£289 Season Tickets

They are already paying £870, that's not the issue.

 

While the two situations are comparable, they are not the same.

 

People are being moved and don't want to move. That is comparable.

 

I'll use an analogy so you can understand.

Say your renting a house at the end of your tenancy the landlord builds an extension, you have the option to renew your lease but understandably the price will go up because your renting a better property, you have the choice to either keep renting and pay more or move.

Alternatively at the end of your tenancy the landlord decides to rent the property to someone else, you have no choice but to move as the property is no longer available.

Similar situations but not comparable.

 

I understand you need to write you're and not your in certain circumstances.

People are still being made to move who didn't want to.

 

How do you know? The corporate areas could be in the upper tier. Or they could just build another tier with boxes between them and leave the East Stand as it is.
All of which is irrelevant as there is little likelihood of it happening in the near future. Especially if Hull Tigers are not in the PL.

 

If I remember correctly 'your' can be used to delineate a persons possessors, agents or objects of action.

Although granted, I didn't actually consider that when writing, I just used predictive text on an iPhone.

 

So you didn't write you're when that was the word required? OK.

 

Man city fans feel let down by the club. Long term pass holders are getting a kick out of they seat for more corporate seats. it still greed

 

So it's okay as long as he's paying and they get success?

 

I didn't write 'your' either, I typed 'y' and 'o' and let predictive do the rest.

Although in light of the new thread I suggest we stop discussing it.

 

Devils advocate here but why should they have a right to keep those seats and pay the same price?

 

Who said they had a right? Who says someone has the right to do what they want provided they pay enough?

If someone pays and it brings success, do they have the right to ignore the wishes of those they're supposedly bringing success to?

 

It depends what those wishes are, I'm sure plenty of people would wish that attending games was free but that doesn't mean it is realistic for the owners to facilitate that.

Right now Man City are spending millions developing their stadium, if they maintain the number of corporate seats they have now when the capacity reaches 60,000 they will be woefully under-equipped.

Therefore they have to add more, whilst they could add them in the extended parts of the ground those seats are not likely to be in demand by corporate customers who are paying a premium for the best view, therefore their only option is to reconfigure the ground, which granted may upset a small minority.

 

Lazy so and so.

 

Yep, pretty much as was already summarised. It still leads to it being he who pays the piper...

 

I had to reread some of the recent comments. It's beyond parody.