GS550

His answers are entirely consistent with being indeed smug and looking down the nose of others less fortunate. There are margins and graduations, shades of grey (no pun intended) in anything and that would probably include those over 65. So there will be those over 65 for whom a differential of only 3 quid is meaningful and the difference between them attending and paying 75% or 80% of the full price or not at all. Seems a small gain for the promotion either way and per my illustration further above it could well be that it derives more revenue to reduce it marginally thus attracting a greater number of those over 65. Quite apart from making all those over 65 feel welcome, which conversely the new policy seems to be deterring them, making them feel unwelcome, and pushing them away. Trust that answers your point.

Well bully for you, well done. But just cos you're smug and cosy doesn't mean to say that you look down your nose at those less fortunate than yourself. There are many for whom pension age brings real poverty and the report does look at the overall average, not just those who are smug (knew you would like that one mate, pun intended).

Well TAKE responsibility for him then. Your earlier post expected the rest of us to pay for his already half price admission which for a 14 year old is fair enough. I paid half price for my teenagers same as the rest of us so no point you bleating about it and asking the rest of us to pay for him. He didn't emerge from my loins that's for sure, he is YOUR responsibility - solely. You then say you are subsidising OAP's. Correction, OAP's have earned for the country all their lives and the way our system works is we then collectively support them, that is how pensions in the UK are funded. It isn't even a half price concession, only about 3 quid or so reduction on the full price of £16 or £17. Given that as reported by the BBC (see above post) the state pension only provides about 29% of earnings then it is fair enough that a reasonable reduction is offered - in an effort to attract business and income that they otherwise would not attract. So, if a crowd of 700 already in the stadium, if you attract 50 pensioners that can only afford say £13 then that adds a further £650 to the gate. Whereas if only a dozen of the 50 pensioners can afford the full price then that's more like 12 x £16 or £17 and only about a further £200 added to the gate. So the additional £450 or so actually brings more income to the promotion and which potentially allows reduction in the overall price to us all - you included. So you are kidding yourself if you think you are paying for OAP's. I just find that whole attitude disgusting and so disrespectful. You talk about demographics. Given the BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42236328 it is clear that pensioners on only about 29% of earnings is a reasonable concession group same as those on Job Seekers Allowance, students, etc, and the Glasgow promotion already give a huge reduction to students (season ticket is virtually only half price), and yet many students work part-time and can afford to go foreign holidays. Yes it is about speedway, Glasgow have cancelled the OAP concession, yet they are still offering a huge reduction to students, many of whom are working part-time and earning plenty and can afford foreign holidays. As for politics - doesn't interest me, I switch off immediately, I've never taken anything to do with it. This is instead about common decency and fairness and common sense. You also seem to have overlooked that I was actually answering points - the whole point of a discussion forum. Hopefully common sense, and common decency, will prevail and the Glasgow promotion will think again. But if points are raised on a discussion thread then they are fit to be replied to.

As reported on the BBC today:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42236328 "The UK's State Pension is the least generous of all the most advanced economies in the world, according to a new report. A study by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) suggests full-time workers in the UK do relatively poorly. The report found that the average pensioner can expect to receive just 29% of what they earned at work. Only South Africa - which isn't a member of the OECD - is less generous."

Well said. Standards of common decency seem to be slipping these days. It used to be people had respect for their elders, many of course still do, but there seems to be a significant minority of people that appear ignorant and disrespectful. The concession wasn't to have those over 65 admitted free, but rather a concession i.e. a token reduction of 3 quid or so on the full admission price. It was reported today on BBC that the UK has the lowest state pension of the developed European countries and which provides little or no disposable income to spend on trips to sporting events. The Glasgow promotion were quoted as saying that some over 65's had previously been volunteering to pay the full price i.e. forego and not take up the 3 quid or so reduction as those particular individuals could afford it. That to me is how it should have been left, so that those that could afford it still volunteered as they had already been doing, while those that were on nothing little more than the meagre state pension and couldn't afford it would still be able to attend. As has been said, for some those small concessions are often the difference between being able to afford an item or not have it at all, and this is what the Glasgow promotion appears to have overlooked. Better to take say 50 or so at £13 or £14 than have only a dozen at £16 or £17. But it isn't so much the monetary difference, which given some being put off or not able to afford I can't see the Glasgow promotion gaining financially, but rather the image and poor example they are giving which I agree I find disgusting.

Taking after his dad, I remember him as a young kid at Hyde Road going round and round continuously doing practice laps. And look how he turned out. Agree with both Gazc and RS50. And with the team Glasgow assembled, a solid top five, and only exactly 2.00 left for the number 7, its a team structure they could use with Sarjeant at 6. So yeah, unfortunately no room for Jack. Best of luck to him in 2018.

The fog in my head has cleared. No doubt for those of us that have had a hard paper round

"Tried to get in" you say. You mean they correctly sought entry being pensioners on the bread line getting by on the state pension so qualified for a couple of quid reduction.... .....and you reckon "they" caused some spike in prices. You may as well say that they caused OPEC to raise oil prices. Have you been on the sauce mate.

Pensioners have kept the country going for years, in retirement they usually aren't earning now and many are living on the state pension which derives little or no disposable income. It was only a reduced entrance fee anyway, they were still paying, just a little less, only about £3 or so reduction as I understand and still paying what they can. Maybe they should have left it on a voluntary basis as Glasgow stated that some of their over 65's had been volunteering to pay full price as those particular individuals could afford it. That way the ones over 65 that genuinely can't afford it wouldn't be affected. You're the guy that said you paid £55,000 for your car, so you obviously have a few bob more than the rest of us and hardly qualified to snipe at old age pensioners scraping by on the state pension.

Problem solved eh. Let pensioners get hypothermia and spend the winter fuel allowance on a Glasgow season ticket.

Good stuff. Well here's a bit of forward thinking. I won't retire for yonks yet but I'm gonna save my entrance fee so that when I retire and aint earning I will have enough to pay for the entrance fee that they've hiked up. I agree with much of what the Glasgow promotion have done but I thoroughly object to what they're doing with those over 65, it stinks.

Not the same thing, we aint talkin 'bout 8 year olds, its 14 year olds. The guy asked of his 14 year old son "how does he pay £8 (half price) as he doesn't work and doesn't earn any money." Answer: the guy that asked the question should be paying for him, he his responsibility not everybody else's but he expects the rest of us to pay for him.

What a load of bull. How does your 14 year old son pay. Simple - you should be paying for him, he is your responsibility not everybody else's but you expect the rest of us to pay for him. When I was 14 years of age I'd already been getting off my backside for a couple of years and earning from a paper round, with which I bought my own stuff and paid for trips to such as cinema and for that matter other entertainment such as attending a sporting event. You say: "However when he gets to 65 he will have hopefully had circa 45 years of earnings behind him to enable him to pay" Yes, many folk of around 65 have had 45 years of earnings.... and mortgage, kids to bring up, regular bills, debts to pay off, putting adolescent offspring through uni or supporting them through early adulthood and even later, weddings to pay for, and the like. Anybody I know that's around that age has little or nothing, so there's no mountain of cash that you seem to assume. When folk retire they stop working and stop earning. Sound like you've never lived on the state pension, there's little or no disposable income.

Oooh err

Not a bad team

If you mean none of or fewer to numbers 2, 3 and 4 then thumbs up. Could do with less of numbers 5 and 6 too. Definitely yes to numbers 10 and 11. And it wouldn't be so bad if they actually stuck to and followed number 15.

You know the song. If life seems jolly rotten There's something you've forgotten And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing When you're feeling in the dumps Don't be silly chumps Just purse your lips and whistle, that's the thing.... Always look on the bright side of life.... ....could be a proper speedway post soon

Great.

Smashing

Super

Gee, thanks.

You're too kind.

Do you really have to lower yourself to insulting name calling. Looks like you need look no further than the mirror and I don't mean the newspaper!!

Why? Where? Its a discussion forum mate. Hence discussion!! Obviously perception is everything. Reality is I'm as cool as the proverbial cucumber. Nothing to see here as they say. Here, calm yourself down to a frenzy, have two wine gums.

Nope. Never said that at all. I said that as with others given sparse attendance last couple of meetings that I had "reduced" my attendance. I've probably attended more speedway meetings than many have had hot dinners and I've often visited multiple tracks so not just one track. I don't get to quite as many different tracks as I used to but have still been attending. There is a difference between (1) reduced from a high number to still a lot, compared with (2) none at all. You seem to have assumed the second. So you don't stand and watch, you're in the pits. Bit of an aside, but seems you're not seeing things from the perspective of a paying to get in supporter so are you really in a position to criticise poorer attendances, what they want to or don't want to pay to see, and what factors might influence the paying public. Anyway, moving on, ever been in the pits at the old Hyde Road stadium? Now that was a speedway track and proper stadium. Btw, here, have a wine gum.