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

[ROSM]

One other thing, it would appear that the club has now altered its statement on the website to remove the name of the individual they punished. Given it was up there for a fair while, I do wonder if they have apologised for that? Given the privacy laws in the UK anything that magnifies sharing someone's personal information will be a sticky wicket for them. Sadly in their attempt to be seen to right on this they have dropped a rollock.

 

[ROSM]

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.

But you accept that if someone has their credit card cloned they dont get convicted of fraud but also dont get the airmiles. That is literally the exact same thing here. Avios have policies to prevent harvesting airmiles when purchasing flight tickets but that doesnt extend to the person who has their name given through no fault of their own.

 

[Nicks]

Out of interest, did wolves away sell out? I have a feeling it went way beyond the ususal points boundaries and may not have sold out completely. If it didnt then simply taking away the loyalty points here would have put all parties in the same position as they would have been surely?

It did sell out in the end. When I got my ban I pointed out that if they checked my purchase history they would see I bought the tickets when they went on sale to Albion plus members so I wasn't trying to harvest points and the son I took was an Albion plus member, but it made no difference.

 

[ROSM]

It did sell out in the end. When I got my ban I pointed out that if they checked my purchase history they would see I bought the tickets when they went on sale to Albion plus members so I wasn't trying to harvest points and the son I took was an Albion plus member, but it made no difference.

Thanks for the detail. We dont know of the sons girlfriend in this case was an albion plus member (suspect not) so againmaybe not material other than not stealing loyalty points off season ticket holders

 

[dazzer6666]

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.

There can’t be many cases where it’s appropriate to punish someone other than the person that committed the offence ? Absolutely remove the loyalty points that were accrued, but personally don’t agree with punishing someone who seemingly had no idea the ‘crime’ had been committed.

 

[drew]

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

Sorry but I don't agree. The club may well know that the 17 year old had bought tickets before in his father's name but unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect the father didn't go to those games then it would serve no purpose to introduce that as 'speculative' evidence.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

But you accept that if someone has their credit card cloned they dont get convicted of fraud but also dont get the airmiles. That is literally the exact same thing here. Avios have policies to prevent harvesting airmiles when purchasing flight tickets but that doesnt extend to the person who has their name given through no fault of their own.

Yes, I accept that. However this is different to credit card fraud for which there is no benefit to the person whose card is cloned. So immediately it is clear they are not identical types of scenario. In this case under discussion the context is there are a number of people benefiting from LP harvesting for games they don’t attend. If not discovered in a routine ID check that would have included the father in this case. There will be others who have got away with it because ID checks can only be fairly minimal for practical reasons and because people would object if they weren’t. Therefore the system has to be that the beneficiaries of the LP when identified are the ones who are penalized in order to create a deterrent. In my opinion.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

There can’t be many cases where it’s appropriate to punish someone other than the person that committed the offence ? Absolutely remove the loyalty points that were accrued, but personally don’t agree with punishing someone who seemingly had no idea the ‘crime’ had been committed.

And there can’t be many parallel instances of people benefitting when maybe not being aware. That’s why the father is drawn in in this case.

 

[Horses Arse]

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.

Pointless discussion with some folk, you'll have lost them at 'understanding'

 

[dazzer6666]

And there can’t be many parallel instances of people benefitting when maybe not being aware. That’s why the father is drawn in in this case.

…..but ‘more important’ they are punished than the perpetrators ?? Not in my view.

 

[Horses Arse]

One other thing, it would appear that the club has now altered its statement on the website to remove the name of the individual they punished. Given it was up there for a fair while, I do wonder if they have apologised for that? Given the privacy laws in the UK anything that magnifies sharing someone's personal information will be a sticky wicket for them. Sadly in their attempt to be seen to right on this they have dropped a rollock.

I think you'll find they weren't wrong and hence have nothing to apologise for.......

I'd love to be wrong on that though, a change in approach would be lovely

 

[drew]

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.

The supporter was not wholly the victim as if the id check hadn't been made then he would have benefited from the LPs. I do however think the sanction should have been made against the son and the mistake was to give the supporter the choice. There seems to have been a lot of garbage in the report about the Safeguarding Officer was on the appeals panel. The case involved a minor who may have turned up for the appeal and it seems to me that that was used as a distraction. The 'supporter' also seems upset about the use of the word premeditated but how else can you describe it when the son a) bought the ticket without his dad's permission and b) changed the name on the ticket. He knew what he was doing and he should have had the punishment.

 

[drew]

…..but ‘more important’ they are punished than the perpetrators ?? Not in my view.

Tend to agree but the fact remains the son was willing to take the punishment but the father decided he would take the sanction and then has complained about it. The fact that he would gain LPs for this incident probably opened the door for him to be considered for the sanction although the son remains by a long way more culpable.

 

[drew]

Out of interest, did wolves away sell out? I have a feeling it went way beyond the ususal points boundaries and may not have sold out completely. If it didnt then simply taking away the loyalty points here would have put all parties in the same position as they would have been surely?

Then where is the deterrent? If you know all that will happen is that you'll lose the loyalty points for that match then to some that would be a risk worth taking as not many get their IDs checked at away grounds. I've missed Everton and Brentford away this season. We were selected to collect tickets for the Man City game and have only had my id checked at Palace.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Some STH’ers at PL clubs rarely attend games. The open market price for someone who loves Liverpool, ManU or Arsenal is sky high. Or ManC winning the title and no doubt Newcastle now.

I’’m not talking about Exchange reimbursing 1/19th of a ST cost.

Don’t know how they manage it in a phones only environment? Perhaps owning a barely something G old model, just for this purpose.

A mate of mine has two Arsenal season tickets. He disposes of his second via a well established network. He's been doing this for more than 10 years.

I can't even get my own ST to update on my phone now, since the FA cup debacle. Mrs T has to go online to fix it.

I'm normally a complete BHA fan boy, but they have dropped a bollock on this occasion. Or are we missing something? Do these people have 'previous' perhaps? Were they rude and whatnot when caught?

 

[dazzer6666]

Then where is the deterrent? If you know all that will happen is that you'll lose the loyalty points for that match then to some that would be a risk worth taking as not many get their IDs checked at away grounds. I've missed Everton and Brentford away this season. We were selected to collect tickets for the Man City game and have only had my id checked at Palace.

Similar - had to collect once (Leicester), and ID was checked at Palace but then it usually is there anyway.

Posted it before but simple answer is make sure an email goes to anyone in whose name a ticket has been bought. At that point dad (in this case) has the opportunity to do something about it.

I guess the club stance here in deciding not to follow the IFO ‘guidance’ is reinforcing as strongly as they possibly can that away ticket transfers won’t be tolerated under any circumstances.

 

[dazzer6666]

A mate of mine has two Arsenal season tickets. He disposes of his second via a well established network. He's been doing this for more than 10 years.

I can't even get my own ST to update on my phone now, since the FA cup debacle. Mrs T has to go online to fix it.

I'm normally a complete BHA fan boy, but they have dropped a bollock on this occasion. Or are we missing something? Do these people have 'previous' perhaps? Were they rude and whatnot when caught?

I’ve got a pal who has a pair of Arsenal STs that he’s had for 30 years or more - but he hasn’t been to a single game for more than 10 years (ironically he’s now got Albion STs for him and his son). He effectively sublets them to someone else.

 

[Tory Boy]

If only an independent group could look at both sides of the issue, consider representations from both parties and then make a considered decision.

Wouldn’t that be a good idea?

 

[ROSM]

Yes, I accept that. However this is different to credit card fraud for which there is no benefit to the person whose card is cloned. So immediately it is clear they are not identical types of scenario. In this case under discussion the context is there are a number of people benefiting from LP harvesting for games they don’t attend. If not discovered in a routine ID check that would have included the father in this case. There will be others who have got away with it because ID checks can only be fairly minimal for practical reasons and because people would object if they weren’t. Therefore the system has to be that the beneficiaries of the LP when identified are the ones who are penalized in order to create a deterrent. In my opinion.

Yes there is, they gain airmile or clubcard points or whatever scheme the credit card operates to incentivise people to use ita product and reward loyalty/priority

 

[ROSM]

Sorry but I don't agree. The club may well know that the 17 year old had bought tickets before in his father's name but unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect the father didn't go to those games then it would serve no purpose to introduce that as 'speculative' evidence.

Given what we know so far, do you think the club wouldn't have introduced that if they thought it would help their case?