[Albion] 10-game ban and 50-loyalty point deduction

[jackalbion]

I understand your point completely but yours is not the behaviour currently being clamped down upon by the club. That there are stories like yours does not diminish the identified problem and nor does it count as a strong argument against the clampdown. If you want someone to blame then your target should be the people abusing the system rather than the club.

Except the Clampdown doesn't apply to 1901 members. They can carry on abusing the system (and a fair few do).

 

[amexer]

Completely over the top. Ticket was not sold on or given to a friend. It was given to his brother. Of course club are right according to new rules but this was clearly a case of using common sense and ringing /emailing him after game for a full explanation and maximum outcome giving him a warning. Unfortunatly club since in PL dont act like that.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Whilst I'm in agreement I'm guessing the stumbling block is the fact an actual physical ticket is posted with a name written on it. Presumably our supporter services could pass a list on to the away club ticket office with a list of "swap these tickets for these people". I imagine it is extra admin work neither club wants though surely not 100s every match so shouldn't be too arduous.

The thing is, you can already call up the club and ask for your ticket to be put on the collection list at the away ground.
There's clearly a degree of extra work in setting up the system to deal with people changing the name at the same time, and the larger number of people collecting before the game, but it's all possible.
Edit: Sorry Stat, didn't mean to reply to your post originally.

 

[chaileyjem]

Except the Clampdown doesn't apply to 1901 members. They can carry on abusing the system (and a fair few do).

1901 members can share tickets. Rightly or wrongly . They are allowed to do so as part of the perk of buying a 5 year premium season ticket - so they are allowed more flexibility.
However they can't "abuse the system" or bypass it. If they shared a ticket with someone who was ejected etc then they risk the same sanctions as anyone else - probably worse given the risk of losing a 1901 lease.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Technically there is harvesting of points here...

Son A is in the top tier.
Son A buys the ticket.
Son A accrues points.
Son B goes to the game instead.
Son A retains/strengthens his position in the top tier despite not going to the game.

Decision-makers / appeals panel at the club could well be thinking "Just how often has Son A bought a ticket and given it to Son B?"

However, this is easily remedied without imposing this overly-draconian punishment...

1. Remove the points from Son A - he didn't go to the game.
2. Put Dad and Son A on the "collect ticket from the away ground" list for every fixture they buy tickets for, thereby ensuring Son A is using the ticket he has bought and earned points for.

Agree.

Sanction should relate to instances where an advantage based on tier and availability has been gained.

In this instance it went to general sale.

Had Nick been given access to a system where he could have informed the club he’s taking his other son and to discard the loyalty points for the non attendee I am sure this would have been taken up.

 

[jackalbion]

1901 members can share tickets. Rightly or wrongly . They are allowed to do so as part of the perk of buying a 5 year premium season ticket - so they are allowed more flexibility.
However they can't "abuse the system" or bypass it. If they shared a ticket with someone who was ejected etc then they risk the same sanctions as anyone else - probably worse given the risk of losing a 1901 lease.

While that is true, I don't think its right they have the ability to do this, Rules are rules, but it doesn't always mean that they are right. What they are trying to defeat is gaming of the system meaning people skip the queue, until they change that 1901 T & C people will still have the ability to jump the Queue if you know the right people.

 

[drew]

1901 members can share tickets. Rightly or wrongly . They are allowed to do so as part of the perk of buying a 5 year premium season ticket - so they are allowed more flexibility.
However they can't "abuse the system" or bypass it. If they shared a ticket with someone who was ejected etc then they risk the same sanctions as anyone else - probably worse given the risk of losing a 1901 lease.

I think the general consensus is that it is wrong that away tickets can be shared. Fully understand because of the premium they pay they get extra perks at home games but I think the club should consider changes this for away tickets. Loyalty points should only be accrued by an individual, not a ticket.

 

[drew]

Agree.

Sanction should relate to instances where an advantage based on tier and availability has been gained.

In this instance it went to general sale.

Had Nick been given access to a system where he could have informed the club he’s taking his other son and to discard the loyalty points for the non attendee I am sure this would have been taken up.

To be honest I think it is irrelevant that it went to general sale. Surely it is at the point of purchase that is relevant. If you buy a ticket for someone else using your loyalty points in tier one you do so not knowing whether it will go to general sale or not.

 

[chaileyjem]

I think the general consensus is that it is wrong that away tickets can be shared. Fully understand because of the premium they pay they get extra perks at home games but I think the club should consider changes this for away tickets. Loyalty points should only be accrued by an individual, not a ticket.

Agreed . I think its an unhelpful inconsistency given the new scrutiny, sanctions that season ticket holders and others now face in using their tickets. (but given the licences/terms - club stuck with it. But it makes their life harder when justifying their approach)

 

[chaileyjem]

While that is true, I don't think its right they have the ability to do this, Rules are rules, but it doesn't always mean that they are right. What they are trying to defeat is gaming of the system meaning people skip the queue, until they change that 1901 T & C people will still have the ability to jump the Queue if you know the right people.

Its a perk , and i'm not sure - given everything else its very fair. So agreed. The optics also look bad. That said. 1901 still face sanctions if ticketholders misbehave and - however it looks - sharing tickets with others , for them, is not "abusing the system" as you described it.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

To be honest I think it is irrelevant that it went to general sale. Surely it is at the point of purchase that is relevant. If you buy a ticket for someone else using your loyalty points in tier one you do so not knowing whether it will go to general sale or not.

I think at the point of purchase the son who didn’t go was going?

Take your point, maybe the “amnesty” could kick in if it went to general sale for some time?

 

[e77]

I understand the logic of people suggesting that if an away game isn't sold out or went to the lowest tier then the rules should be ignored but until the game is played you won't know how much in demand tickets would be.

 

[dazzer6666]

To be honest I think it is irrelevant that it went to general sale. Surely it is at the point of purchase that is relevant. If you buy a ticket for someone else using your loyalty points in tier one you do so not knowing whether it will go to general sale or not.

Exactly. LPs have been secured by that point.

The missing piece of the club jigsaw is a legit means of transferring a ticket if after purchasing, you subsequently can’t attend.

 

[Stat Brother]

I understand the logic of people suggesting that if an away game isn't sold out or went to the lowest tier then the rules should be ignored but until the game is played you won't know how much in demand tickets would be.

"In defence of my client Dr Shipman, I'd like to make the court aware of the fact he was polite and respectful at every wake he attended, at no point did Dr Shipman luzz anything".

"In light of the defence closing statement, I shall call upon NSC law and let Hazza off with a warning, if he promises to at least try and not do any more of that funny stuff".

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It still just seems such an unnecessary fight. Absurdities are inevitable. And the justifications get more absurd. But here we are.

 

[drew]

It still just seems such an unnecessary fight. Absurdities are inevitable. And the justifications get more absurd. But here we are.

Why do you see it as an unnecessary fight? Do you think people should be able to pass tickets on to anyone?

 

[dazzer6666]

Why do you see it as an unnecessary fight? Do you think people should be able to pass tickets on to anyone?

Agree but the club have made this so complicated and inflammatory

1. only be able to buy away tickets if you’ve got enough points….randomly check a few to make sure no-one is taking the piss.
2. if you buy one and can’t go, have a legit, approved, exchange process to pass it on to anyone with enough points at the time you need to pass it on
3. don’t crucify ‘early offenders’ with 10 game home bans. Slap on the wrist first.
4. do crucify (and do it publicly) anyone that causes real trouble, home or away

 

[Stat Brother]

Agree but the club have made this so complicated and inflammatory

1. only be able to buy away tickets if you’ve got enough points….randomly check a few to make sure no-one is taking the piss.
2. if you buy one and can’t go, have a legit, approved, exchange process to pass it on to anyone with enough points at the time you need to pass it on
3. don’t crucify ‘early offenders’ with 10 game home bans. Slap on the wrist first.
4. do crucify (and do it publicly) anyone that causes real trouble, home or away

The problem with #3 is at some point the club will have to unsheath their sledgehammer anyway, so why wait?

These most definitely won't be the last cases, after we've all already been warned, while these serve as further warnings, but it still won't be enough.

 

[dazzer6666]

The problem with #3 is at some point the club will have to unsheath their sledgehammer anyway, so why wait?

These most definitely won't be the last cases, after we've all already been warned, while these serve as further warnings, but it still won't be enough.

From what Barbs has been saying the level of bellendery has already significantly declined hasn’t it ? Be interesting to see in the first few games after the WC, Charlton in particular which is close, late, and almost anyone can get a ticket.

 

[Stat Brother]

From what Barbs has been saying the level of bellendery has already significantly declined hasn’t it ? Be interesting to see in the first few games after the WC, Charlton in particular which is close, late, and almost anyone can get a ticket.

If it has he'll see that as further validation for the policy.