NCFC Official Supporters Panel: fan issues to discuss

[essex canary 490]

22 hours ago, GMF said:

Under the current system you do have the choice to purchase tickets together, but only if you wait until the window opens for the lowest group member to purchase their ticket, always assuming, of course, that the Club’s allocation hasn’t actually already sold out!

It’s an inherent problem with the current system, friends and family members within different groups will often struggle to acquire tickets together, unless those in higher groups wait and take their chance, something that would have been easy to do for Man City, Everton and Burnley, but not Arsenal, Brentford or Chelsea.

Absolutely.

2 years ago when the fan consultation took place the Club explained their family oriented logic whilst the fans wanted a loyalty component. In saying that I don't believe we said the fans wanted to reject the family component. If the Club want to charge fans extensively as they are doing I am of the opinion that they must design a system that is sufficiently complex and robust to deliver both.  Alternatively don't charge and operate a simpler system. The more complex system ought to allow an average Group 3 application in the 2 Group 1, 2 Group 5 situation especially given what has happened with the Chelsea process.

Also the Club apologised unreservedly for the Rotherham debacle 2 and a half years ago. It would be good to see a similar apology now.

I am unclear whether the baton for this now lies with the Canaries Trust or the Supporters Panel? It would be good to see the relevant parties communicate and to have an urgent plan of action to resolve.

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Absolutely.

2 years ago when the fan consultation took place the Club explained their family oriented logic whilst the fans wanted a loyalty component. In saying that I don't believe we said the fans wanted to reject the family component. If the Club want to charge fans extensively as they are doing I am of the opinion that they must design a system that is sufficiently complex and robust to deliver both.  Alternatively don't charge and operate a simpler system. The more complex system ought to allow an average Group 3 application in the 2 Group 1, 2 Group 5 situation especially given what has happened with the Chelsea process.

Also the Club apologised unreservedly for the Rotherham debacle 2 and a half years ago. It would be good to see a similar apology now.

I am unclear whether the baton for this now lies with the Canaries Trust or the Supporters Panel? It would be good to see the relevant parties communicate and to have an urgent plan of action to resolve.

 

So, in summary and with mixed metaphors........ you want to have your cake and eat it, while back seat driving, and so do your ancestors. Cool.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

Looks like it could be another long day on this thread with @essex canarymaking an early start before breakfast on a Sunday morning.

As you keep banging on about these 1,000 shares you own which you seem to regard as a lever to obtain away tickets above us mere mortals who hold less this situation you find yourself in is of your lown making.

You were an associate director and as such held certain privileges one of which was the ability to ring the club and ask for x number of tickets for away games before they went on sale. I know for a fact that a certain number were creamed off and put to one side for guys like yourself and corporate sponsors. You resigned as an associate director and your ability to do this no longer was available to you so now you find yourself among a few thousand other fans in the mix to obtain tickets in a system you do not agree with. That system is not perfect i will be the first to agree but it is what it is.

Had you still been an associate director a phone call to the club would have given you 4 tickets for Chelsea no problem and a family day out and please don't insult me and tell me i am wrong. That fact leads me to believe you would not even have posted on here but no doubt you would be looking for another avenue to have a pop at the club with and yet another poor so and so at Carrow Road to be the recipient of your somewshat famous e-mails you like to send them.

Edited October 17, 2021 by TIL 1010

[Commonsense 614]

7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Looks like it could be another long day on this thread with @essex canarymaking an early start before breakfast on a Sunday morning.

As you keep banging on about these 1,000 shares you own which you seem to regard as a lever to obtain away tickets above us mere mortals who hold less this situation you find yourself in is of your lown making.

You were an associate director and as such held certain privileges one of which was the ability to ring the club and ask for x number of tickets for away games before they went on sale. I know for a fact that a certain number were creamed off and put to one side for guys like yourself and corporate sponsors. You resigned as an associate director and your ability to do this no longer was available to you so now you find yourself among a few thousand other fans in the mix to obtain tickets in a system you do not agree with. That system is not perfect i will be the first to agree but it is what it is.

Had you still been an associate director a phone call to the club would have given you 4 tickets for Chelsea no problem and a family day out and please don't insult me and tell me i am wrong. That fact leads me to believe you would not even have posted on here but no doubt you would be looking for another avenue to have a pop at the club with and yet another poor so and so at Carrow Road to be the recipient of your somewshat famous e-mails you like to send them.

The system itself is very clear and easy to understand. It is not dissimilar to that run by many other clubs. The problem on this occasion was the ticket office’s failure to take the correct number of tickets for a London game, so nobody in lower categories could buy.

I agree with you that the ceaseless, boring rants from essexcanary are become tiresome and increasingly ridiculous. Obviously if people are in different groups and wish to sit together they will have to wait until the lower group is on sale. So much of his incessant drivel is to suit one person only!!!

[GMF 735]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

I am unclear whether the baton for this now lies with the Canaries Trust or the Supporters Panel? It would be good to see the relevant parties communicate and to have an urgent plan of action to resolve.

I’m also unclear as to why you seem to have an obsession trying to make a distinction between the two groups?

As far as I’m concerned the Club decided to extend the opportunity for fans to have further engagement with them through the introduction of the new OSP. That’s something to be welcomed as far as both I and others on the committee are concerned.

To answer your fundamental issue relating to Chelsea tickets, the only way for you to guarantee obtaining tickets with family, or friends, for the same game, who’re in different groups is by using the match pick option. If you didn’t use the Chelsea game as your match pick then you have to wait until the lower group goes on sale.

Edited October 17, 2021 by GMF
Extra wording

[essex canary 490]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

I’m also unclear as to why you seem to have an obsession trying to make a distinction between the two groups?

As far as I’m concerned the Club decided to extend the opportunity for fans to have further engagement with them through the introduction of the new OSP. That’s something to be welcomed as far as both I and others on the committee are concerned.

To answer your fundamental issue relating to Chelsea tickets, the only way for you to guarantee obtaining tickets with family, or friends, for the same game, who’re in different groups is by using the match pick option. If you didn’t use the Chelsea game as your match pick then you have to wait until the lower group goes on sale.

If fans had known in advance that the Club were going to curtail the Chelsea match at 1,500 tickets, many more of them may have opted for that game as there match pick but it I impossible to act upon what is not known and completely unexpected.

[essex canary 490]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Looks like it could be another long day on this thread with @essex canarymaking an early start before breakfast on a Sunday morning.

As you keep banging on about these 1,000 shares you own which you seem to regard as a lever to obtain away tickets above us mere mortals who hold less this situation you find yourself in is of your lown making.

You were an associate director and as such held certain privileges one of which was the ability to ring the club and ask for x number of tickets for away games before they went on sale. I know for a fact that a certain number were creamed off and put to one side for guys like yourself and corporate sponsors. You resigned as an associate director and your ability to do this no longer was available to you so now you find yourself among a few thousand other fans in the mix to obtain tickets in a system you do not agree with. That system is not perfect i will be the first to agree but it is what it is.

Had you still been an associate director a phone call to the club would have given you 4 tickets for Chelsea no problem and a family day out and please don't insult me and tell me i am wrong. That fact leads me to believe you would not even have posted on here but no doubt you would be looking for another avenue to have a pop at the club with and yet another poor so and so at Carrow Road to be the recipient of your somewshat famous e-mails you like to send them.

The Club's position is that I am still an Associate Director of the Club though not a member of the Associate Directors Group which they claim is a separate organisation though based on your explanation they appear to be willing to extend favours to that Group which they are not prepared to extend to other owners of 1,000 shares including inheritor owners of same who are still members of the Associate Directors Group. Not sure how they manage to square that with their avowed principles of equities and equalities but hey hey. 

Not that any of that has anything to do with the general principle of away tickets though there are similarities in the context of tautologous logic and lack of transparent fair treatment of the fan that certainly goes beyond myself.

The only reason I got into this mess in the first place was trying to support a young fan suffering a sudden bereavement

 

 

 

[GMF 735]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

If fans had known in advance that the Club were going to curtail the Chelsea match at 1,500 tickets, many more of them may have opted for that game as there match pick but it I impossible to act upon what is not known and completely unexpected.

To be fair to the Club here, you’re asking for insight into something that was simply impossible to give at the time.

For context, match picks have to be made following the release of the fixtures and I honestly can’t remember if Sky had released the first round of televised fixtures by this stage. However, even if they had, the scheduling would not have extended as far as Game week 9, the Chelsea game.

The Club also doesn’t have any control over how other clubs group block tickets for away fans, which is also influenced to a degree by the safety certificate in place and the risk category placed upon the game by the relevant safety group.

My understanding, from previous discussions with the Club, is that NCFC actually offers up 4 different block packages to visitors to Carrow Road. Chelsea, on the other hand offered us just two for this particular game. The Club obviously chose the smaller package and the demand resulted in a sell out of the away allocation during group 3 sale window. Understandably, that’s left many fans disappointed.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

I know this will be ignored, but could I suggest that from now on this thread is limited to general questions that affect at least a reasonable number of fans, or specific issues posters have come across that equally affect a reasonable number of fans.

Amusing as some of the above exchanges they are too particular and personal to be of any wider relevance; and I doubt Wolfie et al find it fun to wade through them to get to posts they really need to see.

Edited October 17, 2021 by PurpleCanary

[TIL 1010 4,717]

17 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I know this will be ignored, but could I suggest that from now on this thread is limited to general questions that affect at least a reasonable number of fans, or specific issues posters have come across that equally affect a reasonable number of fans.

Amusing as some of the above exchanges they are too particular and personal to be of any wider relevance; and I doubt Wolfie et all find it fun to wade through them to get to posts they really need to see.

Maybe Peter The Deleter could add another sub forum to run alongside Non Football called Essex Canary.

[essex canary 490]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

To be fair to the Club here, you’re asking for insight into something that was simply impossible to give at the time.

For context, match picks have to be made following the release of the fixtures and I honestly can’t remember if Sky had released the first round of televised fixtures by this stage. However, even if they had, the scheduling would not have extended as far as Game week 9, the Chelsea game.

The Club also doesn’t have any control over how other clubs group block tickets for away fans, which is also influenced to a degree by the safety certificate in place and the risk category placed upon the game by the relevant safety group.

My understanding, from previous discussions with the Club, is that NCFC actually offers up 4 different block packages to visitors to Carrow Road. Chelsea, on the other hand offered us just two for this particular game. The Club obviously chose the smaller package and the demand resulted in a sell out of the away allocation during group 3 sale window. Understandably, that’s left many fans disappointed.

Thanks. That is a little more insight. I still reasonably believe most fans believe the Club would have been able to obtain fan attendance close to 3,000 anyway based on attendance at London games and that lunchtime kick off would not impact that very much so still seems insensitive in the overall scheme of things.

[Commonsense 614]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Thanks. That is a little more insight. I still reasonably believe most fans believe the Club would have been able to obtain fan attendance close to 3,000 anyway based on attendance at London games and that lunchtime kick off would not impact that very much so still seems insensitive in the overall scheme of things.

Absolutely agree with this.

[essex canary 490]

4 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

 

 

Had you still been an associate director a phone call to the club would have given you 4 tickets for Chelsea no problem and a family day out and please don't insult me and tell me i am wrong. 

Perhaps the Independent Football Ombudsman could tell you that you are wrong. His report 20/10 paragraph 14 states:

"The IFO queried why it was necessary for AD'S to purchase away memberships when they appeared to have been given entitlement to away tickets. The Club acknowledged that there had been an informal agreement...which the Club did as a goodwill gesture...which they have now discontinued.'

Is the IFO insulting you or is the Club being economical with the truth?

Either way I am sure an honourable person like yourself would like to take up whichever challenge is relevant and keep me informed of the outcome plus any other supporters who are generally interested in the value of the Ombudsman process?

[TIL 1010 4,717]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps the Independent Football Ombudsman could tell you that you are wrong. His report 20/10 paragraph 14 states:

"The IFO queried why it was necessary for AD'S to purchase away memberships when they appeared to have been given entitlement to away tickets. The Club acknowledged that there had been an informal agreement...which the Club did as a goodwill gesture...which they have now discontinued.'

Is the IFO insulting you or is the Club being economical with the truth?

Either way I am sure an honourable person like yourself would like to take up whichever challenge is relevant and keep me informed of the outcome plus any other supporters who are generally interested in the value of the Ombudsman process?

Totally missed my point but i really cannot be bothered with you anymore despite advice from numerous people warning me that engagement with you would result in what we can see on this thread. Believe me when i say it was not only Norwich City fans either.

Edited October 17, 2021 by TIL 1010

[essex canary 490]

9 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Totally missed my point but i really cannot be bothered with you anymore despite advice from numerous people warning me that engagement with you would result in what we can see on this thread. Believe me when i say it was not only Norwich City fans either.

The man who always demands answers from other people many times over but when the boot is on the foot declines. 

[TIL 1010 4,717]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The man who always demands answers from other people many times over but when the boot is on the foot declines. 

Take note of my last sentence and join the dots.

[essex canary 490]

13 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Take note of my last sentence and join the dots.

I am far from clear who you are exactly let alone any fans of other Clubs who have any knowledge of both of us.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I am far from clear who you are exactly let alone any fans of other Clubs who have any knowledge of both of us.

Worded badly so try not only Noriwch City fans but people connected to the club in some capacity.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I know this will be ignored, but could I suggest that from now on this thread is limited to general questions that affect at least a reasonable number of fans, or specific issues posters have come across that equally affect a reasonable number of fans.

Amusing as some of the above exchanges they are too particular and personal to be of any wider relevance; and I doubt Wolfie et al find it fun to wade through them to get to posts they really need to see.

Well, this is going well...🤩

[essex canary 490]

6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Worded badly so try not only Noriwch City fans but people connected to the club in some capacity.

OK. I am sure we are boring the pants off many other fans so let's get back to the main topic.

The Club thinks it is a good idea to save up to £45,000 by denying a portion of its fans the right to go to Chelsea. In reality we know the savings would be radically less than £45,000. Suppose, and of course we will never know, that say 750 or so extra Norwich fans is the difference between the Club drawing and losing the match and that at the end of the season 1 point is the difference between survival in the Premier League and relegation and £50,000,000 plus less income for future seasons.

What do all these clever people you know at the Club think of that?

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

It's my understanding that the ticket office got many returns due to fans not realising the game was in TV. 

Didn't they then offer these to complainants some of who then refused them?

[A Load of Squit 5,112]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

OK. I am sure we are boring the pants off many other fans so let's get back to the main topic.

The Club thinks it is a good idea to save up to £45,000 by denying a portion of its fans the right to go to Chelsea. In reality we know the savings would be radically less than £45,000. Suppose, and of course we will never know, that say 750 or so extra Norwich fans is the difference between the Club drawing and losing the match and that at the end of the season 1 point is the difference between survival in the Premier League and relegation and £50,000,000 plus less income for future seasons.

What do all these clever people you know at the Club think of that?

 

My guess is that they would think "That's a lovely hypothesis but we have to operate in the real world".

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

31 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's my understanding that the ticket office got many returns due to fans not realising the game was in TV. 

Didn't they then offer these to complainants some of who then refused them?

But not how they  wanted them,  in groups, heated seats, bit of acknowledgment of how important they are, you know the kinda thing people can get used to.

Oh, and an apology. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Ethics.....

 of course we will never know, that say 750 or so extra Norwich fans is the difference between the Club drawing and losing the match and that at the end of the season 1 point is the difference between survival in the Premier League and relegation and £50,000,000 plus less income for future seasons.

What do all these clever people you know at the Club think of that?

 

The most realistic  bit of that is when you say  ' of course we will never know.'     ....... then try to make a point using something ' we will never know..... genius !!! you should  be given  as many season tickets  as you like for as long as you, and your  descendants deign to grace CR with your presence. 

Are you sure you're just not a bit piqued cos you'd  given it Billy big bollix " ill take care of the tickets".....and couldn't?👍😉😇

Edited October 17, 2021 by wcorkcanary

[essex canary 490]

3 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

My guess is that they would think "That's a lovely hypothesis but we have to operate in the real world".

 

If you were a professional gambler perhaps the real world would be that it is worth £45,000 at the odds of over 1,000 to 1 just to have 1,500 less Chelsea fans in the ground regardless of the Norwich fans.

Of course the Football Club doesn't want to gamble what it can't afford but equally bearing in mind its sponsorship record it is not ethically opposed to gambling per se and a modest gamble makes perfect sense in this circumstance.. It is called the balance of risk and reward which the Club has previously demonstrated it doesn't understand by it's treatment of shareholders relative to bondholders.

This is part of the Clubs whole DNA of excess conservatism and ad-hoc rather than planned decision making worthy of the top level. Another manifestation is "takes time to gel' as opposed to "hit the ground running". Sometimes the former is necessary but why not plan to achieve the latter?

Wreckless spending is foolish but a little bit of 'he who dares wins" aligned to fairness to fans wouldn't go amiss.

[A Load of Squit 5,112]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If you were a professional gambler perhaps the real world would be that it is worth £45,000 at the odds of over 1,000 to 1 just to have 1,500 less Chelsea fans in the ground regardless of the Norwich fans.

Of course the Football Club doesn't want to gamble what it can't afford but equally bearing in mind its sponsorship record it is not ethically opposed to gambling per se and a modest gamble makes perfect sense in this circumstance.. It is called the balance of risk and reward which the Club has previously demonstrated it doesn't understand by it's treatment of shareholders relative to bondholders.

This is part of the Clubs whole DNA of excess conservatism and ad-hoc rather than planned decision making worthy of the top level. Another manifestation is "takes time to gel' as opposed to "hit the ground running". Sometimes the former is necessary but why not plan to achieve the latter?

Wreckless spending is foolish but a little bit of 'he who dares wins" aligned to fairness to fans wouldn't go amiss.

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about, you talk the biggest load of b0ll0x.

I really feel sorry for the poor person at the club who has to answer this nonsense.

[essex canary 490]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about, you talk the biggest load of b0ll0x.

I really feel sorry for the poor person at the club who has to answer this nonsense.

I suspect Ed Balls knows what I am talking about. That is why he recommended the Chief Operating Officer role as a counter weight to footballing personalities being in complete control of  business decisions. Remember every time they make a football signing it is a huge gamble that is much much  greater than £45,000. We had this football personality dominance with David McNally, now we have gone back to it with the Webbers. A bad idea. Ed's decision was the right one and Daniel Farke looks to the fans as his 12th man. He knows what I am talking about too.

 

 

 

[Greavsy 2,412]

36 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I suspect Ed Balls knows what I am talking about. That is why he recommended the Chief Operating Officer role as a counter weight to footballing personalities being in complete control of  business decisions. Remember every time they make a football signing it is a huge gamble that is much much  greater than £45,000. We had this football personality dominance with David McNally, now we have gone back to it with the Webbers. A bad idea. Ed's decision was the right one and Daniel Farke looks to the fans as his 12th man. He knows what I am talking about too.

 

 

 

Does Ed Balls read this forum ?

[essex canary 490]

7 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

It's my understanding that the ticket office got many returns due to fans not realising the game was in TV. 

Didn't they then offer these to complainants some of who then refused them?

Well not me Nige and I did realise the game was on TV. That said given the passage of time I have made other arrangements now but would still like the general principle of London matches solved.

The other interesting thing to know was having registered 8,000 away members 2 seasons ago, how many signed up this season. The Club doesn't seem to be particularly keen to disclose. I wonder why?

[essex canary 490]

5 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Does Ed Balls read this forum ?

Don't know but it would be great if he would apply his knowledge of the principles of economics and calculated gambles to the debate.

Despite the fact that you seem to want to needle me at every opportunity, well done on your questions of yesterday to which you also deserve answers.