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

[Weststander]

the 1901 benefits have been eroded since day 1 and is different to the original package, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

As per your earlier quote they are responsible for the behaviour of guests, and yes there would be repercussions, as I’ve discussed this already with the club.

Other than the loss of parking for some (not their fault …. Mr Bennet), what else has been taken away? European tie free tickets?

[Just an inquisitive person in the NS].

 

[Horses Arse]

Nobody is arguing re a deterrent. But there is a number of aspects about this case that are concerning. The gaps in the ticketing system that sends confirmation emails to the purchaser not the ticket owner. The issue over appeal times, the equitable nature of any punishment, actions of one of the attendees in the panel, the action of the panel chair. The wish to punish the person the ticket was bought in the name of, not the purchaser (who asked to be punished) or the intended beneficiary of the 'fraud' and no method of selling back previously sold tickets.

And as i said, all this for a game that didnt sell out (and maybe even went to guest sales)

At the end of the day and independent party who is trained in all these legal, contractual and equitable aspects found that the club acted excessively, had gaps in their scheme and should apologise. They've chosen not to.

Yeah, but other than that....

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Other than the loss of parking for some (not their fault …. Mr Bennet), what else has been taken away? European tie free tickets?

[Just an inquisitive person in the NS].

Priority for away tickets
Extra loyalty points initially
Free coffee at h/t
Free entry to friendlies
European game access - yes really.
Priority for guest tickets…..

There’s probably a few other bits as well…..

We actually get less choice on pie flavours than on the concourse.
(Obviously the prawn sandwiches are plentiful though )

To be fair, a number of these are justified, particularly the away priority and extra loyalty points. Don’t impact on myself particularly as I’ve always gone home and most away games.

I am a bit miffed about friendlies and European games though.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Nobody is arguing re a deterrent. But there is a number of aspects about this case that are concerning. The gaps in the ticketing system that sends confirmation emails to the purchaser not the ticket owner. The issue over appeal times, the equitable nature of any punishment, actions of one of the attendees in the panel, the action of the panel chair. The wish to punish the person the ticket was bought in the name of, not the purchaser (who asked to be punished) or the intended beneficiary of the 'fraud' and no method of selling back previously sold tickets.

And as i said, all this for a game that didnt sell out (and maybe even went to guest sales)

At the end of the day and independent party who is trained in all these legal, contractual and equitable aspects found that the club acted excessively, had gaps in their scheme and should apologise. They've chosen not to.

And I was pointing out to you the fact that this particular game went to all purchase history is irrelevant. Once again, it is not about one game. It is about people accumulating unearned LP and thereby being able to buy tickets to subsequent high demand games. These rules were flagged well in advance. They apply to everybody equally, so that includes this family.

 

[ROSM]

And I was pointing out to you that the fact that this particular game went to all purchase history is irrelevant. Once again, it is not about one game. It is about people accumulating unearned LP and thereby being able to buy tickets to subsequent high demand games. These rules were flagged well in advance. They apply to everybody equally, so that includes this family.

I know what you are pointing out. But the fact that the perpertrator wasnt punished but the innocent stooge in the scenario was, that the clubs own communication didnt match its own policy, that hearings disnt conform to natural justice and that independently its been found wanting doesnt seem to be an issue to you?

If your credit card was cloned and someone used it to buy goods, would you expect to be the one convicted for the fraud? At worst you would expect to have the club card points taken off you.

 

[Springal]

I know what you are pointing out. But the fact that the perpertrator wasnt punished but the innocent stooge in the scenario was, that the clubs own communication didnt match its own policy, that hearings disnt conform to natural justice and that independently its been found wanting doesnt seem to be an issue to you?

If your credit card was cloned and someone used it to buy goods, would you expect to be the one convicted for the fraud? At worst you would expect to have the club card points taken off you.

If my son had used my credit card fraudulently, I’d probably not be saying I’ll take the punishment for him

 

[drew]

Playing devil's advocate here, has there been any suggestion that this wasn't the first time that the son had purchased away tickets in his dad's name using friends and family? The club would obviously have such info but equally would not be able to prove the father hadn't gone to any of those previous games but if would certainly raise a suspicion in their mind.

 

[ROSM]

Playing devil's advocate here, has there been any suggestion that this wasn't the first time that the son had purchased away tickets in his dad's name using friends and family? The club would obviously have such info but equally would not be able to prove the father hadn't gone to any of those previous games but if would certainly raise a suspicion in their mind.

If it was a concern here then it would have been raised to the IFO or in any of the appeal hearings. They could have raised previous tickets bought by friends or family

 

[ROSM]

If my son had used my credit card fraudulently, I’d probably not be saying I’ll take the punishment for him

Especially if your son had written to the authorities, admitting their crime and asking to be punished

 

[Springal]

Especially if your son had written to the authorities, admitting their crime and asking to be punished

I thought he got asked who should take the punishment and the dad did ?

 

[ROSM]

I thought he got asked who should take the punishment and the dad did ?

I dont believe thats strictly correct. The club wrote to him and asked him to tell them to punish his son. He wrote, what has to be said, was an unclear response back. In the same period, his son wrote to the club, admitting responsibility and asking to be punished

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I know what you are pointing out. But the fact that the perpertrator wasnt punished but the innocent stooge in the scenario was, that the clubs own communication didnt match its own policy, that hearings disnt conform to natural justice and that independently its been found wanting doesnt seem to be an issue to you?

If your credit card was cloned and someone used it to buy goods, would you expect to be the one convicted for the fraud? At worst you would expect to have the club card points taken off you.

No, those things aren’t an issue for me. The father benefited from unearned loyalty points so is hardly an innocent victim. The findings of the independent panel are non binding so they are just another view, just like mine and just like yours.
Your credit card analogy is a decent one and the answer to your question is I wouldn’t. However it is a different context. Credit card fraud is illegal because it is theft. LP harvesting is not illegal but it prevents other fans from buying match tickets. The victims are all of us and especially those just below LP thresholds. Just because you don’t know their names or circumstances shouldn’t mean you disregard their interests. The club are protecting this Albion supporting community. The deterrent effect (that you say you agree with) will only work if there is consequence for being the beneficiary of unearned LP. On top of all that I am a little contemptuous of anybody who benefits in this way from the system being gamed then when found out tries to worm out of the consequence. This family should be apologizing to the club and fellow supporters rather than blaming it all on an under 18 in the household.

 

[ROSM]

No, those things aren’t an issue for me. The father benefited from unearned loyalty points so is hardly an innocent victim. The findings of the independent panel are non binding so they are just another view, just like mine and just like yours.
Your credit card analogy is a decent one and the answer to your question is I wouldn’t. However it is a different context. Credit card fraud is illegal because it is theft. LP harvesting is not illegal but it prevents other fans from buying match tickets. The victims are all of us and especially those just below LP thresholds. Just because you don’t know their names or circumstances shouldn’t mean you disregard their interests. The club are protecting this Albion supporting community. The deterrent effect (that you say you agree with) will only work if there is consequence for being the beneficiary of unearned LP. On top of all that I am a little contemptuous of anybody who benefits in this way from the system being gamed then when found out tries to worm out of the consequence. This family should be apologizing to the club and fellow supporters rather than blaming it all on an under 18 in the household.

I think you are confusing a concern for equity and natural justice as in some way defensing loyalty point fraud. I am not but would like the appropriate punishment to the right perpetrator. As for belittling the IFO as just an opinion, that is a level of arrogance beyond belief.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think you are confusing a concern for equity and natural justice as in some way defensing loyalty point fraud. I am not but would like the appropriate punishment to the right perpetrator. As for belittling the IFO as just an opinion, that is a level of arrogance beyond belief.

I don’t see any interest in equity or natural justice in your argument. You disregard equity amongst the entire fan base in favour of the beneficiary of the LP harvesting. With regards to the IFO, if its findings are not binding then it is hardly arrogant to state the fact that they are no more relevant than your or my views. Regulation has to be legally binding to be taken seriously.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Priority for away tickets
Extra loyalty points initially
Free coffee at h/t
Free entry to friendlies
European game access - yes really.
Priority for guest tickets…..

There’s probably a few other bits as well…..

We actually get less choice on pie flavours than on the concourse.
(Obviously the prawn sandwiches are plentiful though )

To be fair, a number of these are justified, particularly the away priority and extra loyalty points. Don’t impact on myself particularly as I’ve always gone home and most away games.

I am a bit miffed about friendlies and European games though.

Do you happen to know how 1901 away allocations work for genuine corporate customers - as distinct from other ordinary punters who happen to purchase 1901 seats?

I’m in the latter group. I have a 1901 seat, and so does my mother. For away games (and the FAC SF), each seat has its own LP calculated in exactly the same way as for a non-1901 STH - with the consequence that I’m comfortably in tier 1 and my mum is in tier 3 or 4 depending on the allocation.

I know no one in the former group. If, say, a company has 6 seats, how does away allocation work??

 

[ROSM]

I don’t see any interest in equity or natural justice in your argument. You disregard equity amongst the entire fan base in favour of the beneficiary of the LP harvesting. With regards to the IFO, if its findings are not binding then it is hardly arrogant to state the fact that they are no more relevant than your or my views. Regulation has to be legally binding to be taken seriously.

You do understand that the football authorities have sanctioned the IFO so its not just some johnny in a pub with an opinion? You are also aware that the football authorities have also said they expect their members to abide by the decisions of the IFO? And do you understand that if a club declines to act in accordance with a finding that the club is expected to publish clearly its reasons why it isnt and to proprose an alternative course of action?

That you dont see natural jusfice or equity in a suggestion that the perpetrator gets punished and that the club apologise for a penalising the wrong person when removing any perceived benefit is how similar cases on law are handled probably says a bit more about your viewpoint than it does mine.

And by the way, i am somebody who has missed out on some major albion games due to family commitments reducing my relative loyalty points so i am clearly one of the people you claim i want to stamp on. This is not a case of him buying a ticket and passing it on which is what the controls the club put in place were design for and that i support.

As for legally binding, this is why i said earlier that this will help the case for an independent regulator. You know, the one the premier league particularly are very nervous about.

 

[seagullwedgee]

The club’s stance on this specific issue, from the very start, to its stance on the verdict, is totally abhorrent.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Do you happen to know how 1901 away allocations work for genuine corporate customers - as distinct from other ordinary punters who happen to purchase 1901 seats?

I’m in the latter group. I have a 1901 seat, and so does my mother. For away games (and the FAC SF), each seat has its own LP calculated in exactly the same way as for a non-1901 STH - with the consequence that I’m comfortably in tier 1 and my mum is in tier 3 or 4 depending on the allocation.

I know no one in the former group. If, say, a company has 6 seats, how does away allocation work??

No idea. My seats are a personal purchase.

Similar to your point, my assumption is the LPs are accumulated by the fan/membership number and the company remains responsible for the behaviour of the attendee, similar to ST/1901 holders, when tickets are purchased for guests.

 

[hoveboyslim]

You do understand that the football authorities have sanctioned the IFO so its not just some johnny in a pub with an opinion? You are also aware that the football authorities have also said they expect their members to abide by the decisions of the IFO? And do you understand that if a club declines to act in accordance with a finding that the club is expected to publish clearly its reasons why it isnt and to proprose an alternative course of action?

That you dont see natural jusfice or equity in a suggestion that the perpetrator gets punished and that the club apologise for a penalising the wrong person when removing any perceived benefit is how similar cases on law are handled probably says a bit more about your viewpoint than it does mine.

And by the way, i am somebody who has missed out on some major albion games due to family commitments reducing my relative loyalty points so i am clearly one of the people you claim i want to stamp on. This is not a case of him buying a ticket and passing it on which is what the controls the club put in place were design for and that i support.

As for legally binding, this is why i said earlier that this will help the case for an independent regulator. You know, the one the premier league particularly are very nervous about.

I’ve had a look in the IFO website and there was another decision against the club in November 2021. The conclusion said the club would not be following the recommendation of the IFO.

Considering the club went to ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) back on the dark days, it’s pretty poor form of the club to ignore it now.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

You do understand that the football authorities have sanctioned the IFO so its not just some johnny in a pub with an opinion? You are also aware that the football authorities have also said they expect their members to abide by the decisions of the IFO? And do you understand that if a club declines to act in accordance with a finding that the club is expected to publish clearly its reasons why it isnt and to proprose an alternative course of action?

That you dont see natural jusfice or equity in a suggestion that the perpetrator gets punished and that the club apologise for a penalising the wrong person when removing any perceived benefit is how similar cases on law are handled probably says a bit more about your viewpoint than it does mine.

And by the way, i am somebody who has missed out on some major albion games due to family commitments reducing my relative loyalty points so i am clearly one of the people you claim i want to stamp on. This is not a case of him buying a ticket and passing it on which is what the controls the club put in place were design for and that i support.

As for legally binding, this is why i said earlier that this will help the case for an independent regulator. You know, the one the premier league particularly are very nervous about.

City of London regulation used to work in exactly the way you describe. It’s not enough. It creates mediocre decision making because the regulator has no actual power.
To re-iterate; I think it is more important that the beneficiary of the LP harvesting rather than the perpetrator be punished. That is what the club are also aiming for because that is the deterrent in the system. It’s a different view to yours, not necessarily better, not necessarily worse. Just different.