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

[El Presidente]

I currently have an issue with an insurance claim.

It's a pretty open and shut case and it looks like (after a lot of too-ing and fro-ing), the insurance company have finally agreed to settle the claim in full, and are paying a small sum to compensate for a complaint I made.

I did threaten them with taking my case to the Financial Ombudsman.

So let's just imagine, if I had - the Ombudsman found in my favour, and asked the Insurance Company to apologise and pay my claim in full.

But the Insurance Company said feck off, and then plastered my name over their website inferring that I had made a fraudulent claim.


I can't see that this case is that different - albeit, the legal entity is a "Club Ltd", not an Insurance Company Ltd.

TBF I don't think there has been an inference of a dodgy claim.

We'll need a visa for Kilmarnock away?

No but you may need a translator.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Typical leftie nonsense. All you need my son is a blue passport and the foreigner types will bow their heads and wave you through. No one would dare to go on strike, we won two world wars you know, and they had better remember it too.

Hi EP

 

[Bozza]

I’ve been answering these opinions with my opinion. Actually I don’t really have any opinion on the sanction. I’m not sure how anyone can judge how ‘fair’ it is. Wherever the sanction is set there will be people opposed.

The sanction is clearly set at a level so as to be a sufficient deterrent to dissuade people from sharing tickets on the sly and, anecdotally at least, I think it's been highly effective.

If someone asked me if they could use my option to buy a ticket for a game I wasn't going to attend, it would be a firm "no" and everyone I know would say the same.

But I also know of people who had tickets for some of our recent big away days that they found they couldn't use for entirely legitimate reasons. Life happens. They desperately wanted to give someone else the chance to attend but, again, couldn't risk missing half a season of football for doing so. It's clearly wrong in these scenarios that there are tickets for a match going spare, lots of fans who would like to attend and there's no way of bringing the two together.

Just to add, despite my long, rambling post above, I still believe that from the information I have, the sanction in this specific case is wholly inappropriate to the point of being cruel.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The sanction is clearly set at a level so as to be a sufficient deterrent to dissuade people from sharing tickets on the sly and, anecdotally at least, I think it's been highly effective.

If someone asked me if they could use my option to buy a ticket for a game I wasn't going to attend, it would be a firm "no" and everyone I know would say the same.

But I also know of people who had tickets for some of our recent big away days that they found they couldn't use for entirely legitimate reasons. Life happens. They desperately wanted to give someone else the chance to attend but, again, couldn't risk missing half a season of football for doing so. It's clearly wrong in these scenarios that there are tickets for a match going spare, lots of fans who would like to attend and there's no way of bringing the two together.

Just to add, despite my long, rambling post above, I still believe that from the information I have, the sanction in this specific case is wholly inappropriate to the point of being cruel.

Fair enough. It’s just very difficult for the club to make an exception in one case because others then try to use it to their advantage in less deserving scenarios.

 

[Springal]

All of this.

Away exchange and digital away tickets needed asap.

IF we get to Europe we’d really need this next season. Life events are almost certainly going to include having a flight cancelled, work refusing leave or visa issues.

Maybe but it’s not in England travel club and 4000+ fans travel abroad for every game, no resale / refunds and collections only with ID in the host city without problem. I can see why the club don’t want the hassle and extra work to manage people who can’t attend for however good or bad the reason is

 

[Bozza]

Fair enough. It’s just very difficult for the club to make an exception in one case because others then try to use it to their advantage in less deserving scenarios.

Absolutely, as I tried to outline in that stupidly long post.

 

[Horses Arse]

Stepping back from this individual case for a minute, there are a couple of problems that are tricky to solve and put the club in a difficult spot when it comes to ticketing, particularly for high-demand away fixtures.

There was a problem whereby people would maintain/enhance their position in the loyalty scheme by buying tickets for games they had no intention of attending, and giving the ticket to someone with lower ticket-buying priority to use. The fan who buys the ticket "wins" as he accrues the loyalty points. The fan who uses the ticket "wins" because he gets to attend a game he'd otherwise miss out on. The Albion fanbase, as a whole, lose because access to tickets becomes a bit of a closed shop, making it increasingly difficult for others to enhance their own chances of legitimately obtaining tickets to in-demand games.

Trying to prevent this closed shop, and making the system more fair for everyone is clearly laudable and benefits everyone in the long-term.

Unfortunately, the vagaries of life mean there will always be people who buy a ticket but, come match day, are unable to attend. And that's where the problems come in...

1. Most away games involve paper tickets which make the logistics of returning a ticket for subsequent re-issue to another qualified fan difficult, if not impossible in short timescales. It looks to me that host clubs typically provide a fixed supply of pre-printed tickets, so it wouldn't be a case of being able to cancel the ticket and generate another one, saving the need to physically return the ticket and redistribute it to another fan.

2. It just doesn't feel right that the correct course of action for when a fan can't attend a game is to just leave that seat empty. The Premier League is the most watched league in the world and we are highly fortunate to be watching one of the best teams in that league. Surely a seat is better used by a fan than left empty, right?

The problem here comes that there is no way for the club to distinguish between:

"My son is ill and can't use his ticket, so I'm going to let my another son use it so the seat isn't empty", and

"I've bought a ticket in my son's name, who has a lot of loyalty points, but I'm knowingly going to let my other son use it"

In short, anyone can claim a ticket was going to be legitimately used, but life events mean that is no longer the case and they don't want it to go to waste. There's no way of knowing whether that is the case or it was always intended for someone else to use the ticket.

I don't know how to practically resolve this situation in the short-term because allowing "life events" to be a legitimate reason to pass on a ticket clearly opens the door for anyone to hand over a ticket and claim such a "life event" happened.

The medium to long-term solution is e-ticketing for all tickets, home and away, allowing a ticket to be returned and re-listed for sale with a few clicks or taps. The ticket can be re-sold right up to match day, allowing someone else to attend and the original purchaser to receive a refund (less admin fee).

Until then, I'm not sure how things improve.

I agree with all of that - the strategic aim is good, and is working as far as I can see. You cannot have rules that deal with each and every potential circumstance - there are always grey areas.

My view on this is that it is not about the rules as written, it is about the application currently and the culture of 'never wrong'. I guess it can be distilled to two approaches - they've taken the 'hit em hard and make them all worried' approach. Brutal approach to avoid ongoing issues and bring it all to a close quickly. Another approach would be a more nuanced application, accepting that there are circumstances where it is understandable and unlikely to be an example of points harvesting to exclude others. Take the time to assess how the implementation of the rules is working and manage it accodingly.

The approach taken is likely to have a more immediate impact for sure. Many will be worried about how the club will interpret certain behaviour. There have been examples where tickets were not sold out and hence harvesting of points was not any sort of an issue, but punishment was still applied on the basis of stopping points harvesting. The example that this thread concerns is different and involves relatives/family members - not sure why a reminder of the rules, how they could have been applied and a 'no second chances' approach in private wasn't applied in this case.

 

[Horses Arse]

I currently have an issue with an insurance claim.

It's a pretty open and shut case and it looks like (after a lot of too-ing and fro-ing), the insurance company have finally agreed to settle the claim in full, and are paying a small sum to compensate for a complaint I made.

I did threaten them with taking my case to the Financial Ombudsman.

So let's just imagine, if I had - the Ombudsman found in my favour, and asked the Insurance Company to apologise and pay my claim in full.

But the Insurance Company said feck off, and then plastered my name over their website inferring that I had made a fraudulent claim.


I can't see that this case is that different - albeit, the legal entity is a "Club Ltd", not an Insurance Company Ltd.

But you are a customer in that example

 

[amexer]

Stepping back from this individual case for a minute, there are a couple of problems that are tricky to solve and put the club in a difficult spot when it comes to ticketing, particularly for high-demand away fixtures.

There was a problem whereby people would maintain/enhance their position in the loyalty scheme by buying tickets for games they had no intention of attending, and giving the ticket to someone with lower ticket-buying priority to use. The fan who buys the ticket "wins" as he accrues the loyalty points. The fan who uses the ticket "wins" because he gets to attend a game he'd otherwise miss out on. The Albion fanbase, as a whole, lose because access to tickets becomes a bit of a closed shop, making it increasingly difficult for others to enhance their own chances of legitimately obtaining tickets to in-demand games.

Trying to prevent this closed shop, and making the system more fair for everyone is clearly laudable and benefits everyone in the long-term.

Unfortunately, the vagaries of life mean there will always be people who buy a ticket but, come match day, are unable to attend. And that's where the problems come in...

1. Most away games involve paper tickets which make the logistics of returning a ticket for subsequent re-issue to another qualified fan difficult, if not impossible in short timescales. It looks to me that host clubs typically provide a fixed supply of pre-printed tickets, so it wouldn't be a case of being able to cancel the ticket and generate another one, saving the need to physically return the ticket and redistribute it to another fan.

2. It just doesn't feel right that the correct course of action for when a fan can't attend a game is to just leave that seat empty. The Premier League is the most watched league in the world and we are highly fortunate to be watching one of the best teams in that league. Surely a seat is better used by a fan than left empty, right?

The problem here comes that there is no way for the club to distinguish between:

"My son is ill and can't use his ticket, so I'm going to let my another son use it so the seat isn't empty", and

"I've bought a ticket in my son's name, who has a lot of loyalty points, but I'm knowingly going to let my other son use it"

In short, anyone can claim a ticket was going to be legitimately used, but life events mean that is no longer the case and they don't want it to go to waste. There's no way of knowing whether that is the case or it was always intended for someone else to use the ticket.

I don't know how to practically resolve this situation in the short-term because allowing "life events" to be a legitimate reason to pass on a ticket clearly opens the door for anyone to hand over a ticket and claim such a "life event" happened.

The medium to long-term solution is e-ticketing for all tickets, home and away, allowing a ticket to be returned and re-listed for sale with a few clicks or taps. The ticket can be re-sold right up to match day, allowing someone else to attend and the original purchaser to receive a refund (less admin fee).

Until then, I'm not sure how things improve.

Good summing up. Appreciate club had to bring in rules for away games so tickets went to right people and keep undesirables out. Problem with this case like so many big organisations no common sense shown Just black and white. All that was needed was a phone call to a family of genuine Albion supporters. In addition completely out of order for club to refuse to take any notice of independent review who may as well issue a statement saying they will disband and refuse to look into any other cases. on behalf of fans.

 

[dazzer6666]

Pretty certain any ombudsman for any industry isn't binding on both parties.

Incorrect. In Financial Services, if the claimant accepts the ruling it’s legally biding on the institution (Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 sets out the powers of the Ombudsman). They can of course appeal or go to judicial review but rarely do.

The IFO is less powerful

If the complaint is wholly or partially upheld, the IFO will make any recommendations deemed appropriate. IFO recommendations are non-binding, but the Football Authorities have stated that they and their member clubs would normally expect to implement IFO findings. If the Football Authority or club considers that it cannot – for whatever reason – implement any recommendation of the IFO, it will publish the reasoning behind such a decision and any proposed alternative resolution to the complaint.

 

[Diablo]

Very much so, yes.

I can only speak about those I speak to and socialise with but, without exception, no-one I know is prepared to get a ticket for someone else to use as the risk of being caught and banned is considered too great. Previously there would be the occasional bit of "are you going to XXXX? If not, can I take up your ticket?" about.

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, we are very fortunate to have some very good people running and administering the club and they do, unquestionably, act in the interest of the supporter base as a whole. It is always evident that a lot of thought and consideration goes into all aspects of how we interact with the club. That doesn't mean everything is done correctly, or done correctly first time, but the intentions are always good.

Can`t get my head round this. When there are still tickets for sale can`t I buy one for friend ?? When ticket exchange is open am I not allowed to buy ticket for friend ??

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Only if you aren’t aware their opinion is non binding.

I don't see the relevance. If someone independent looks at any dispute and says Person A is behaving inappropriately and should apologise but their response is "Well I think it's fine, you can do one" it's not a good look for them. As I said, piss poor behaviour from the club showing a complete lack of class.

 

[BNthree]

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

The son bought the ticket using Friends and Family with their own log in details. The dad was unaware until afterwards.

 

[rool]

I don't see the relevance. If someone independent looks at any dispute and says Person A is behaving inappropriately and should apologise but their response is "Well I think it's fine, you can do one" it's not a good look for them. As I said, piss poor behaviour from the club showing a complete lack of class.

Talksport always seem to be up Barber's arse, maybe they'd like the opportunity to show the alternative side to this person and his dictatorial attitude to a loyal fan base.

 

[dazzer6666]

The son bought the ticket using Friends and Family with their own log in details. The dad was unaware until afterwards.

Really simple solution to this is the ticket holder whose name has been used gets an email confirmation that a ticket has been bought. A few lines of code in the ticketing software solves it.

 

[Stat Brother]

Talksport always seem to be up Barber's arse, maybe they'd like the opportunity to show the alternative side to this person and his dictatorial attitude to a loyal fan base.

You've spelt Bloom incorrectly.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I’ve never known a club (or business) put as many barriers to entry in place for their product as our club does. It’s mind blowing.

The simple solution to this is that if you buy a ST and can’t go, you can assign it to someone else by giving the club their details. Those details then get picked up on the system as they go through the barriers, and if the details are different to the ID shown, then there becomes an issue with bans etc. This ensures transparency and safety are at the forefront, but makes the process much easier.

As far as I’m concerned, if I pay for a ticket for a season, I should be able to pass it on without going through the absolute hassle, and often expense, that’s currently in place. I love the club, I just hate how they deal with fans at times.

 

[Justice]

Is anyone surprised they didn’t have DK’s back and banned him for ten games.

 

[Springal]

Really simple solution to this is the ticket holder whose name has been used gets an email confirmation that a ticket has been bought. A few lines of code in the ticketing software solves it.

If only we had a chairman with an army of software developers

 

[Stat Brother]

Really simple solution to this is the ticket holder whose name has been used gets an email confirmation that a ticket has been bought. A few lines of code in the ticketing software solves it.

Alternatively the person who's had their name hand written on the ticket is the only person who uses it to go to the match.

Quite why anyone doubts the club's commitment to their stance while also knowing someone is paid to write 3000 names on 3000 tickets, seems somewhat odd.