County and district councils ought to reinstate subsidies

“@ Graham_LE8
Point taken. If I've understood you correctly, you don't disagree with the principle of differential pricing in this case; you're just opposed to any scheme where the differential would be made clear to the ticket-buyer. That's my view, too.

I think you're being too tough on Sue Waddington, though. She's starting a discussion, not ending one. Her opening comments don't mean that she has already made her mind up about a ticket surcharging approach. All she's doing is making the point that co-financing arrangements between city and county that had, until relatively recently, allowed residents of both areas to enjoy high quality services that neither could afford on its own, should be reinstated.

I agree with that,too.

@ braunstoneboy
`Forget who owns what and by whom,if it works...it works .Simples!'

Your alias may have changed but your reasoning hasn't. Or rather, your lack of reasoning.”

“@ New_Walk_View; I'm sure you're correct in your assertions; my examples were really to illustrate the stupidity of the concept rather than give specific details on how reciprocal charging could develop - which is also why I gave the alternative suggestion that perhaps the seating should be priced at a common level to all, but that city residents could benefit from discounts, rather than customers from afar paying more (yes, it amounts to the same thing as Sue's plan, but would not have not been so vilified).
Like I said in my earlier comment, a naive approach from someone who (given her position) should be skilled in presenting policy to the public...”

“This is a stupid idea. I don't know whether Nottingham has a differential ticketing policy as my sister-in-law who lives in Nottingham buys all our tickets in advance, so, if there is a price differential I pay the city price. As I have said before, give me Nottingham over Leicester any time. It is far superior in all respects. I say that as a lifelong resident of Leicestershire with no loyalty to Nottingham. Sadly leicester has gone rapidly downhill over the last fifty years whereas Nottingham has retained much of its character and has resisted the temptation to knock down everything over fifty years old.”

“I think I am having an Eric &Ernie moment.Someone please give me a slap!
Can anyone,as in anyone,please let us how of a venture that cost millions over budget thinks that charging more to visit the enterprise will be a success.
Forget who owns what and by whom,if it works...it works .Simples!
What next from wallyingtons deptartment of silly ideas ?”

“@ Graham_LE8

There might be a `tit-for-tat' effect but to assess its impact you need to compare apples with apples and not apples with pears.

I'm happy to be corrected but as far as I know;

Mallory Park and Twin Lakes are privately-owned and entirely privately-financed commercial ventures.

Fosse Park is (privately) owned by a commercial property investment company.

Bradgate Park is owned by a non-profitmaking charitable trust, established for the purpose by Charles Bennion who purchased the park in 1928 and presented it (according to a commemorative stone in the park) to `the city and county of Leicester that for all time it might be preserved in its natural state for the quiet enjoyment of the people of Leicestershire.' Leicestershire County Council does not contribute either to its day-to-day running or its capital expenses.

Leicestershire County Council doesn't own or finance any entertainment venue remotely comparable in stature or quality with either the De Montfort Hall or Curve and, as far as the region as a whole is concerned, it makes very good sense for it not to.

What doesn't make sense is for its population to enjoy the benefits and not to contribute to the cost of what is - or shouid be - a city-county joint venture.”

“Differential pricing based on where you live is borne of naivete. Sue should bear in mind It's the sort of thing that can work both ways - previously there's been talk of 'congestion charging' to enter the city, which thankfully hasn't come about yet but although promoted as a method of reducing car use we all know that like all other pay as you go schemes it would soon be seen as an additional source of income by the council. How about we reverse the concept and charge city dwellers to drive into the county, pay more to park at Bradgate Park, enter Twin Lakes, Mallory Park, even Fosse Park, etc, etc - sounds daft, eh?

What about your journey to the airport for that weekend away, or the drive to your holiday destination in the summer - to have to pay extra to the territory you're travelling through is starting to sound like more nonsense isn't it? - much like Sue's plan; but here's an alternative, publish the same seat price to one and all, and maybe offer city residents a number of discount coupons a year, (as they are effectively stakeholders) now that sounds more ******ble, and I'm sure she wouldn't have sounded such a numpty trying to justify a daft concept.

I have also found it strange when disaffected parties have taken their gripes to the local newspaper when seeking satisfaction from those they feel are accountable - however to see a city councillor do so rather than engage in direct negotiation with the county and district representatives is a first for me (or perhaps she has already done so, and they told her to get lost?)...”

“Now own up , would you have expected Sue to say anything else. Would city residents pay extra for county facilities, no they would not so why expect the county to pay extra. The county residents should not pay for the massive overspend on the Curve. We will be asked to pay extra for sitting in Pete's Park next !!!!!”