NCFC Official Supporters Panel: fan issues to discuss

[Commonsense 621]

3 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?  

Ludicrous reasoning. One of those games was Burnley, which is never an attractive place to visit. 2 of the others were in the North, while Brentford was capped at this level and would have seen higher demand. Surely the only comparable game was Arsenal. I do occasionally worry about the thought process that goes into these decisions.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, Commonsense said:

Ludicrous reasoning. One of those games was Burnley, which is never an attractive place to visit. 2 of the others were in the North, while Brentford was capped at this level and would have seen higher demand. Surely the only comparable game was Arsenal. I do occasionally worry about the thought process that goes into these decisions.

Quite. When was the last London premier league game we didn’t sell out? I’m struggling to remember one. We would have taken 6,000 to Brentford given the opportunity but tickets were capped at 1700. They took reduced allocations at Man City and Everton as well although those fixtures aren’t comparable anyway. Those in groups 3 and above who couldn’t get tickets are right to be aggrieved. 

[Declan 24]

3 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Any thoughts?  

This has wound me up more than it should do, but there are literally thousands of people that were asked to sign up for Away Membership (at £25 a person) for, as the club states in their promotional bumph, 'access to away tickets' - assuming this went down to a handful of those in Group 3 that were able to secure a ticket (as I've seen mentioned) what sort of message does this give to those in Groups 4 and 5?!

There's also thousands more that are season ticket holders who may well have seen a trip to Chelsea as a chance for a day out, let alone those who aren't able to get to many games and were hoping to pick one up on general sale (the club even suggested they'd let it run through to that window in their original update on the tickets). It's the start of half-term that weekend!

If we were scrabbling around the lower reaches of the Football League and desperate for every penny this stance would perhaps be understandable, but to evade a maximum bill of £45,000 by returning half our allocation whilst in receipt of the Premier League millions is pathetic and a really, really poor decision by the football club in my opinion.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, Declan said:

This has wound me up more than it should do, but there are literally thousands of people that were asked to sign up for Away Membership (at £25 a person) for, as the club states in their promotional bumph, 'access to away tickets' - assuming this went down to a handful of those in Group 3 that were able to secure a ticket (as I've seen mentioned) what sort of message does this give to those in Groups 4 and 5?!

There's also thousands more that are season ticket holders who may well have seen a trip to Chelsea as a chance for a day out, let alone those who aren't able to get to many games and were hoping to pick one up on general sale (the club even suggested they'd let it run through to that window in their original update on the tickets). It's the start of half-term that weekend!

If we were scrabbling around the lower reaches of the Football League and desperate for every penny this stance would perhaps be understandable, but to evade a maximum bill of £45,000 by returning half our allocation whilst in receipt of the Premier League millions is pathetic and a really, really poor decision by the football club in my opinion.

We get £1m per TV game on sky anyway dont we although I doubt we will get on more than 10 times! 

[Well b back 3,203]

I am sure all of you at Chelsea will experience the same as we did at Man City, Everton and Burnley ( I appreciate slightly different to the first 2 ) ie the home fans taking the p*** at the lack of support we brought.

The explanation from Chelsea seems at odds with our statement.

[Mr Angry 1,555]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

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.

It depends on when they had to make the decision-the phrase "initial sales rates" seems to me that they didn't have to make it straight away, took into account how many Chelsea tickets had already been sold, and it is possible that the Brentford allocation had already sold out by the time they made the decision.

[Uncle Fred 526]

What a load of noise about nothing 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

49 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

It depends on when they had to make the decision-the phrase "initial sales rates" seems to me that they didn't have to make it straight away, took into account how many Chelsea tickets had already been sold, and it is possible that the Brentford allocation had already sold out by the time they made the decision.

We only get 1700 tickets at Brentford anyway so using that falsely deflates the numbers. 

[Mello Yello 2,289]

It's on BT so get down t'pub.....

[Commonsense 621]

1 hour ago, Uncle Fred said:

What a load of noise about nothing 

Or about fans wanting to go and support their team. I know you do that, so why do you claim it’s nothing?

[essex canary 496]

My son lives in the South East and having been both a home and away season ticket holdesr for many seasons in the past, we wanted to attend this game as a family. My wife and I are in Group 1, my son and his fiancee in Grioup 5. I own 1,000 shares in the Football Club. They turned down my proposal to attend as a foursome claiming that my proposal would not be fair to other Norwich fans. Having paid £100 for both him and his fiancee last time round he only got one game due to a significant degree to the covid impact on Londin games in addition to the impossible situation for the West Ham match where he spent working time trying in vain  to obtain a ticket. 

Another friend of mine prides himself on having attended all Norwich London based fixtures for the last 20 years. He sat in the home end for West Ham and hasn't got a ticket for Chelsea.

BRAINLESS. Why say that you are consulting fans then fail to do so and use stupid algorithms instead?

 

[hogesar 9,658]

20 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?  

I'm not sure there's anyone who doesn't think they've considered their decision based on the above but nonetheless it *appears* they've got it wrong as there is plenty who want to go who can't go, including some with memberships? If that's the case they've got it badly wrong and hopefully will be adjusted for any similar upcoming fixtures.

[Mr Angry 1,555]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

I'm not sure there's anyone who doesn't think they've considered their decision based on the above but nonetheless it *appears* they've got it wrong as there is plenty who want to go who can't go, including some with memberships? If that's the case they've got it badly wrong and hopefully will be adjusted for any similar upcoming fixtures.

I agree, it's like they haven't factored in the proximity of London to Norwich for a start!

[Commonsense 621]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I'm not sure there's anyone who doesn't think they've considered their decision based on the above but nonetheless it *appears* they've got it wrong as there is plenty who want to go who can't go, including some with memberships? If that's the case they've got it badly wrong and hopefully will be adjusted for any similar upcoming fixtures.

It's not just 'some' with memberships. It sold out within half an hour of going on sale to group 3, leaving the majority of group 3 and all of groups 4 and 5 without tickets. I would suggest this is a sizeable proportion of the membership. The reasons stated are farcical in context.

[Greavsy 2,413]

If only we had an official, club recognised fans forum they could consult with before making such decisions...................

Edited October 13, 2021 by Greavsy

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

If only we had an official, club recognised fans forum they could consult with before making such decisions...................

Quite. Should we be approaching the Supporters Panel, the Canaries Trust or Canaries in Argentina?

[Van wink 2,994]

Any news on improvements to the Ladies Toilets in the City stand?

[essex canary 496]

13 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Any news on improvements to the Ladies Toilets in the City stand?

As fans we should equally be told whether it is the Canaries Trust or Supporters Panel that holds the Health and Safety baton and that it will be a standard item on the quarterly Agenda of whichever is appropriate. It seems conspicuous by its absence on the latest set of Supporters Panel Notes.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

3 hours ago, Greavsy said:

If only we had an official, club recognised fans forum they could consult with before making such decisions...................

This kind of comes back to whether the panel is used proactively or in a reactive manner really doesn’t it. That said unless they are coming under heavy commercial pressure from above or are completely new and know nothing about our support im slightly at a loss as to how anyone in our ticket office would not have realised this was a wrong decision. It speaks volumes that the club did not mention they took a reduced allocation, we only found out because Chelsea broadcast it. 

[Greavsy 2,413]

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

This kind of comes back to whether the panel is used proactively or in a reactive manner really doesn’t it. That said unless they are coming under heavy commercial pressure from above or are completely new and know nothing about our support im slightly at a loss as to how anyone in our ticket office would not have realised this was a wrong decision. It speaks volumes that the club did not mention they took a reduced allocation, we only found out because Chelsea broadcast it. 

I think the minutes from the first meeting answers the first point quite clearly. 

I think the club sent an email to people who enquired, Ive seen that floating about. I dont know if that was before or after chelsea issued their statement. Either way, I agree its not rocket Science and the club should know the popular matches. 

[city4eva 209]

Yet another away membership **** up by the club…sell thousands of memberships at £25 a pop then leave many of those with no chance of securing a ticket 

[Davidlingfield 63]

Unfortunately, this type of poor ticketing decision is inevitable at a club which has no senior management or accountability on the non-football side of the club.

Sadly, this is just one example of poor judgement that will continue without anything being changed because of lack of focus on the relatively small decisions.

Mr and Mrs Webber trying to run the Club with no checks and balances in the form of an independent Chairman will spell long term disaster unless addressed. Once Ed Balls resigned, this was inevitable.

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

How many folk on here wanted a ticket but couldn’t get one?

There’s a fair amount of criticism across Twitter regarding this but I genuinely haven’t seen many people saying that they missed out as a result. 

[king canary 7,605]

19 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

How many folk on here wanted a ticket but couldn’t get one?

There’s a fair amount of criticism across Twitter regarding this but I genuinely haven’t seen many people saying that they missed out as a result. 

Because most people didn't get the chance. Tickets sold out by group 3, so anyone outside of that never really had the chance to miss out.

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

Because most people didn't get the chance. Tickets sold out by group 3, so anyone outside of that never really had the chance to miss out.

So they’ve missed out because of this decision then, no? 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Graham Paddons Beard

[king canary 7,605]

24 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

So they’ve missed out because of this decision then, no? 

Well the fact enough people felt the need to ask the club why and get an email response suggests some wanted tickets but couldn't get them, no?

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

Well the fact enough people felt the need to ask the club why and get an email response suggests some wanted tickets but couldn't get them, no?

“Enough” and “some”.

How many? If it’s 50, then the club will think it’s probably done the right thing. If 2,000 more people wanted to go and couldn’t then they’ll see what an error they’ve made. As I stated in my original post, I genuinely haven’t seen many people stating that they wanted to go but couldn’t as a result of the return of the tickets. I’ve seen lots of criticism including some from people categorically stating that they couldn’t or didn’t want to go.

I think it would be great for us to take as many as we can, but this is surely a numbers decision? I’m just trying to get a feel for that, admittedly from a relatively small pool. 

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, Davidlingfield said:

Unfortunately, this type of poor ticketing decision is inevitable at a club which has no senior management or accountability on the non-football side of the club.

Sadly, this is just one example of poor judgement that will continue without anything being changed because of lack of focus on the relatively small decisions.

Mr and Mrs Webber trying to run the Club with no checks and balances in the form of an independent Chairman will spell long term disaster unless addressed. Once Ed Balls resigned, this was inevitable.

100 per cent correct.

[king canary 7,605]

2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

“Enough” and “some”.

How many? If it’s 50, then the club will think it’s probably done the right thing. If 2,000 more people wanted to go and couldn’t then they’ll see what an error they’ve made. As I stated in my original post, I genuinely haven’t seen many people stating that they wanted to go but couldn’t as a result of the return of the tickets. I’ve seen lots of criticism including some from people categorically stating that they couldn’t or didn’t want to go.

I think it would be great for us to take as many as we can, but this is surely a numbers decision? I’m just trying to get a feel for that, admittedly from a relatively small pool. 

As you say its impossible to know but we sold out v Arsenal reportedly who generally give a 3000 ticket allocation to away fans, which suggests we'd have a solid chance of selling out this one. The club basing it on averages including completely incomparable games like Burnley away feels like faulty logic to me.

Personally I'm of the belief the club should be trying to get as many of our fans in as possible, especially seeing as we're charged £25 for the privileged of having a shot at getting a ticket. There is a financial risk sure but its minimal in the grand scheme of things.