revolution saint

But no one is actually putting up a defence of this are they? It's clearly and obviously a stupid claim - in fact this could be the only time when pretty much everyone is in agreement. I'll gladly debate anyone who thinks otherwise but it won't take long.

Thanks for explaining the blatantly obvious. What other tricks do you do? Of course it's up to the club to decide what concessions they offer and I didn't moan when you got one. I'm just objecting to you moaning when it's taken away. Oh and yes, morally entitled and deserving in this context mean the same thing.

I take it you don't have an argument? And there have been many books on just how lucky your generation has been - you should read one. Easier to moan, accuse people of being ignorant and selfish though isn't it?

You really don't get the fact that I don't feel you are morally entitled to a concession do you?

It's interesting note the advantages this generation has had: Didn't fight a war (or have national service) First generation to become "teenagers" and get disposable income Access to free Higher Education Advantage of a cheap property market Advantage of the right to buy council house scheme Ability to buy shares in nationalised industries that we owned Presided over a reduction in working hours Obviously I'm generalising here but in many ways this has been the "lucky" generation. You could also add in that many of them have inherited their parents estates due to lower life expectancy whilst their children will have no such luck. Personally I think this has been a rather moaning generation, keen to ignore the obvious benefits they've had. In this case they cling rather pathetically to a loophole of sexual equality to ensure a concession most of them were not morally entitled to. They seem keen to point out how hard they've worked, forgetting of course that this isn't exclusive to them. It's typical though that once they get something taken away they moan whilst the rest of us struggle with higher property prices and increased job insecurity. Ironic that they should accuse anyone of "I'm alright Jack".

Understand the price rise so no problem there - not so sure about the bit about entitlement so you'll need to explain that. Not sure how many times I can explain that I don't think you're morally entitled to a concession though. I've already explained countless times as well that you should have been notified earlier.

Agree with all this and the problem is that often even if you did attract a player like that then they are not motivated and don't really care. There are obvious exceptions but it's a huge risk.

Can't argue too much with that but I'd have Jimmy Case in there instead of Lallana, who could then fight it out with Armstrong.

I think it's probably because there's actually no argument here. I don't think apart from the OP that anyone believes how you dress should or does affect the chance of getting raped.

The funny thing is I'm not ignorant of your situation (you've told us often enough about it), it's not nasty - it's putting it into context, it's certainly not selfish because I have nothing to gain. I just happen to disagree with you - you'll find this happens and the older you get (so I'm told) the more often it will happen. I sympathise but there's not much I can do about the aging processs.

OK, substitute it for the reduction that you did get (I used that figure because it's the one you constantly quote) . The point still stands. Please don't call me a complete knob - it's unbecoming for a man of your advanced years.

I think all working people aged 24-45 should get a 72% concession for a few years and then the club should cruelly, viciously take it away from us. That's the only way we'll be able to understand the quite justifiable gripe of the nearly but not quite retired.

That started off as a promising joke but tailed off towards the end.

Because I've already explained that women who fall into the category of having been forced into retirement only to find that the age has risen should receive the concession - and that's the only thing you've got to argue with isn't it? Clinging to the coattails of a concession designed for women - not for you. I hope you enjoy your newly liberal, politically correct camp now.

I explained this in an earlier post. Full time students don't work so yes, they deserve it. To be honest, no, I don't think you should get a concession if you're unemployed.

You don't have to look far to see where you've said you are entitled to it. Memory not so great eh?

And this is exactly why I disagree with you. When I say entitled I'm not disputing the fact that you got it - that's obvious. I'm disputing whether a man in work (or who can afford to retire) is morally entitled to such a concession (and a big one at that). No other age group of working men get it, and why should they? I don't actually begrudge you getting it in the first place even though I was indirectly subsidising you - fair play, you got something I don't think you deserved. I do object to you moaning constantly about the loss of it though. The parallel with MPs fiddling their expenses doesn't compare - where has anyone accused you of fraud?

Or of course whether you received it or not. I have to be honest though - I think a lot of antagonism on this thread is precisely because you've had such a vocal moan about it. To a lot of people you've had a 72% decrease in the price of tickets for the last few years when your situation may not be any different to any other working person - is it any surprise that moaning about the loss of something you shouldn't have got in the first place is going to annoy people? I know you are saying it's how the change was managed and maybe you have a point on that but you are also at times coming very close to saying you are entitled to it (or at least that's my perception).

To be fair it's more Whitey I was disagreeing with - I've already said you should have been informed earlier. Personally I wouldn't have phased it in though as I still believe it was a concession you shouldn't have got. I'm not sure that makes me arrogant, nasty or childish - is that what you call everyone who disagrees with you?

No one is wrinkly baiting - we just have the temerity to disagree with you. Get over it - surely in all your many, many years you've experienced this before or have you got to the point that where you are now always right?

No, the retirement age is rising because your generation is living longer NOW. Not when I get older....now, and anyone working at the moment foots the bill. When you think about it your generation will be the last to retire at 65 and still get to live longer - you get the best of both worlds mate. Medical science, environmental issues etc will probably mean I have a longer life expectancy - I'll also be working longer which is something your generation has got away with.

I can feel sorry for women in this position and sympathise with them but let's be honest - you got this concession via the backdoor and should be grateful you got it at all. I doubt your anger when first hearing this news was motivated by women forced into retirement - it was probably fuelled by the fact you'd lost a nice little perk of being almost but not quite retired. The thing that annoys me most though is the impression that most of you feel entitled to this concession, and that it was somehow your right. What's the difference between a 59 year old in work and one of 60 in work? Nothing except for the free bus pass and all the other concessions they get. Of course when I get older I may feel differently although there will be a crucial difference - I probably won't be able to retire early and will have to go till I'm 68. I imagine your lot will be moaning about concessions for centurions by then though......

And how many times have I agreed on this thread that people who fall into that bracket should have been told earlier? So I didn't disagree with you there at all. I disagree with the concession in the first place though - I think you were lucky to get it, and even you can't justify why a particular group of working age should receive it and other age groups shouldn't.

The club could also sell more tickets by reducing prices for morons as well. In favour of that? The club isn't abolishing age related concessions - it's abolishing an aberation that favoured the 60 - 65 age group and they're annoyed by it. Ah, bless 'em, no cheap tickets anymore and yet they try to accuse us of the "I'm alright Jack" attitude? They got away for a few seasons with cheap tickets and not one of them can either justify or defend why they got them. They sure as hell can moan when it's taken away though.

Firstly don't put words in my mouth. Your perceived "I'm alright Jack" attitude is nonsense because you now come under the same conditions as the rest of us. You can't justify why you are so special but moan about it constantly, so one more chance...why should you get cheaper tickets?