can season ticket holders get compensation ?

[atomised]

yes maybe 1 or 2 but by the end of the season it could be 5 out of 21 games which is 25% of the home games which to me is a bit over the top for a Championship clubs home games

Theyve completely cancelled 2 games as.well? How are we supposed to get points from those now?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I'm probably in the minority in that I actually prefer it when they move games to weekdays.

 

[studio150]

yes maybe 1 or 2 but by the end of the season it could be 5 out of 21 games which is 25% of the home games which to me is a bit over the top for a Championship clubs home games

Dont we play 23 home games?

 

[Stat Brother]

Of the 7 home games remaining Jnr can only go to just 2.

I would love to complain about now missing the Burnley, for the same reason as stated by the OP.
But as Jnr can't go to the Leeds match I might not bother either, due to Tuesday commitments.


Thanks to Sky I was able to watch Burnley, QPR and Cardiff away. Feckin Sky

 

[cheshunt seagull]

We sign up/renew each season with a general understanding of what the proportion of Saturday/midweek games will be. Fortunes in the season may lead to a greater proportion of televised midweek games and this is viewed by clubs as a revenue opportunity but may be viewed as a significant number of fans as a risk as midweek games are harder to get to. The risk is totally dumped on the fans and the opportunity is picked up by the club and this is wrong. Maybe it is our fault for signing up to the kind of deal that none of us would sign up for in any area of our lives but it is flawed by any definition of customer service.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is where I have an issue with Barber being on the FL board. Even if he wanted to, he'll never challenge them about fan issues on our behalf. That sycophantic letter about tv just sums up the too-cosy relationship.

 

[Baaaald]

0n the basis that they are not giving the supporters what they have pre paid for,. games at 3pm Saturday. so possibly infringed trading laws.

You are kidding right?

 

[jonny.rainbow]

That would have a detrimental effect on so many clubs and at all levels of the football pyramid from the top flight to grass roots as fans stay away from live games at that time to watch a match on tv (who would go to Lewes vs Farnham when you have Arsenal playing Man Utd on tv at the same time?)

How much is a ticket to Lewes v Farnham?

Broadcast Arsenal v Man Utd on Saturday at 3pm as a pay per view event and it would have less of an impact on turnouts lower down the football pyramid.

Also I can't see Brighton v Burnley being broadcast on Saturday at 3pm on a subscription sports channel having any effect on the attendance at Solihull Moors against Bradford Park Avenue.

Time to reconsider the Saturday 3pm ruling. It's outdated and unhelpful.

 

[portlock seagull]

So many defending the morally wrong on here. And that is why football is what it is. If more people had not become so conditioned. So many cowards. So many lemmings. So many slaves. So few scousers.

 

[drew]

Figures from 2012/13
Brighton and Hove Albion has posted a £14.7million loss for last season - Money coming in for TV rights that season = £4.8m The previous season to that we lost £8.6m for the sesason - TV money coming in at £5.7m

So who makes up the difference? - the fans in the prices of tickets? Selling off / getting rid of players and fielding a poorer team that struggles to compete and may get relegated, reducing our income further or should we expect Tony Bloom to lose even more of his money funding this? (£200m+ isn't enough?)
(£5.7m to £4.8m that season from the season before)

I was being facetious. We need the TV money to help compete and we wouldn't have a prayer if we got promoted and didn't take the £100m next year. If we want the money then we have to sacrifice some things, such as regular 3pm kick offs?

 

[withdeanwombat]

The bigger problem is that we're crepe on tv.

 

[portslade seagull]

Compensation was more deserving to those who went to Gillingham

 

[drew]

The product being offered by the club is a specific seat on a season long basis. But to purchase this product, I repeat, you have to commit financially to it before you know the material details of said product. This could be legally challenged.

Firms often include terms and conditions that suit their position. They don't automatically override consumers' rights in law.

PG

Of course it can be legally challenged but why do you think you might do anything other than line the pockets of lawyers? Everyone knows the situation when you renew the ticket. You know how much you pay and you know games can be moved. If the terms and conditions were changed or hidden, that would be different.

 

[Peter Grummit]

Of course it can be legally challenged but why do you think you might do anything other than line the pockets of lawyers? Everyone knows the situation when you renew the ticket. You know how much you pay and you know games can be moved. If the terms and conditions were changed or hidden, that would be different.

In terms of product definition, I don't think it's as straightforward as that. For example, we don't know whether we are paying for 19 or 23 matches next season. This could be argued as a material difference. Leicester appear to be having every game in April moved for television. Again, a material change to the product. If I was a Leicester fan who had just agreed his work shifts then I would be seriously peed off. We are talking about the right to a refund here, so it would be largely academic in practice. But I think the principle is important.

Should clubs be allowed to impose their T&Cs without the option of a refund if there is a material change to the product? I am not a lawyer but would welcome a view from someone who is.

PG

 

[Nixonator]

I pay for my seat long before I know what success the team will have and before I know the fixture schedule. I most certainly don't expect that those 23 games will predominantly be at 3pm on Saturdays, even though this is is my preferred time to attend.

I think having a ST for a Championship or Premiership club these days means committing to a degree of flexibility, it is what is is, you ain't going to change this one. People were saying the football bubble would burst 15 years ago and 10 years ago that Man City would soon be going the way of pompey.

Money talks and as others have said, inconvenience is the price of success. I'd rather be inconvenienced than go back down the leagues.

 

[Invicta]

Saturday at 3 for me every time, but sadly ain't gonna happen that often when we;re doing well.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

I pay for my seat long before I know what success the team will have and before I know the fixture schedule. I most certainly don't expect that those 23 games will predominantly be at 3pm on Saturdays, even though this is is my preferred time to attend.

I think having a ST for a Championship or Premiership club these days means committing to a degree of flexibility, it is what is is, you ain't going to change this one. People were saying the football bubble would burst 15 years ago and 10 years ago that Man City would soon be going the way of pompey.

Money talks and as others have said, inconvenience is the price of success. I'd rather be inconvenienced than go back down the leagues.

At least at PRISTEFIELD we knew what time KICK OFF would be

BARBER OUT!

 

[cheshunt seagull]

So we are all on this merry go round that says that in order to compete we must pay players eye-watering salaries and maximise TV revenue whilst lamely accepting that fans, who out of all of this have the least flexibility and least money have to have the most inconvenience although we play a key part in the televised experience. This is the same insane logic that says that the very rich must be paid more to motivate them and the rest of us have to price ourselves into work. Why are we so happy to buy into this nonsense?. I accept this is a much wider problem than this club but I struggle with our willingness to accept it so readily.

 

[drew]

In terms of product definition, I don't think it's as straightforward as that. For example, we don't know whether we are paying for 19 or 23 matches next season. This could be argued as a material difference. Leicester appear to be having every game in April moved for television. Again, a material change to the product. If I was a Leicester fan who had just agreed his work shifts then I would be seriously peed off. We are talking about the right to a refund here, so it would be largely academic in practice. But I think the principle is important.

Should clubs be allowed to impose their T&Cs without the option of a refund if there is a material change to the product? I am not a lawyer but would welcome a view from someone who is.

PG

Sorry but that's a little blinkered. You know full well at this point that if we get promoted we will have 19 games at home and if we don't, 23. It's no secret. In addition the club have already said the price won't be raised. These are facts we know.

 

[swindonseagull]

The bigger problem is that we're crepe on tv.

Pancakes?