be reported on various forums.
I am not moaning about paying £1.09 extra per match, but about the headlines and the small print and the lack of information and clarity which leads to speculation.
The information was in yesterday's programme.
The information will be on the website shortly.
The information will be reported on various forums.
Comments
I was almost certainly not renewing anyway, for a range of reasons, but if those tickets are going up by a considerable amount, that's the final nail in the coffin.
Headlines stating season tickets frozen yet the reality for those between 60 and 65 and others is different as far as what is written in the programme which is what we were told to refer to.
I thought she was a lawyer not a double crossing tart misselling
finance and double glazingpitchhire with tacky videos.I thought Jiminez and Slater were the spivs!
I had to laugh at the bizarre and unprofessional attribution to the piece in the programme: "the club's ticket office outlines". As with the web story, it tells you quite clearly that no one wanted their name on it. Or that it was written by the PR man ...
It's been confirmed those fans currently receiving a discount will continue to do so. You can still afford it, no one is trying to force you out.
Where has it been confirmed?
Certainly, prior to the last financial crisis, around 50% of men and 30% of women left work before the state retirement age. I assume the figure for women is lower because the state retirement age was lower.
Whatever, these individuals may have a (modest?) private/ company pension but are likely to be living on a strict budget at least until the sate pension kicks in. Therefore the 60-65 age group - those that aren't in work - are actually likely to be less well off than those over 65.
I'm guessing from personal knowledge of what mates are up to rather than any statisitcal data that quite a few that are in jobs are likely to be those that are doing so on a part-time basis as they wend their way to full blown retirement. In addition they are much less likely to be fully "able-bodied" and might need a little extra incentive to get them out in the cold for a winter's mid-week game. (There is some truth to the "blankets and bovril" concept.)
My empirical evidence would suggest that the club are being rather foolhardy in (a) applying a 70% price increase (in my ticket band) compared with last year's early bird price for those in this demographic, (b) not being entirely specific in its marketing as to what changes it is making, (c) providing any explanation for those changes (d) lying about a price freeze (e) asking for much more money much earlier and (f) giving the impression they don't give a shit while claiming to show a "commitment to affordable football for the entire family."
Now, overall, CAFC's prices aren't bad but unless the club comes out with some early commitment to enhance the playing squad, and not get rid of the manager (again) why would any sane person spend an additional 70% on the off-chance that things might be a little bit more enjoyable than they have over the last two seasons?
That in my view is why this is an own goal of quite huge proportions. (Although I say that not having a clue as to what percentage of season ticket holders is likely to be within this age range.)
The concession price should be for those drawing their state pension - whatever their age. That's the whole point of it being a concession.
Katrienlie if you are aged between 60 and 65 and from reading the thread there are other anomalies too.The issue is as much the spivvy,sleazy deceit as the removal of the concession at least as far as I am concerned anyway.
They think it does not effect them. It does because they will be paying the higher price when they get to 60 plus themselves.
Do not be taken in by this government myth we are all living longer, we are not, if we were why are people still dying in the 50's and 60;s
It won't effect me as much as my state pension age being raised from 65 to 67 and removing the higher rate, without any kind of consultation. And that's despite me paying my full stamp from the age of 18 at the higher rate.
Life's a bitch.
But why the hell should I have a reduced ST price when I hit 60 and am still in well paid full time employment, yet a 22 year old on far less income than me, perhaps struggling to pay a mortgage and deciding whether or not they can afford kids yet, should have to pay the full price?
I have a 22 year old who works for me that has a mortgage. Mind you, feck knows how she can afford it.
However, one would have thought the average 18-21 year old ST holder would not be on a significantly higher income.
For God sake, the highest price ST is £525 and the cheapest is £175. You pay that for a single match at Chelsea or Arsenal. If an extra £1.20 a match which is going to your Club is that much of of a pain, then don't buy one.
At the moment, there are certain posters who would be moaning if the Club gave you a ST.
On a day across the River when West Ham were charging £44 to the Nigels , we offered Football for a Fiver . We should celebrate this and publicise the affordability of the Valley.
The information will be on the website shortly.
The information will be reported on various forums.
The 2015/16 season commences in August.
There are no early bird reductions.
No need to panic about 'lack of information'
The information will be on the website shortly. Was due before the Huddersfield game
The information will be reported on various forums. A lot of mis-information
The 2015/16 season commences in August. That's true
There are no early bird reductions. (Does that mean the price will not rise after 10th April?) The statement was in the last paragraph on the OS
No need to panic about 'lack of information' No panic