Stay away from the Gasroom and it will pass in a flash.
I've been retired over 20 years, am reasonably comfortable financially and could still afford a full price season ticket. Hardly surprising given the tiny saving the "concession" offers. But I know plenty of supporters of my generation who are considerably worse off and for whom a much more generous concession would be appropriate. I suppose it's a bit like the Winter Fuel Payment insofar as one size certainly does not fit all.
After reading and commenting on the mass of posts on parking until well into the small hours last night this geriatric is now hobbling off to bed!
Credit to ppf for at least trying to defend the indefensible - still comes across as very weak.
As for the rest - the best argument seems to be "because it's nice". Well let's be nicer still and let all oaps in for nothing. In fact let's be even nicer and let everyone in for nothing. In fact let's be nicer still and let everyone in for nothing And sellotape a £20 note to every seat. You can't just be nice, bills have to be paid.
In essence the expenses of running the club have to be paid for by its supporters, the entry fee is effectively a tax on its supporters to pay those expenses.
But what is the fairest way of levying that entry tax. You could just charge everyone the same amount regardless of income, but that feels to Thatcherite poll-taxy to me.
For those of us a little more left leaning, a good guiding principle for how that burden
Should be spread was laid down by a thinker 100 years or so ago. He's a bit out of fashion now but he had the essence of some good ideas did Karl and he argued "from each according to his ability to pay."
Those with lower disposable income should pay less, subsidised by those with higher disposable income who pay more.
Seems like a good principle to me.
Ideally perhaps gate prices should be means tested but obviously that is impractical so the next best approach is to approximate that by banding prices by age.
And the club starts well- the lowest prices are paid by those with the lowest incomes - the young - and that chimes entirely with my socialist principles.
Hugely to its credit it extends those lower prices to those with the next lowest principles , the under 25s. The right thing to do, even if it means everyone else has to pay a little more to make up the income.
And then suddenly the club completely loses it way and comes over all Tory. It gives the next lowest prices not to those with the next lowest statistical incomes, the 25s- 35s, but instead like the Tories subsidises the richest of us all - the 60plus group.
It is an illogical thing to do. It would be far fairer, far more logical, far "nicer" thing to do to divert that subsidy away from the over 60s who generally don't need it and instead subsidise the 25s to 35s who all economic evidence shows generally now do.
Subsidising the over 65s started in response to the 1930s crash. For years it was sensible as oaps tended to be ginancially worse off than working people.
Now that they are generally better off than working people, it is time to review the policy and target help where it is needed
Eric's definition of a troll is someone who doesn't unthinkingly toe the party line. Each to his own.
The favourable treatment of the old , for example in tax and spending arrangements , despite the reality that they are now statistically the richest section of society is becoming a national disgrace. The money would be far better spent more targeted and on more deserving groups. Of course the elderly do have a much higher propensity to vote......
Retired people are 19.6% of the population of Buckinghamshire so this is a discount to a large number of people. It's worth thinking about whichever side of the debate you fall on, rather than dismissing it as not worth considering.
Worth making the point too though Chris that your figure is for people over retirement age. Our discount kicks in three years before women retire and six before men. Even if you wish to subsidise retired people, it is hard to see any logic in this.
Won't be long before I qualify, so ta very much, but doesn't make it sensible.
I'll wait for something of substance otherwise leave this one here, noting that in a torrent of abuse with the honourable exception of ppf, no substantive arguments for the status quo have been suggested.
I don't think I've been abusive. The inference of my comment - indifferently made late at night - was that to change concession arrangements to reflect the widely differing economic circumstances of elderly people would not be practicable.
I know a lot of older supporters who fail miserably to measure up to @DevC's statistical definition of "the old" as being the richest section of society.
It's true what they say about statistics. But is it true what they say about Dixie?? 'Spose that dates me.
As a recent "senior" I agree that at least the age limit of a senior should be raised. When I got to 60 I had just finished my mortgage and still had at least 4 years left in employment. I had more disposable income then ever and very kindly Wycombe Wanderers gave me a discount on my season ticket. Once retired though the income does drop significantly, even if you do have a company pension. But lets be sensible.. the reductions shouldn't start until you get the state pension age (what ever that ends up up).
While I realise this thread is nothing more than trolling, the repeated calls for substantive arguments maybe deserve a reply, even though I can't believe that anyone asking for them isn't already aware of them. Stopping the discount now, just because current pensioners are better off than future pensioners is just absurd. Do you honestly think the discount would be reinstated in ten years time when everyone fucked by the current tory government is living on pennies? Of course it wouldn't. This is George Osborne politics. This is fuck the people politics. Broad strokes have to be drawn, otherwise you're means testing supporters, which is invasive, unpleasant, demeaning and more expensive to implement than simply having a discount for old people.
I agree with you on means testing - there is no way that would be practical, economical or in any way attractive to supporters.
I disagree that it's anything like the politics of George Osborne. If taking away senior discounts (for a group who aren't on average any worse off than any other age group) meant reducing ticket prices for all, wouldn't that be a good thing? If anything, offering senior discounts is in line with the the politics of George Osborne - as @DevC pointed out older people are more likely to vote, and therefore are more likely to get favourable policies, which has certainly been happening for a while under Labour, coalition and Tory administrations.
So the question is whether the 'broad strokes' in place are the right ones - I don't think it's absurd at all to make changes based on the situation now and review them in the future if things change. It seems more absurd to reject changes on the basis that in ten years senior citizens might be worse off than average.
I said I would not reply unless anyone raised something substantive - Dr Congo has. he has however completely misunderstood the point.
I suspect we would all agree that if it was practical to do so, we would all like to target financial support on those individuals who need it most, regardless of age or any other characteristic. But we all agree that there is no practical acceptable way to do that. So broad strokes have indeed to be made.
The point is not that that current pensioners have better disposable incomes now than current 25-35s will when they are pensioners. Although that is almost certainly true, it is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that current pensioners have ON AVERAGE higher DISPOSABLE incomes NOW than current 25-35s ON AVERAGE DSPOSABLE incomes NOW.
And hence if our aim, necessarily constrained by "broad strokes", is to target our financial support towards those who need it most, then we should phase out OAP discounts and use the money saved to introduce 25-35 discounts.
Obviously if that balance should change in future years, then change it back.
One other quick point in response to your rather lazy "trolling" comment, I understand you, Dr Congo own this site. If I am right I am your guest. If you would prefer me not to post on your property, that is your right. Just say. No need to ban, just politely ask me to leave. But if you are happy for me to stay, I'll post my opinions and raise issues whether they tally with the consensus or not. Your call, mate.
I'm surprised that nobody has joined in to object to other "perks" , free bus Travel, discounted Rail travel, free TV(over 75's). On the other-hand it might be interesting to find out the age-scale of the Trust Members who have supported the Share scheme. I would guess that majority are in the over or near over the 60 year age. Without their support it is possible that the younger supporters would not be watching WWFC in the Football League. The Independent had an article about 5 years ago about the Premier League treatment of Seniors which I believe which also had FSF support. Yes, they wanted better Discounts for the elderly. Still it is the "silly season" for football fans.
The fact is that not many, and increasingly fewer, people are very interested in watching Wycombe - suggesting that you remove a (pretty small) concession from any group whatsoever is so far removed from the reality of the situation at Adams Park that it really does make me worry.
But the point is you then give that concession to other people who might need it more - whether that be by reducing ticket prices slightly for all; or for a greater discount for juniors or for under 25s; or for a new concession for 25-35 year olds.
I don't really do the personal stuff Eric, but you may want to have a little look in the mirror. 10 posts on this thread alone, nearly all of them abusive, not a single constructive thought or argument of your own. For others to judge I guess, but who's looking the fool?
There is some merit in PPF argument. If you accept the principle, maybe best to phase it in a bit. Move it up to pension age straight away and move young person from 25 to 30 and then slowly move from there.
(By the way, I'd hate for anyone to feel they couldn't call me an idiot if / whenever I'm being an idiot. The only ownership I have of this site is paying for the domain name.)
I was slightly surprised - basically the current/imminent generation of pensioners are statistically (75%) more likely to have paid off for their homes and are fortunate to have the benefit of generous company pensions.
Not the case for over 75's though.
So the premise of DevC's argument is reasonably sound. It's just feels that it's wrong though.
Maybe the clubs less than generous ST terms for over-60's is actually the perfect solution!
Comments
That is my favourite all-time post!
Stay away from the Gasroom and it will pass in a flash.
I've been retired over 20 years, am reasonably comfortable financially and could still afford a full price season ticket. Hardly surprising given the tiny saving the "concession" offers. But I know plenty of supporters of my generation who are considerably worse off and for whom a much more generous concession would be appropriate. I suppose it's a bit like the Winter Fuel Payment insofar as one size certainly does not fit all.
After reading and commenting on the mass of posts on parking until well into the small hours last night this geriatric is now hobbling off to bed!
Credit to ppf for at least trying to defend the indefensible - still comes across as very weak.
As for the rest - the best argument seems to be "because it's nice". Well let's be nicer still and let all oaps in for nothing. In fact let's be even nicer and let everyone in for nothing. In fact let's be nicer still and let everyone in for nothing And sellotape a £20 note to every seat. You can't just be nice, bills have to be paid.
In essence the expenses of running the club have to be paid for by its supporters, the entry fee is effectively a tax on its supporters to pay those expenses.
But what is the fairest way of levying that entry tax. You could just charge everyone the same amount regardless of income, but that feels to Thatcherite poll-taxy to me.
For those of us a little more left leaning, a good guiding principle for how that burden
Should be spread was laid down by a thinker 100 years or so ago. He's a bit out of fashion now but he had the essence of some good ideas did Karl and he argued "from each according to his ability to pay."
Those with lower disposable income should pay less, subsidised by those with higher disposable income who pay more.
Seems like a good principle to me.
Ideally perhaps gate prices should be means tested but obviously that is impractical so the next best approach is to approximate that by banding prices by age.
And the club starts well- the lowest prices are paid by those with the lowest incomes - the young - and that chimes entirely with my socialist principles.
Hugely to its credit it extends those lower prices to those with the next lowest principles , the under 25s. The right thing to do, even if it means everyone else has to pay a little more to make up the income.
And then suddenly the club completely loses it way and comes over all Tory. It gives the next lowest prices not to those with the next lowest statistical incomes, the 25s- 35s, but instead like the Tories subsidises the richest of us all - the 60plus group.
It is an illogical thing to do. It would be far fairer, far more logical, far "nicer" thing to do to divert that subsidy away from the over 60s who generally don't need it and instead subsidise the 25s to 35s who all economic evidence shows generally now do.
Subsidising the over 65s started in response to the 1930s crash. For years it was sensible as oaps tended to be ginancially worse off than working people.
Now that they are generally better off than working people, it is time to review the policy and target help where it is needed
I think that last post/troll will be a cure for this evening's insomnia. I tried 3 times to get to the end of it but my eyes refused to play ball.
If you don't hear from me in the next 6 hours, thanks very much.
It's hardly trolling to point out the lack of substantive argument for senior discounts.
Supporting giving OAPs a discount at a football match is "defending the indefensible" ?
Dear oh lore. @DevC you need to spend less time on here son.
Of course he's a troll!
I can't believe that anyone would even start reading that post let alone try to finish it
Eric's definition of a troll is someone who doesn't unthinkingly toe the party line. Each to his own.
The favourable treatment of the old , for example in tax and spending arrangements , despite the reality that they are now statistically the richest section of society is becoming a national disgrace. The money would be far better spent more targeted and on more deserving groups. Of course the elderly do have a much higher propensity to vote......
Criticism of the club for charging disabled fans to park is "unthinkingly toeing the party line"?
Mental
I didn't say it was.
Retired people are 19.6% of the population of Buckinghamshire so this is a discount to a large number of people. It's worth thinking about whichever side of the debate you fall on, rather than dismissing it as not worth considering.
Worth making the point too though Chris that your figure is for people over retirement age. Our discount kicks in three years before women retire and six before men. Even if you wish to subsidise retired people, it is hard to see any logic in this.
Won't be long before I qualify, so ta very much, but doesn't make it sensible.
Doesn't really affect you either way though does it?
And if you do ever manage to get to Adams Park for a game and you're over 60, there's absolutely nothing to stop you paying full price is there?
Ooh another cheap debating point.
I'll wait for something of substance otherwise leave this one here, noting that in a torrent of abuse with the honourable exception of ppf, no substantive arguments for the status quo have been suggested.
That is fantastic news
I don't think I've been abusive. The inference of my comment - indifferently made late at night - was that to change concession arrangements to reflect the widely differing economic circumstances of elderly people would not be practicable.
I know a lot of older supporters who fail miserably to measure up to @DevC's statistical definition of "the old" as being the richest section of society.
It's true what they say about statistics. But is it true what they say about Dixie?? 'Spose that dates me.
As a recent "senior" I agree that at least the age limit of a senior should be raised. When I got to 60 I had just finished my mortgage and still had at least 4 years left in employment. I had more disposable income then ever and very kindly Wycombe Wanderers gave me a discount on my season ticket. Once retired though the income does drop significantly, even if you do have a company pension. But lets be sensible.. the reductions shouldn't start until you get the state pension age (what ever that ends up up).
While I realise this thread is nothing more than trolling, the repeated calls for substantive arguments maybe deserve a reply, even though I can't believe that anyone asking for them isn't already aware of them. Stopping the discount now, just because current pensioners are better off than future pensioners is just absurd. Do you honestly think the discount would be reinstated in ten years time when everyone fucked by the current tory government is living on pennies? Of course it wouldn't. This is George Osborne politics. This is fuck the people politics. Broad strokes have to be drawn, otherwise you're means testing supporters, which is invasive, unpleasant, demeaning and more expensive to implement than simply having a discount for old people.
I agree with you on means testing - there is no way that would be practical, economical or in any way attractive to supporters.
I disagree that it's anything like the politics of George Osborne. If taking away senior discounts (for a group who aren't on average any worse off than any other age group) meant reducing ticket prices for all, wouldn't that be a good thing? If anything, offering senior discounts is in line with the the politics of George Osborne - as @DevC pointed out older people are more likely to vote, and therefore are more likely to get favourable policies, which has certainly been happening for a while under Labour, coalition and Tory administrations.
So the question is whether the 'broad strokes' in place are the right ones - I don't think it's absurd at all to make changes based on the situation now and review them in the future if things change. It seems more absurd to reject changes on the basis that in ten years senior citizens might be worse off than average.
I said I would not reply unless anyone raised something substantive - Dr Congo has. he has however completely misunderstood the point.
I suspect we would all agree that if it was practical to do so, we would all like to target financial support on those individuals who need it most, regardless of age or any other characteristic. But we all agree that there is no practical acceptable way to do that. So broad strokes have indeed to be made.
The point is not that that current pensioners have better disposable incomes now than current 25-35s will when they are pensioners. Although that is almost certainly true, it is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that current pensioners have ON AVERAGE higher DISPOSABLE incomes NOW than current 25-35s ON AVERAGE DSPOSABLE incomes NOW.
And hence if our aim, necessarily constrained by "broad strokes", is to target our financial support towards those who need it most, then we should phase out OAP discounts and use the money saved to introduce 25-35 discounts.
Obviously if that balance should change in future years, then change it back.
One other quick point in response to your rather lazy "trolling" comment, I understand you, Dr Congo own this site. If I am right I am your guest. If you would prefer me not to post on your property, that is your right. Just say. No need to ban, just politely ask me to leave. But if you are happy for me to stay, I'll post my opinions and raise issues whether they tally with the consensus or not. Your call, mate.
@DevC , can you ever ever EVER write anything in a concise fashion, that isn't hundreds of lines of self indulgent lines of dragged out waffle?
There's a very very simple reason why OAPs get a concession rate.
That being that generally they aren't very well off, because they have stopped earning!
Simple as that.
I'm surprised that nobody has joined in to object to other "perks" , free bus Travel, discounted Rail travel, free TV(over 75's). On the other-hand it might be interesting to find out the age-scale of the Trust Members who have supported the Share scheme. I would guess that majority are in the over or near over the 60 year age. Without their support it is possible that the younger supporters would not be watching WWFC in the Football League. The Independent had an article about 5 years ago about the Premier League treatment of Seniors which I believe which also had FSF support. Yes, they wanted better Discounts for the elderly. Still it is the "silly season" for football fans.
factually wrong Malone.
Ha ha.....beyond parody
You're making a real fool of yourself here. Something I didn't realise you were still capable of
The fact is that not many, and increasingly fewer, people are very interested in watching Wycombe - suggesting that you remove a (pretty small) concession from any group whatsoever is so far removed from the reality of the situation at Adams Park that it really does make me worry.
But the point is you then give that concession to other people who might need it more - whether that be by reducing ticket prices slightly for all; or for a greater discount for juniors or for under 25s; or for a new concession for 25-35 year olds.
It isn't simply villainy for villainy's sake.
I don't really do the personal stuff Eric, but you may want to have a little look in the mirror. 10 posts on this thread alone, nearly all of them abusive, not a single constructive thought or argument of your own. For others to judge I guess, but who's looking the fool?
There is some merit in PPF argument. If you accept the principle, maybe best to phase it in a bit. Move it up to pension age straight away and move young person from 25 to 30 and then slowly move from there.
Wait, so it's actually a serious suggestion?
(By the way, I'd hate for anyone to feel they couldn't call me an idiot if / whenever I'm being an idiot. The only ownership I have of this site is paying for the domain name.)
what I love about the Gasroom is the way it takes you down weird and wonderful paths.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325315/pensioners-incomes-series-statistics-july-2014.pdf
I was slightly surprised - basically the current/imminent generation of pensioners are statistically (75%) more likely to have paid off for their homes and are fortunate to have the benefit of generous company pensions.
Not the case for over 75's though.
So the premise of DevC's argument is reasonably sound. It's just feels that it's wrong though.
Maybe the clubs less than generous ST terms for over-60's is actually the perfect solution!