[Albion] Independent Football Ombudsman rules on Albion fan ban and loyalty points deduction

[sully]

The club do not agree with the IFO findings and, it seems, will not be issuing an apology...

Club statement: IFO report

Recent IFO report published.

www.brightonandhovealbion.com

Appalling.
We all know they’ve got this policy / witch hunt wrong but they continue to be pig headed about it.
Sort out a system for returns or swaps or drop the stupid persecution of your own supporters. Unbelievably stupid behaviour from an otherwise well run business.

 

[cjd]

How to take the gloss off a fantastic season to date...

 

[Weststander]

The club not seeing the wood for the trees.

Fixated on one supporter on a very debatable technicality.

Whilst it seems doing far less to deal with STH’ers selling seats to ManC and Arsenal supporters.

 

[El Presidente]

Club response appears to indicate that we are
Criminals first
Inconveniences second
Customers third
Fans last

 

[Bozza]

Reading the IFO report properly instead of skimming, the facts of this case seem to be...

1. Fan A buys a ticket in Fan B's name. Fan B is completely unaware because the club's Friends and Family ticketing function permits this activity but, crucially, does not notify Fan B of the transaction at any time.

2. Fan A gives the ticket to Fan C.

3. The club finds out Fan C is using the ticket via an ID check

4. The club sanctions Fan B, even though the club's fan charter does not actually cover this scenario in any way at all? The club's charter covers someone buying a ticket (Fan B didn't) and sharing it with someone else (Fan B didn't).

Has anyone else read it from top to bottom? It feels like I'm missing a detail as I don't see how Fan B can be sanctioned if I understand it all correctly.

 

[Seagull27]

Reading the IFO report properly instead of skimming, the facts of this case seem to be...

1. Fan A buys a ticket in Fan B's name. Fan B is completely unaware because the club's Friends and Family ticketing function permits this activity but, crucially, does not notify Fan B of the transaction at any time.

2. Fan A gives the ticket to Fan C.

3. The club finds out Fan C is using the ticket via an ID check

4. The club sanctions Fan B, even though the club's fan charter does not actually cover this scenario in any way at all? The club's charter covers someone buying a ticket (Fan B didn't) and sharing it with someone else (Fan B didn't).

Has anyone else read it from top to bottom? It feels like I'm missing a detail as I don't see how Fan B can be sanctioned if I understand it all correctly.

The very worst part of it is that the steward who carried out the ID check let Fan C and Fan A attend the game, and then reported them afterwards. If they had just rejected them on the basis of the ID check, none of this would have happened.

Being cynical, it's almost as if the club wanted to catch them out.

 

[portslade seagull]

The club do not agree with the IFO findings and, it seems, will not be issuing an apology...

Club statement: IFO report

Recent IFO report published.

www.brightonandhovealbion.com

Caring and sharing as always, what about all the Manure fans in the home stands yesterday. Nothing will happen with that because they paid for the tickets

 

[Bozza]

The very worst part of it is that the steward who carried out the ID check let Fan C and Fan A attend the game, and then reported them afterwards. If they had just rejected them on the basis of the ID check, none of this would have happened.

Being cynical, it's almost as if the club wanted to catch them out.

In fairness, given they'd travelled all the way to the game, letting them in does feel like the kind thing to do. I assume the ID check would have triggered the sanction anyway.

 

[Weststander]

Caring and sharing as always, what about all the Manure fans in the home stands yesterday. Nothing will happen with that because they paid for the tickets

Or bought from STH’ers who use it as a mini business income.

 

[Seagull27]

In fairness, given they'd travelled all the way to the game, letting them in does feel like the kind thing to do. I assume the ID check would have triggered the sanction anyway.

Is it? I may have misread it, but surely if they realise that someone is trying to get in with a ticket under a different name, they should be rejected on the gate, but no sanction applied. As the son said, if they'd realised it would have given their parent a ban then they wouldn't have entered.

Of course, the steward may not have realised that a sanction would be applied following the ID check.

 

[Black Rod]

Reading the IFO report properly instead of skimming, the facts of this case seem to be...

1. Fan A buys a ticket in Fan B's name. Fan B is completely unaware because the club's Friends and Family ticketing function permits this activity but, crucially, does not notify Fan B of the transaction at any time.

2. Fan A gives the ticket to Fan C.

3. The club finds out Fan C is using the ticket via an ID check

4. The club sanctions Fan B, even though the club's fan charter does not actually cover this scenario in any way at all? The club's charter covers someone buying a ticket (Fan B didn't) and sharing it with someone else (Fan B didn't).

Has anyone else read it from top to bottom? It feels like I'm missing a detail as I don't see how Fan B can be sanctioned if I understand it all correctly.

I have read the whole thing and you haven't missed anything as far as I can tell. Which is presumably why the IFO has told the club to revoke the ban, loyalty points and issue an apology. Which they have predictably not done because they are never wrong about anything.

And that is before you get to the bit about the second hearing, which sounds more like an interrogation carried out by four club employees, no witnesses or minutes taken. The club basically acted as judge, jury and executioner to mark their own homework.

 

[El Presidente]

If fan B had been wealthy enough to be a 1901 member none of this would have happened.

 

[albionalex]

Reading the IFO report properly instead of skimming, the facts of this case seem to be...

1. Fan A buys a ticket in Fan B's name. Fan B is completely unaware because the club's Friends and Family ticketing function permits this activity but, crucially, does not notify Fan B of the transaction at any time.

2. Fan A gives the ticket to Fan C.

3. The club finds out Fan C is using the ticket via an ID check

4. The club sanctions Fan B, even though the club's fan charter does not actually cover this scenario in any way at all? The club's charter covers someone buying a ticket (Fan B didn't) and sharing it with someone else (Fan B didn't).

Has anyone else read it from top to bottom? It feels like I'm missing a detail as I don't see how Fan B can be sanctioned if I understand it all correctly.

You've summed it up correctly. I think there is some complexity because Fan A is a minor.

 

[hart's shirt]

Club response appears to indicate that we are
Criminals first
Inconveniences second
Customers third
Fans last

And stakeholders with a lifelong interest in the club probably below that.

 

[ROSM]

Club response appears to indicate that we are
Criminals first
Inconveniences second
Customers third
Fans last

Given they have now named the individual on their website, i suspect criminals 1st may end up defining the club in the eyes of any data protection body.

Sometimes, just sometimes a tactical apology is so much better than wanting to be right on everything

 

[Bodian]

Has anyone else read it from top to bottom? It feels like I'm missing a detail as I don't see how Fan B can be sanctioned if I understand it all correctly.

That is precisely why the IFO have ruled as they have.

 

[Horses Arse]

Appalling.
We all know they’ve got this policy / witch hunt wrong but they continue to be pig headed about it.
Sort out a system for returns or swaps or drop the stupid persecution of your own supporters. Unbelievably stupid behaviour from an otherwise well run business.

Pig headed does as pig headed is. Shame but its always been so.

No choice but to reluctantly accept and understand that is how the club are now.

Price of success? Have to say I'm loving the on pitch stuff

 

[Horses Arse]

Given they have now named the individual on their website, i suspect criminals 1st may end up defining the club in the eyes of any data protection body.

Sometimes, just sometimes a tactical apology is so much better than wanting to be right on everything

But certain folk are pathologically unable to accept when they are wrong.

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

Pig headed does as pig headed is. Shame but its always been so.

No choice but to reluctantly accept and understand that is how the club are now.

Price of success? Have to say I'm loving the on pitch stuff

Why accept it though?

It's a brilliant football club in so many ways on and off the pitch. But why can't it be brilliant in the way it deals with this sort of thing as well? As opposed to the opposite.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Naming the individual is deliberate, petty and vindictive by the club.

Shame on them.