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

[dazzer6666]

'I'm right, as usual'

Train strikes doesn't explain extra no-shows at away games, says Paul Barber

Brighton launched a new away ticketing policy after an increasing number of away tickets were passed on to other supporters who are not eligible to buy them - but many fans are not happy with the new system

www.sussexlive.co.uk

 

[Beach Hut]

'I'm right, as usual'

Train strikes doesn't explain extra no-shows at away games, says Paul Barber

Brighton launched a new away ticketing policy after an increasing number of away tickets were passed on to other supporters who are not eligible to buy them - but many fans are not happy with the new system

www.sussexlive.co.uk

Train strikes ensured 2 x Citeh tickets were never used

 

[amexer]

With all the instability of when a game is actually played I believe that the principle of being able to give your ticket to a family member or friend should be honoured, and without charge.

If the club wish to ensure that tickets match I'd of people at the game then they should enable a change of name on the tickets free of charge. This will solve the problem of unsociable behaviour. The ID allows the yobbos to be identified and banned for their behaviour (rather than banning people for far less).

To avoid points farming perhaps those tickets can only be transferred to others on their friends and family list. Or even a limit to the number of transfers per season.

The details can be adjusted of course but the principle of giving fans flexibility with their tickets should be non negotiable.

Distribution of away tickets is only a problem at grounds like Bournmouth and Brentford and whilst appreciate good intention by club completely over the top. New scheme only needed when they know demand is greater than availability. Fact is if 5k plus people want 1k tickets it is right that club make sure people who go to games up north etc are given priority. The 10 day ban should be removed in email and every case looked at individually. For example people that cause trouble and are using somebody else ticket both should receive long bans. Others like original poster just need a phone call. As far as home games PB said many times in past, home sharing scheme came in because it was depriving members of tickets. I could just about accept if this was case but apart from very few games there are tickets available up to last moment so this no longer applies. It is clearly in to increase revenue and get many to pay £25 to become a sharer and to increase number of Albion members. So many miss 2/4 games and should be able to pass ticket on for these games and as a minimum definitely not having to tell the recipient that it will cost them £30ish to become a member for a one off game

 

[dazzer6666]

Distribution of away tickets is only a problem at grounds like Bournmouth and Brentford and whilst appreciate good intention by club completely over the top. New scheme only needed when they know demand is greater than availability. Fact is if 5k plus people want 1k tickets it is right that club make sure people who go to games up north etc are given priority. The 10 day ban should be removed in email and every case looked at individually. For example people that cause trouble and are using somebody else ticket both should receive long bans. Others like original poster just need a phone call. As far as home games PB said many times in past, home sharing scheme came in because it was depriving members of tickets. I could just about accept if this was case but apart from very few games there are tickets available up to last moment so this no longer applies. It is clearly in to increase revenue and get many to pay £25 to become a sharer and to increase number of Albion members. So many miss 2/4 games and should be able to pass ticket on for these games and as a minimum definitely not having to tell the recipient that it will cost them £30ish to become a member for a one off game

………but without the new controls, the limited tickets for Bournemouth and Brentford will continue go to the people that buy tickets for many other away games and flog them on to mates, harvesting the LPs and staying in the top tier.

 

[drew]

Distribution of away tickets is only a problem at grounds like Bournmouth and Brentford and whilst appreciate good intention by club completely over the top. New scheme only needed when they know demand is greater than availability. Fact is if 5k plus people want 1k tickets it is right that club make sure people who go to games up north etc are given priority. The 10 day ban should be removed in email and every case looked at individually. For example people that cause trouble and are using somebody else ticket both should receive long bans. Others like original poster just need a phone call. As far as home games PB said many times in past, home sharing scheme came in because it was depriving members of tickets. I could just about accept if this was case but apart from very few games there are tickets available up to last moment so this no longer applies. It is clearly in to increase revenue and get many to pay £25 to become a sharer and to increase number of Albion members. So many miss 2/4 games and should be able to pass ticket on for these games and as a minimum definitely not having to tell the recipient that it will cost them £30ish to become a member for a one off game

You seem to be completely missing the point that people not entitled to away tickets are getting them ahead of those that are.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

………but without the new controls, the limited tickets for Bournemouth and Brentford will continue go to the people that buy tickets for many other away games and flog them on to mates, harvesting the LPs and staying in the top tier.

Another clear explanation of the obvious. You won’t get a reply that answers this point in any way.

 

[amexer]

You seem to be completely missing the point that people not entitled to away tickets are getting them ahead of those that are.

I did not make myself clear. I do agree that something had to be done by club to stop people not entitled getting tickets over those that are. When demand far out ways availability new rules are good. I think giving the original poster a 10 match ban is completely over the top. All he has done is give ticket to other son when his son at last minute could not make it. Appreciate it was wrong but should have been treated with common sense with a phone call and not the same as somebody that has caused trouble which PB said is a problem. These people should receive an even longer ban than 10 games.

 

[Stat Brother]

I did not make myself clear. I do agree that something had to be done by club to stop people not entitled getting tickets over those that are. When demand far out ways availability new rules are good. I think giving the original poster a 10 match ban is completely over the top. All he has done is give ticket to other son when his son at last minute could not make it. Appreciate it was wrong but should have been treated with common sense with a phone call and not the same as somebody that has caused trouble which PB said is a problem. These people should receive an even longer ban than 10 games.

I'll imagine that's where we'll end up, but you don't bring in tough measures behind tough talk only to crumble at the first opportunity.

I have every sympathy for Nicks, as I'm sure in 12 months time he'll justifiably be saying 'hang on that's not fair', when someone gets a wrist slap for doing the same.

Not so much of the original case.

 

[drew]

I did not make myself clear. I do agree that something had to be done by club to stop people not entitled getting tickets over those that are. When demand far out ways availability new rules are good. I think giving the original poster a 10 match ban is completely over the top. All he has done is give ticket to other son when his son at last minute could not make it. Appreciate it was wrong but should have been treated with common sense with a phone call and not the same as somebody that has caused trouble which PB said is a problem. These people should receive an even longer ban than 10 games.

They knew the rules. Perhaps what they should have done was contact the club before the match when the ticket holder couldn't go and explain what they were proposing. It's not as simple as you suggest as the the son that did go wasn't in the same tier as the one that did.

As for those arrested for causing trouble they will no doubt get more than a 10 game ban but the ban should apply to those that supplied them with the tickets.

 

[amexer]

I'll imagine that's where we'll end up, but you don't bring in tough measures behind tough talk only to crumble at the first opportunity.

I have every sympathy for Nicks, as I'm sure in 12 months time he'll justifiably be saying 'hang on that's not fair', when someone gets a wrist slap for doing the same.

Not so much of the original case.

Tough measures have rightly come in. It is just that at same time common sense also has to be used. Unfortunately most of time club are black and white. on nearly everything.

 

[Stat Brother]

Tough measures have rightly come in. It is just that at same time common sense also has to be used. Unfortunately most of time club are black and white. on nearly everything.

The club halved Nick's 'sentence', I believe they upheld the ban in #1.

Like you I don't agree with a 5 games ban still in place, but, as said, I understand why it's there.

 

[e77]

Which means not only that you have to buy an expensive passport for I.D., but you also have to buy an expensive smartphone to put the tickets on. See the cost of living thread for why this might not be a good idea!

As it stands 93% of the population own a Smartphone, including practically universal ownership up to the age of 55 (source). Once a generation or so you have to draw a line with technology when it has reached.a certain stage of adoption and manage those who don't have it by exception and it is close to that with Smartphones now.

I would wager if you can't afford a Smartphone you won't be spending £100 on an away trip with Brighton. Choosing not to have one is a different thing.

 

[Winker]

Without reading the entire thread -

If Son A has a ticket but can't go, and Son B doesn't but can, they why doesn't Son A give his ID to Son B?

I doubt very much that the stewards will study the photos, they will just look at the name and address.
This will only fall foul if the sons live miles apart and can't pass on IDs or one is black and the other white (for example ) !!!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Without reading the entire thread -

If Son A has a ticket but can't go, and Son B doesn't but can, they why doesn't Son A give his ID to Son B?

I doubt very much that the stewards will study the photos, they will just look at the name and address.
This will only fall foul if the sons live miles apart and can't pass on IDs or one is black and the other white (for example ) !!!

edit. I was being thick in an attempt to be funny.

 

[dsr-burnley]

As it stands 93% of the population own a Smartphone, including practically universal ownership up to the age of 55 (source). Once a generation or so you have to draw a line with technology when it has reached.a certain stage of adoption and manage those who don't have it by exception and it is close to that with Smartphones now.

I would wager if you can't afford a Smartphone you won't be spending £100 on an away trip with Brighton. Choosing not to have one is a different thing.

The shocking thing about that is that there are more people who claim to be unable to feed their children than there are who can't afford a smartphone. It is frightening how people arrange their priorities.

I agree that people who can't afford a smartphone won't be travelling long distance, probably. Apart from a few dedicated fanatics who have decided that following their team is priority number one and will sacrifice all else to do it. But I still think it's unreasonable that people like me who see no benefit in paying £100+ per year on a duplicate internet source, should be de facto forced into it.

If they do manage absence of smartphone by exception, as long as it's not unduly difficult, that's fine. It's the likelihood of non-smartphone users being excluded altogether that worries me.

 

[e77]

Just noticed you only get 5 loyalty points for Middlesborough. I imagine that has been done to stop people harvesting points but it also stops people doing what I did a few years back and go to low demand games up north and build up loyalty points.

 

[Stat Brother]

Just noticed you only get 5 loyalty points for Middlesborough. I imagine that has been done to stop people harvesting points but it also stops people doing what I did a few years back and go to low demand games up north and build up loyalty points.

I'm not too sure why anyone would want to put themselves through that ordeal when the club would never have offered a worthy amount of points to harvest and 15 points will be available to Albion+ members wishing to go to Leicester, just as they were for Anfield.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The shocking thing about that is that there are more people who claim to be unable to feed their children than there are who can't afford a smartphone. It is frightening how people arrange their priorities.

I agree that people who can't afford a smartphone won't be travelling long distance, probably. Apart from a few dedicated fanatics who have decided that following their team is priority number one and will sacrifice all else to do it. But I still think it's unreasonable that people like me who see no benefit in paying £100+ per year on a duplicate internet source, should be de facto forced into it.

If they do manage absence of smartphone by exception, as long as it's not unduly difficult, that's fine. It's the likelihood of non-smartphone users being excluded altogether that worries me.

Once smartphones reach Burnley I’m sure you’ll think they’re brilliant and buy one.

 

[dazzer6666]

I'm not too sure why anyone would want to put themselves through that ordeal when the club would never have offered a worthy amount of points to harvest and 15 points will be available to Albion+ members wishing to go to Leicester, just as they were for Anfield

Points for A+ members aren’t really a factor in all of this though are they ? Can you get into T1 or 2 without the LPs that go to STHs ?

 

[chaileyjem]

As far as home games PB said many times in past, home sharing scheme came in because it was depriving members of tickets. I could just about accept if this was case but apart from very few games there are tickets available up to last moment so this no longer applies. It is clearly in to increase revenue.

Nearly every home game this season has sold out so perplexed at what you say. Club say they lose money on sharing scheme - regardless of that - then easier ways to raise ££ - put up ticket prices for starters which have been flat for three seasons for most.


anyway this thread is about fair sanctions for breaking the rules. Most on here tend to agree that the rules make sense given the loyalty scheme to ration demand and relation to behaviour but it’s the implementation ( time consuming, presumption of guilt), and the sanctions (fairness, punishment greater than the crime) that have angered fans. Rather than your persistent objection / it’s all about getting more ££ out of us.