I too was alarmed by that hike...and worried that with more ST holders parking in my usual industrial unit spot might be tricky and, as has been mentioned, subject to a sudden price hike. Glad to see the club have responded to some very real concerns. Perhaps they should look at buying the land at some point so all monies are going back to the club. I wasn't in the area in the 1990s...so I'm surprised to learn the club don't own the upper park!
I too am surprised by that news. I'm sure back in the early days there was talk of having a training pitch up there - but planning permission wasn't given because the lights would have been a nuisance to residents down the road. So how would they have been planning that if they didn't own the land?
Well done to the powers that be for a partial reversal on the parking prices anyway. They should never have even attempted to charge such a ludicrous amount in the first place though.
Alan Cecil - I don't think you should be taking this tone of moral superiority when the only reason the club reversed its ridiculous & economically illiterate policy was because of complaints on this forum and other forms of social media. Some humility from the club's representatives wouldn't go amiss, rather than attempting to censor debate and whitewash failings.
I totally agree aloysius. Club reprentatives should not he attempting to stifle discussion on this forum particularly with regard to decisions directly affecting its supporters.
I think Alan Cecil's point is that continuing the debate under a heading which no longer applies, gives the false impression that the problem has not been resolved. If the heading simply said 'cost of car parking' the debate would be similar but the casual observer wouldn't believe the cost was £10. Alan Cecil could have said as much himself, but I do think its a bit steep to suggest he is trying to stifle debate in this instance.
Clearly the club needs to get it's act together with it's decision making and communications. £10 is a ridiculous charge for parking. Who the hell sanctioned that?
@peterparrotface : I'll be disingenuous and say "of what to whom" but in any case we shouldn't shoot the messenger and the point about the casual visitor just reading the headline is valid bearing in mind that hundreds at least look at Gasroom 2 on a daily basis.
sandsexile...but there would be far fewer spots along Hillbottom way if lots of people stopped parking in the main car-park because of the cost. That's part of the issue!
The new compromise is hardly ideal and will probably mean a fair amount of people who came in earlier may not bother anymore, though casual supporters are less likely to think they are being taken for a ride if they turn up on the day in their car.
Hopefully the whole episode is a lesson to the some members of the board that the opinions of supporters on how the club is run is rather more important than previously assumed.
Why didn't they take soundings before such a ridiculous policy decision. Back to the bad old days when Beeks and Kane made the decisions, "because we know best", and the fans were treated with total disregard, al la mushrooms. I'm surprised that Alan Parry wasn't on here saying it, "was for the good of the club and there was a standing ovation in the Board Room when it was announced!" YCNFMIU.
Comments
I too was alarmed by that hike...and worried that with more ST holders parking in my usual industrial unit spot might be tricky and, as has been mentioned, subject to a sudden price hike. Glad to see the club have responded to some very real concerns. Perhaps they should look at buying the land at some point so all monies are going back to the club. I wasn't in the area in the 1990s...so I'm surprised to learn the club don't own the upper park!
I too am surprised by that news. I'm sure back in the early days there was talk of having a training pitch up there - but planning permission wasn't given because the lights would have been a nuisance to residents down the road. So how would they have been planning that if they didn't own the land?
Well done to the powers that be for a partial reversal on the parking prices anyway. They should never have even attempted to charge such a ludicrous amount in the first place though.
Great PR piece, club put prices up, fans are upset, club put prices down showing that they are committed to the fans and their opinions.
'Prices down 50% in one day!!'
Best to close this particular post - given the inaccuracy of its heading!
Why doesn't the club consult the fans BEFORE they mke decisions and do U-turns on them? Isn't this what the FANS are there for in a FAN OWNED club???
Alan Cecil - I don't think you should be taking this tone of moral superiority when the only reason the club reversed its ridiculous & economically illiterate policy was because of complaints on this forum and other forms of social media. Some humility from the club's representatives wouldn't go amiss, rather than attempting to censor debate and whitewash failings.
I totally agree aloysius. Club reprentatives should not he attempting to stifle discussion on this forum particularly with regard to decisions directly affecting its supporters.
I think Alan Cecil's point is that continuing the debate under a heading which no longer applies, gives the false impression that the problem has not been resolved. If the heading simply said 'cost of car parking' the debate would be similar but the casual observer wouldn't believe the cost was £10. Alan Cecil could have said as much himself, but I do think its a bit steep to suggest he is trying to stifle debate in this instance.
Clearly the club needs to get it's act together with it's decision making and communications. £10 is a ridiculous charge for parking. Who the hell sanctioned that?
If the club hadn't suggested charging £10 for parking in the first place, then this thread wouldn't be called what it is.
I think the title serves as a good reminder
@peterparrotface : I'll be disingenuous and say "of what to whom" but in any case we shouldn't shoot the messenger and the point about the casual visitor just reading the headline is valid bearing in mind that hundreds at least look at Gasroom 2 on a daily basis.
sandsexile...but there would be far fewer spots along Hillbottom way if lots of people stopped parking in the main car-park because of the cost. That's part of the issue!
A communication shambles. We never seem to learn.
The new compromise is hardly ideal and will probably mean a fair amount of people who came in earlier may not bother anymore, though casual supporters are less likely to think they are being taken for a ride if they turn up on the day in their car.
Hopefully the whole episode is a lesson to the some members of the board that the opinions of supporters on how the club is run is rather more important than previously assumed.
The board should be seeking the opinions of fans first on these sort of issues.
Why didn't they take soundings before such a ridiculous policy decision. Back to the bad old days when Beeks and Kane made the decisions, "because we know best", and the fans were treated with total disregard, al la mushrooms. I'm surprised that Alan Parry wasn't on here saying it, "was for the good of the club and there was a standing ovation in the Board Room when it was announced!" YCNFMIU.