Search results

*Pedant alert* (if accurate). I think the ST element of the LP is for the number of times one has renewed (or the number of complete seasons) by the start of the season in question. Thus the maximum ST component of the LP for this season is 180, not 190.

Thanks! The only observation I'd make is that there's some difference between a few and "several hundred". However, I'm sure we'd agree that there were far, far too many LP harvesters. I do hope you'll get to an away game this season.

You're forgetting that away tickets are non-returnable, non-transferable, and non-refundable.

...

Naive and, given we know just how much the club read NSC, failing to heed clear and loud voices on here predicting exactly what would happen, starting with Huddersfield last season, growing at Barnet, and a deafening roar in advance of the Bournemouth cup game. Oh, and unprofessional, allowing...

It has been raised before in this thread, and is a decent idea, imo. However, it has a big weakness in the eyes of some: there is literally zero opportunity for anyone to move tier this season. Some are hoping that they might get tickets for lesser away games and that the incremental LP the get...

Does this sound like PB to you?

If that's all the club do, it will piss off those who think Bournemouth LP harvesters should be punished in some way. If they do punish them, others will complain that "the T&Cs have a sentence which says the points are allocated on purchase, and anyway, what about Barnet?" I'm not disagreeing...

Yep. Was entirely avoidable too.

paul.barber@bhafc.co.uk

Ah, I see. Worth an email to PB? If they're planning to change the LP system imminently, now would be a good time.

Why not just buy a Bronze membership if you're prepared to pay for an exile scheme? No edge to the question - just an enquiry.

Not only can they change the T&C with retrospective impact, they have. Multiple times. Including in relation to LP. See post #431 of this thread for but one example.

We're into details at this point - zero? 2/3? for low cost games. if it was zero, that'd be fine too.

Glad to see that someone else reads these things! They will, of course, rely both on the "titles are only there to be helpful and not part of the contract" line, and their ability to change any clause(s) they like at any time to push changes through. I agree with your maths too; and with your...

I was responding to the post I was quoting, which was specifically about 1901ers. Last season, 1901ers had home cup ties included in the deal and, instead of earning additional LP on a game by game basis had a lump sum added at the started of the season (some unspecified proportion of the 100 LP...

Yep - they can do what they like. We agree. It is nonetheless a contract, but one that says that the club can change the rules. The end effect is the club can do what they want, when they want.

Incorrect. Last season we didn't get LP for home cup matches - this was part of the justification for the 100 LP starting advantage. The club have removed all the starting LP advantage this season, and we do now get LP for home cup ties (the same number as all other people)

The quote that Thunder Bolt provides is accurate, but doesn't reflect the whole story. Earlier in the T&Cs there's a sentence that says that LP are awarded on purchase. The T&Cs, read as a whole, are ambiguous on this point (other points too, but that's not relevant to this thread). However...

Yep. Any change would presumably be intended to make the system "fairer" or more "robust". It's inevitable that in so doing, some people would have to be disadvantaged in orders for others to be advantaged - it's a zero sum game. Having said that, I'm warming to Titanic's idea of giving way...