NCFC Official Supporters Panel: fan issues to discuss

[Jim Smith 2,345]

There does seem to be a lot of “the panel agreed with the club” in those minutes. I don’t really think the answers on issues like ticketing are particularly satisfactory. 
 

The decision that has emerged this week to take a reduced allocation and return tickets for the Chelsea game appears to be another example of the shambles that seems to be going on at the moment. Find it hard to believe it’s not all linked to whatever ridiculous cost cutting measures are behind the ticket office closure 

[essex canary 508]

16 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

There does seem to be a lot of “the panel agreed with the club” in those minutes. I don’t really think the answers on issues like ticketing are particularly satisfactory. 
 

The decision that has emerged this week to take a reduced allocation and return tickets for the Chelsea game appears to be another example of the shambles that seems to be going on at the moment. Find it hard to believe it’s not all linked to whatever ridiculous cost cutting measures are behind the ticket office closure 

Well put Jim. At least there are some sensible scribes on here. There are many London and South East fans who like to go to matches in their region. They got a very poor deal 2 seasons ago in that many of the lost games were down South whilst the early season game at West Ham was a fiasco. Based on attending all 5 relevant matches in 201819 they will be no higher than Group 3 then the Club undermines them like this. What is the Supporters Panel doing about it?

[Jim Smith 2,345]

31 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

There does seem to be a lot of “the panel agreed with the club” in those minutes. I don’t really think the answers on issues like ticketing are particularly satisfactory. 
 

The decision that has emerged this week to take a reduced allocation and return tickets for the Chelsea game appears to be another example of the shambles that seems to be going on at the moment. Find it hard to believe it’s not all linked to whatever ridiculous cost cutting measures are behind the ticket office closure 

To be clear I’m not having a go at the panel here, more that the club may have kept the minutes “high level” and brushed over one or two of the points in them. 

[essex canary 508]

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

To be clear I’m not having a go at the panel here, more that the club may have kept the minutes “high level” and brushed over one or two of the points in them. 

I agree. It is the Clubs responsibility including helping panel members to develop their thought processes in order to ensure that supporters in all circumstances are properly represented. The Clubs position seems to go no further than ensuring the majority are broadly happy.

[GMF 757]

4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

The decision that has emerged this week to take a reduced allocation and return tickets for the Chelsea game appears to be another example of the shambles that seems to be going on at the moment.

On the issue of away ticketing, there’s a fundamental policy difference between the Premier League and EFL.

Basically, the Club’s have to commit to purchasing a whole block of tickets for Premier League games, irrespective of whether they sell all the tickets or not. There’s far more flexibility in the EFL and no requirement to pay for all tickets within the block, or blocks, requested.

[essex canary 508]

7 hours ago, GMF said:

On the issue of away ticketing, there’s a fundamental policy difference between the Premier League and EFL.

Basically, the Club’s have to commit to purchasing a whole block of tickets for Premier League games, irrespective of whether they sell all the tickets or not. There’s far more flexibility in the EFL and no requirement to pay for all tickets within the block, or blocks, requested.

So a choice between 1,000 Norwich fans at the game or £15,000 extra in the bank, presumably the Club take the money everytime?

Perhaps that Times interview 'I feel sorry for the fans' meant going out in the wet and cold when they could comfortably watch it on the TV at home providing, of course,  they have paid for the right to go at least occasionally if they are lucky?

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,107]

Panel have noticed staff using disabled toilets on a matchday. Stewards should police queues and check if any disabled supporter requires the toilet and they should provide any assistance rather than use the facilities when they can use other ones.
 

Glad this is being looked into. When I’ve had one too many pre match they are a God send. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Midlands Yellow

[Duncan Edwards 2,271]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

So a choice between 1,000 Norwich fans at the game or £15,000 extra in the bank, presumably the Club take the money everytime?

Perhaps that Times interview 'I feel sorry for the fans' meant going out in the wet and cold when they could comfortably watch it on the TV at home providing, of course,  they have paid for the right to go at least occasionally if they are lucky?

 

Bore off. Any and every chance to have a dig at the club and there you are.

You even failed to understand that a “for life” ticket is no longer valid when that life, sadly, expires. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

On 27/09/2021 at 19:35, Greavsy said:

I appreciate that Carolyn was off for compassionate reasons.  (does anyone know if she is related to Todd in any way? 😉 ) 

Doesn’t sound like you appreciate it at all.

[essex canary 508]

6 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Bore off. Any and every chance to have a dig at the club and there you are.

You even failed to understand that a “for life” ticket is no longer valid when that life, sadly, expires. 

Somebody who uses the word "moron' on this site should be censured whilst you have totally failed to articulate any issue you have with the post that you quote.

If something is given 'for life' it is quite reasonable to argue that when their heir takes on the same investment they should  also get the same entitlement 'for life.' That is exactly what happens with shareholders who own 4 shares, why should it be any different with those who own 1,000 shares?

Both issues inhabit the same territory namely a Scrooge like approach which has not been the case in other contexts eg. Bondholders.

It is perfectly reasonable to be able to be express such views concerning the consistency of the Clubs approach - or more accurately the lack of it - without being subject to abuse.

[Duncan Edwards 2,271]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Somebody who uses the word "moron' on this site should be censured whilst you have totally failed to articulate any issue you have with the post that you quote.

If something is given 'for life' it is quite reasonable to argue that when their heir takes on the same investment they should  also get the same entitlement 'for life.' That is exactly what happens with shareholders who own 4 shares, why should it be any different with those who own 1,000 shares?

Both issues inhabit the same territory namely a Scrooge like approach which has not been the case in other contexts eg. Bondholders.

It is perfectly reasonable to be able to be express such views concerning the consistency of the Clubs approach - or more accurately the lack of it - without being subject to abuse.

“For life”.

“Forever”.

What happened to the 1,000 shares?

 

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

9 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Bore off. Any and every chance to have a dig at the club and there you are.

You even failed to understand that a “for life” ticket is no longer valid when that life, sadly, expires. 

Did you really have to bring this up?!?!?! All nicely settled. Every poster bar one on exactly the same page and now it will start all over again...🥵😡👹

[Greavsy 2,450]

8 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Doesn’t sound like you appreciate it at all.

I appreciate your timely response too.

[Jim Smith 2,345]

23 hours ago, GMF said:

On the issue of away ticketing, there’s a fundamental policy difference between the Premier League and EFL.

Basically, the Club’s have to commit to purchasing a whole block of tickets for Premier League games, irrespective of whether they sell all the tickets or not. There’s far more flexibility in the EFL and no requirement to pay for all tickets within the block, or blocks, requested.

That may be the case but it doesn’t excuse taking reduced allocations for games like this one where it was obvious we could sell the tickets, especially in a situation where people have shelled out for away memberships to gain priority. It sold out as soon as group 3 went on sale which tells you clearly the allocation we took was too small. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,458]

10 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

That may be the case but it doesn’t excuse taking reduced allocations for games like this one where it was obvious we could sell the tickets, especially in a situation where people have shelled out for away memberships to gain priority. It sold out as soon as group 3 went on sale which tells you clearly the allocation we took was too small. 

It’s hard to argue with this . Take a membership fee in the full knowledge that you are creating several tiers of opportunity- and then not take enough tickets to cater for those tiers?

I could have told the club that London away games will be well subscribed? 

Arsenal was the full allocation sell out I assume ? Seemed pretty full to me .  Chelsea Brentford and Spurs will be the same . 
 

 

[Mr Angry 1,571]

I've just e-mailed the club to ask how many tickets we took for Chelsea and why we didn't take the full allocation. I'll let you know the response.

[Greavsy 2,450]

34 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I've just e-mailed the club to ask how many tickets we took for Chelsea and why we didn't take the full allocation. I'll let you know the response.

According to those minutes - you should be able to tweet them in due course. 

What makes me laugh is however you contact them, Twitter, EMail, Facebook, Phone, Live chat, in person, letter, they still need to have a person, with the relevent info to provide an answer, at the other end. 

[essex canary 508]

4 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

“For life”.

“Forever”.

What happened to the 1,000 shares?

 

How long will the Smith family shares remain in the Smith family? Will they reduce their benefits over time?

The heir took over the shares to protect the capital. What is known as Hobson's Choice.

Just drawing the parallel between that and the Chelsea away position. Ditto the home casual price saga. Same old scene, same old principles.

[Duncan Edwards 2,271]

17 minutes ago, essex canary said:

How long will the Smith family shares remain in the Smith family? Will they reduce their benefits over time?

The heir took over the shares to protect the capital. What is known as Hobson's Choice.

Just drawing the parallel between that and the Chelsea away position. Ditto the home casual price saga. Same old scene, same old principles.

For life benefit.

Life ends.

Benefit ends.

 

[essex canary 508]

3 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

For life benefit.

Life ends.

Benefit ends.

 

So Tom Smith won't be taking over the Club then!

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,271]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

So Tom Smith won't be taking over the Club then!

 

Won’t he? Why? 

[hogesar 9,766]

3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

That may be the case but it doesn’t excuse taking reduced allocations for games like this one where it was obvious we could sell the tickets, especially in a situation where people have shelled out for away memberships to gain priority. It sold out as soon as group 3 went on sale which tells you clearly the allocation we took was too small. 

Yes. Totally valid point.

[Jim Smith 2,345]

31 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Yes. Totally valid point.

It’s clearly an error. To be fair, unless it’s a deliberate policy, it’s probably just a one off error. But I hope they will take note and not do it again.

[hogesar 9,766]

13 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s clearly an error. To be fair, unless it’s a deliberate policy, it’s probably just a one off error. But I hope they will take note and not do it again.

You would think so!

[essex canary 508]

On 09/10/2021 at 14:49, Duncan Edwards said:

Won’t he? Why? 

Probably his trustees will. That will be another bunch of dignitaries to give seats too when they don't properly consider the fans.

[essex canary 508]

On 09/10/2021 at 15:24, Jim Smith said:

It’s clearly an error. To be fair, unless it’s a deliberate policy, it’s probably just a one off error. But I hope they will take note and not do it again.

A full explanation together with prompt and unreserved apology may also help together with a commitment to further consult on this Scheme which still has serious shortcomings.

[Mr Angry 1,571]

Just had a response from the club about the Chelsea ticket allocation.

Due to the segregation lines, there were only 2 options given by Chelsea-3,000 tickets or 1,500. The club worked out the average number of tickets sold for the last 5 away league games-Man City to Brentford-which was 1,790. Then they took into consideration the initial sales rates, the kick-off time, the fact that it is live on Sky and the fact that Chelsea are requiring COVID certification to enter the ground, and decided to take 1,500 as they would have to pay full face value on any unsold tickets.

Any thoughts?  

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,442]

1 minute ago, Mr Angry said:

Just had a response from the club about the Chelsea ticket allocation.

Due to the segregation lines, there were only 2 options given by Chelsea-3,000 tickets or 1,500. The club worked out the average number of tickets sold for the last 5 away league games-Man City to Brentford-which was 1,790. Then they took into consideration the initial sales rates, the kick-off time, the fact that it is live on Sky and the fact that Chelsea are requiring COVID certification to enter the ground, and decided to take 1,500 as they would have to pay full face value on any unsold tickets.

Any thoughts?  

Seems reasonable. At least they gave it some consideration.

[GMF 757]

2 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Just had a response from the club about the Chelsea ticket allocation.

Due to the segregation lines, there were only 2 options given by Chelsea-3,000 tickets or 1,500. The club worked out the average number of tickets sold for the last 5 away league games-Man City to Brentford-which was 1,790. Then they took into consideration the initial sales rates, the kick-off time, the fact that it is live on Sky and the fact that Chelsea are requiring COVID certification to enter the ground, and decided to take 1,500 as they would have to pay full face value on any unsold tickets.

Any thoughts?  

That suggested process sounds logical, albeit it won’t have been five games, as Chelsea and Brentford went on sale simultaneously. Would have been four at most, Man City, Arsenal, Everton and Burnley.

[Jim Smith 2,345]

2 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Just had a response from the club about the Chelsea ticket allocation.

Due to the segregation lines, there were only 2 options given by Chelsea-3,000 tickets or 1,500. The club worked out the average number of tickets sold for the last 5 away league games-Man City to Brentford-which was 1,790. Then they took into consideration the initial sales rates, the kick-off time, the fact that it is live on Sky and the fact that Chelsea are requiring COVID certification to enter the ground, and decided to take 1,500 as they would have to pay full face value on any unsold tickets.

Any thoughts?  

Utterly ridiculous to take a 1500 allocation for a London away game. Ludicrous decision making. And including 3 NW away games in the figures (two of which we took small allocations in as well) just makes it even more stupid.