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

[Neville's Breakfast]

You think an independent ombudsman want to act as a ticket exchange?

The independent onbudsman isn’t a user of NSC, is it ? I wouldn’t have thought so, so no, I wasn’t referring to them.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Very surprised the club have decided - and are able - to basically dismiss the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman. They should be binding, whatever the club thinks.

If it isn’t set up as a statutory body then it can be ignored I guess. To take an example currently much in the news it’s a bit like independent pay review bodies for public sector workers that are ignored when they make a finding that doesn’t suit.

 

[worthingseagull]

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.

Surely the steward (having seen there was no trouble caused by fan A or C during the game ) should have not been such a jobsworth bellend and just NOT submitted any report

 

[dazzer6666]

If it isn’t set up as a statutory body then it can be ignored I guess. A bit like independent pay review bodies for public sector workers that are ignored when they make a finding that doesn’t suit.

Indeed.…..but it’s a very poor look from the club to do so.

 

[dazzer6666]

Surely the steward (having seen there was no trouble caused by fan A or C during the game ) should have not been such a jobsworth bellend and just NOT submitted any report

Probably on a bonus for identifying such dangerous miscreants.

 

[pure_white]

A

 

[Goldstone1976]

I agree with the general principle of Brighton’s ticketing policy, and even the punishment as this seems to have reduced/removed the amount of transfers. But this particular case has a number of flaws.

Exactly as I see it.

The general approach is correct; the specific interpretation in this case has some issues.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Indeed.…..but it’s a very poor look from the club to do so.

Not if they strongly disagree and this principle is worth defending because they are looking after the majority rather than the vociferous minority.

 

[Horses Arse]

The club definitely aren't as wrong as so many are making out.

It's quite bizarre to have posters write:-

'my relation broke the rules.
Here's how they did it.
This is the previously well documented penalty.
I can't believe this is the penalty we received'.

To then have their self pity validated by the Barberout crowd.


The punishment does seem harsh, esp for a first time offence (when the football is this good) so hopefully the club will be able to stand down, once it feels the harvesters have finally got the message and the system is fairer for all.

Weird post, seem to be arguing with yourself and missing the point.

Rules can't be set for every eventuality. Most folk get the intent, the purpose. What normally happens is that some intelligence and understanding is applied. There's no self pity that I can see, just painful experiences and frustration.

Empathy, understanding, emotional intelligence and social experience is absent. Rules are rules!!. There is a lack of understanding and a complete inability to accept that they could have done things differently.

It's always the same, those that haven't experienced it defer to those in charge, pointing to the rules, saying its OK.

First they came for the cyclists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a  cyclist

Then  they came for the bottle drinkers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a  bottle drinker.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course people are all over this because there are a huge number of NSC users who want to act as unofficial ticket exchanges. They want to be the ones with the rights to buy the tickets then distribute as they see fit.

Given the arguments posted on here, my take isn’t that “huge number of NSC users who want to act as unofficial ticket exchanges” - more they sense an injustice with this particular case.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

I think the point that the rules are rules, Keith Lard brigade are missing is that an independent organisation has looked into this and advised that the club are in the wrong.

It shouldn't sit well with anyone that the club have effectively stuck 2 fingers up at them.

 

[Bodian]

A better way of approaching all of this would be to write to the ticket owner and ask for an explanation, and then make a decision - rather than banning first and having an appeal process. The latter basically means they have to back down if wrong (which seems difficult to do) - the former will still help sort the problem, but in a more 'in it together' fashion.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Whatever way you look at it, somebody (irrelevant if they are related or not) acquired a ticket before they were entitled to it (it went to general sale later but not at the time)

The dad has to take some responsibility as his login credentials were shared with his son (to act)

The son shouldn’t have bought the tickets (if he’s not mature enough to understand the rules and sanctions then he shouldn’t have access to the dads account)

There’s no way of proving how much the dad was in the know about the whole episode for sure so the clubs taken the worse case scenario at a time where there was a widespread issue with tickets

The proceeds (email confirmations to relevant parties) needs to be improved, as do the terms and conditions relating to minors acting / that’s on the club

In the greater scheme of things it will make people think twice but accept it’s harsh on the dad (if he genuinely didn’t know)

It’s not clear exactly what happened and it never will be but he’s served the ban, give him back his loyalty points and move on, he’s not going to do it again is he!

 

[Stat Brother]

A better way of approaching all of this would be to write to the ticket owner and ask for an explanation, and then make a decision - rather than banning first and having an appeal process. The latter basically means they have to back down if wrong (which seems difficult to do) - the former will still help sort the problem, but in a more 'in it together' fashion.

That kind of thinking is where I think (hope) we end up.
But in the meantime I don't have a problem with the club flexing some muscle, proving it's point, so we can get to a better place quicker.

 

[Driver8]

To be fair, the club can't check that people have read their emails!

They can actually. At least they can tell whether or not it has been opened (and presumably read).

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Given the arguments posted on here, my take isn’t that “huge number of NSC users who want to act as unofficial ticket exchanges” - more they sense an injustice with this particular case.

Perhaps. Although the people in this particular case broadly seem to be the same ones who object in general to the principle that it should only be the club that acts as ticket seller/distributor. There are others like yourself who don’t fall into that category.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Weird post, seem to be arguing with yourself and missing the point.

Rules can't be set for every eventuality. Most folk get the intent, the purpose. What normally happens is that some intelligence and understanding is applied. There's no self pity that I can see, just painful experiences and frustration.

Empathy, understanding, emotional intelligence and social experience is absent. Rules are rules!!. There is a lack of understanding and a complete inability to accept that they could have done things differently.

It's always the same, those that haven't experienced it defer to those in charge, pointing to the rules, saying its OK.

First they came for the cyclists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a  cyclist

Then  they came for the bottle drinkers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a  bottle drinker.

I am sorry you are so oppressed. Your life must be a living hell.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I think the point that the rules are rules, Keith Lard brigade are missing is that an independent organisation has looked into this and advised that the club are in the wrong.

It shouldn't sit well with anyone that the club have effectively stuck 2 fingers up at them.

It is going to be difficult for you to understand a different opinion if you use this type of insult against those with whom you disagree.

 

[timbha]

Are you new to following the Albion? I can see how the new fans the club is trying to attract would turn it in so easily but for those properly invested it is very different.

If we were treated as customers we'd not be having this thread. Unfortunately we're treated like addicts.

Does being a STH since the 70s, incl Gham qualify me as new?

I find it hard to understand these partial gestures and protests. “ Going not as often as I used to” seems a bit feeble if it is to constitute a protest.

I bet TB and PB are livid with the ombudsman’s decision when the main intention of controlling tickets is to prevent people causing trouble and/or profiteering.

An earlier thread complained that PB had called us customers. Are you ok with that now?

 

[Guinness Boy]

It is going to be difficult for you to understand a different opinion if you use this type of insult against those with whom you disagree.

I suggest you read the whole IFO report. Some of the wording alluded to the club being intransigent and unreasonable on this topic.