Wellwickman We should give the cherries as many tickets as possible especially in view of our inability to fill 30% of the ground for most of the season. They deserve their day in the sun. We gave them 3 of their best players so they should let us beat them.
Wellwickman We should give the cherries as many tickets as possible especially in view of our inability to fill 30% of the ground for most of the season. They deserve their day in the sun. We gave them 3 of their best players so they should let us beat them.
To be fair we gave them 1 of our best players and 2 "rejects"
Useless stat going against Bournemouth here but I can only think of one opposition team that have lifted a League trophy when they play Charlton that xay
That side being Chelsea when Mourinho won his first Premier League title when they got the penalty that was outside the box.
Unless anyone can think of it happening on any other occasion?
We'd be very happy at extra seat allocation if we were likely to secure promotion away from home.
Do unto others....
Enjoy a different view for one game rather than having a tantrum because you can't sit in your favourite seat.
No thanks don't expect any home fans to be moved within their own ground to accommodate me
"No, I'd rather not see us go up, thanks, but I hope the home fan enjoys his familiar view while he sees if they end up 11th or 12th. I would have loved to go, but alas, I'd hate him to be mildly inconvenienced."
Don't be daft, let them have their day. Yes, in our ground, in your seat. Hopefully someone does the same for us next year!
I thought I was supporting charlton not Bournemouth I prefer not to give up my seat when I have two adults with disabilities who have been split up. I very much doubt any other club will allow their supporters to be moved for my benefit and to be honest I wouldn't want them too. I'm not stopping them having their day as you state just prefer not to be inconvenienced there are plenty of empty seats available. Also I was stupid enough to think that when I purchased my season ticket pre season and was told I would loose my regular seat if I didn't purchase within the timescales set, that my club would value my loyalty The terms and conditions meant that I purchased in advance the seat, we have paid and kept our side of the bargin however our wonderful board haven't kept theirs. They may be making extra revenue but they may loose their own supporters next season making it a lost cause. So yes let them have their day but not at my expense.
We'd be very happy at extra seat allocation if we were likely to secure promotion away from home.
Do unto others....
Enjoy a different view for one game rather than having a tantrum because you can't sit in your favourite seat.
We would be happy but other clubs would not be under any obligation to give us any more seats.
Maybe other CEOs would say that they would not move their season tickets holders, i.e those whose have shown loyalty and long term commitment to the club just to earn some more money.
in fairness to our management , I don't think they've done it for the money (weren't we told money isn't an issue anymore , hence no new 5 year season ticket deals) They've done it a s a nice gesture for the Bournmeouth fans and I for one say FairPlay to that But the way they have gonna about things is a bit amateurish in not pre empting this situation and softening the blow for the moved season ticket holders And the continued naivety shown by the decision makers or those implementing the decisions isn't gonna improve the feeling of some towards them , they have offers of help but continue the my way or the highway approach ....
Wellwickman We should give the cherries as many tickets as possible especially in view of our inability to fill 30% of the ground for most of the season. They deserve their day in the sun. We gave them 3 of their best players so they should let us beat them.
To be fair we gavesold them 1 of our best players and 2 "rejects"
Now, if I had a magic button which would sink and delete forever a Charlton Life thread, would I go for:
a) this never-ending whingeing reaction by some to what I think is a fantastic gesture in the true traditions of our great club
or
b) the general election thread with it's snidey, mean, crowing, infantile bickering from people whose posts I nearly always enjoy on other threads
A tough one. Decisions, decisions.....................
For me it is a) which i keep returning to like a moth round a light bulb, b) I have managed to keep the self control not to open the thread and get upset by the views of some posters, which tends to happen every time there is a political thread.
I fully understand how @cafcnutter feels about being moved when he/she has people with special needs. Where you sit can in some cases, make the difference between being able to go to the match and not being able to go. If the club has been unsympathetic to their needs by not giving them 4 seats together, then I am very surprised, as in my experience they are usually very accommodating if you have special requirements.
We take my 87 year old dad to every home match and if he were unable to have the seat he currently uses, he would not be able to go. Where we sit he has only one step and even that is sometimes problematic for him. If he had to sit anywhere else he would not be able to manage it.
Paragraph 14 in the Terms and Conditions at the back of season ticket book state the club can move season ticket holders due to a club decision and will make reasonable efforts to relocate them. What efforts are reasonable is subjective but I guess that by purchasing your season ticket you agree to these terms and conditions.
Perhaps Bournemouth now they are awash with Premiership dosh could repay the creditors that lost out when they went insolvent but still managed to carry on - on the other hand they could descend to the moral level of Palace and Southampton.
The FA really should change its rules in this regard.
Paragraph 14 in the Terms and Conditions at the back of season ticket book state the club can move season ticket holders due to a club decision and will make reasonable efforts to relocate them. What efforts are reasonable is subjective but I guess that by purchasing your season ticket you agree to these terms and conditions.
I thought we'd done Clause 14 to death but apparently not, so I'll attempt to spell it out more clearly (with help from the OFT's guidance on dealing with consumers fairly). I have emphasised various important bits.
First, a business that supplies services to consumers accepts certain contractual obligations as a matter of law. In particular, consumers can normally expect services to be carried out to a reasonable standard. That applies not just to the main tasks the supplier agrees to perform, but to everything that is done, or should be done, as part of the transaction. A term which could – whether or not that is the intention – serve to relieve a supplier of services of the obligation to take reasonable care in any of its dealings with consumers is particularly liable to be considered unfair.
Second, if a contract is to be fully and equally binding on both seller and buyer, each party should be entitled to full compensation where the other fails to honour its obligations. Clauses which limit liability are open to the same objections as those which exclude it altogether.
Third, A term which could allow the supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the contract or any important obligation under it, at his discretion and without liability, has clear potential to upset the balance of the contract to the consumer's disadvantage. This applies not only to terms which allow the supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the bargain altogether, but also to those which permit him to suspend provision of any significant benefit under the contract. But the potential effect, as well as the intention behind, contract terms has to be considered. If an exclusion clause goes further than is strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose it could be open to abuse, and is liable to be seen as unbalancing the contract. But such a term is more likely to be considered fair if: (a) it is narrowed in effect, so that it cannot be used to distort the balance of the contract to the disadvantage of the consumer; (b) it is qualified in such a way – for example, by specifying exactly the circumstances in which it can be used – that consumers will know when and how they are likely to be affected. Clause 14 clearly fails in this regard because it is so widely drafted and open to interpretation. Fourth, terms are always likely to be considered unfair if they exclude the consumer's rights under contract law to the advantage of the supplier. A basic right of this kind is to receive a refund of prepayments made under a contract which does not go ahead, or which ends before any significant benefit is enjoyed. In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end. But a term under which they always lose everything they have paid in advance, regardless of the amount of any costs and losses caused by the cancellation, is at clear risk of being considered an unfair penalty. (So, there goes clause 21 of the T&Cs too.)
Finally, terms which have the effect of making consumers agree to accept obligations of which they can have no knowledge at the time of contracting are open to serious objection. It is a fundamental requirement of contractual fairness that consumers should always have an opportunity to read and understand terms before becoming bound by them. This is clearly not the case as the relevant T&Cs are never available when you contract to buy a season ticket. (They still aren't for next season for example.)
So, it seems to me that however well-meaning, in certain circumstances the club will be breaching consumer legislation. I'd guess that the circumstances affecting @cafcnutter in particular go far beyond what the OFT would consider a reasonable set of circumstances that the consumer should just not worry about.
In short, citing the T&Cs as some form of get out from the club's contractual obligations is bound to fail.
Perhaps Bournemouth now they are awash with Premiership dosh could repay the creditors that lost out when they went insolvent but still managed to carry on - on the other hand they could descend to the moral level of Palace and Southampton.
The FA really should change its rules in this regard.
In all comments like this, the first club mentioned should be Portsmouth...
Perhaps Bournemouth now they are awash with Premiership dosh could repay the creditors that lost out when they went insolvent but still managed to carry on - on the other hand they could descend to the moral level of Palace and Southampton.
The FA really should change its rules in this regard.
Paragraph 14 in the Terms and Conditions at the back of season ticket book state the club can move season ticket holders due to a club decision and will make reasonable efforts to relocate them. What efforts are reasonable is subjective but I guess that by purchasing your season ticket you agree to these terms and conditions.
I thought we'd done Clause 14 to death but apparently not, so I'll attempt to spell it out more clearly (with help from the OFT's guidance on dealing with consumers fairly). I have emphasised various important bits.
First, a business that supplies services to consumers accepts certain contractual obligations as a matter of law. In particular, consumers can normally expect services to be carried out to a reasonable standard. That applies not just to the main tasks the supplier agrees to perform, but to everything that is done, or should be done, as part of the transaction. A term which could – whether or not that is the intention – serve to relieve a supplier of services of the obligation to take reasonable care in any of its dealings with consumers is particularly liable to be considered unfair.
Second, if a contract is to be fully and equally binding on both seller and buyer, each party should be entitled to full compensation where the other fails to honour its obligations. Clauses which limit liability are open to the same objections as those which exclude it altogether.
Third, A term which could allow the supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the contract or any important obligation under it, at his discretion and without liability, has clear potential to upset the balance of the contract to the consumer's disadvantage. This applies not only to terms which allow the supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the bargain altogether, but also to those which permit him to suspend provision of any significant benefit under the contract. But the potential effect, as well as the intention behind, contract terms has to be considered. If an exclusion clause goes further than is strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose it could be open to abuse, and is liable to be seen as unbalancing the contract. But such a term is more likely to be considered fair if: (a) it is narrowed in effect, so that it cannot be used to distort the balance of the contract to the disadvantage of the consumer; (b) it is qualified in such a way – for example, by specifying exactly the circumstances in which it can be used – that consumers will know when and how they are likely to be affected. Clause 14 clearly fails in this regard because it is so widely drafted and open to interpretation. Fourth, terms are always likely to be considered unfair if they exclude the consumer's rights under contract law to the advantage of the supplier. A basic right of this kind is to receive a refund of prepayments made under a contract which does not go ahead, or which ends before any significant benefit is enjoyed. In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end. But a term under which they always lose everything they have paid in advance, regardless of the amount of any costs and losses caused by the cancellation, is at clear risk of being considered an unfair penalty. (So, there goes clause 21 of the T&Cs too.)
Finally, terms which have the effect of making consumers agree to accept obligations of which they can have no knowledge at the time of contracting are open to serious objection. It is a fundamental requirement of contractual fairness that consumers should always have an opportunity to read and understand terms before becoming bound by them. This is clearly not the case as the relevant T&Cs are never available when you contract to buy a season ticket. (They still aren't for next season for example.)
So, it seems to me that however well-meaning, in certain circumstances the club will be breaching consumer legislation. I'd guess that the circumstances affecting @cafcnutter in particular go far beyond what the OFT would consider a reasonable set of circumstances that the consumer should just not worry about.
In short, citing the T&Cs as some form of get out from the club's contractual obligations is bound to fail.
Maybe someone displaced should raise this with trading standards and test it.
Comments
We should give the cherries as many tickets as possible especially in view of our inability to fill 30% of the ground for most of the season.
They deserve their day in the sun. We gave them 3 of their best players so they should let us beat them.
cherries should still be a tad hungover so should be their for the taking if our lads returned Lily's and pedaloes.
That side being Chelsea when Mourinho won his first Premier League title when they got the penalty that was outside the box.
Unless anyone can think of it happening on any other occasion?
You're going round in circles here, as you know Bournemouth did move their supporters for our benefit 3 years ago.
I assume you don't know that because you weren't affected by the move.
Maybe other CEOs would say that they would not move their season tickets holders, i.e those whose have shown loyalty and long term commitment to the club just to earn some more money.
Or maybe some would, i.e our CEO.
They've done it a s a nice gesture for the Bournmeouth fans and I for one say FairPlay to that
But the way they have gonna about things is a bit amateurish in not pre empting this situation and softening the blow for the moved season ticket holders
And the continued naivety shown by the decision makers or those implementing the decisions isn't gonna improve the feeling of some towards them , they have offers of help but continue the my way or the highway approach ....
a) this never-ending whingeing reaction by some to what I think is a fantastic gesture in the true traditions of our great club
or
b) the general election thread with it's snidey, mean, crowing, infantile bickering from people whose posts I nearly always enjoy on other threads
A tough one. Decisions, decisions.....................
We take my 87 year old dad to every home match and if he were unable to have the seat he currently uses, he would not be able to go. Where we sit he has only one step and even that is sometimes problematic for him. If he had to sit anywhere else he would not be able to manage it.
What efforts are reasonable is subjective but I guess that by purchasing your season ticket you agree to these terms and conditions.
The FA really should change its rules in this regard.
First, a business that supplies services to consumers accepts certain contractual obligations as a matter of law. In particular, consumers can normally expect services to be carried out to a reasonable standard. That applies not just to the main tasks the supplier agrees to perform, but to everything that is done, or should be done, as part of the transaction. A term which could – whether or not that is the intention – serve to relieve a supplier of services of the obligation to take reasonable care in any of its dealings with consumers is particularly liable to be considered unfair.
Second, if a contract is to be fully and equally binding on both seller and buyer, each party should be entitled to full compensation where the other fails to honour its obligations. Clauses which limit liability are open to the same objections as those which exclude it altogether.
Third, A term which could allow the supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the contract or any important obligation under it, at his discretion and without liability, has clear potential to upset the balance of the contract to the consumer's disadvantage. This applies not only to terms which allow the supplier to refuse to carry out his side of the bargain altogether, but also to those which permit him to suspend provision of any significant benefit under the contract. But the potential effect, as well as the intention behind, contract terms has to be considered. If an exclusion clause goes further than is strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose it could be open to abuse, and is liable to be seen as unbalancing the contract. But such a term is more likely to be considered fair if: (a) it is narrowed in effect, so that it cannot be used to distort the balance of the contract to the disadvantage of the consumer; (b) it is qualified in such a way – for example, by specifying exactly the circumstances in which it can be used – that consumers will know when and how they are likely to be affected. Clause 14 clearly fails in this regard because it is so widely drafted and open to interpretation.
Fourth, terms are always likely to be considered unfair if they exclude the consumer's rights under contract law to the advantage of the supplier. A basic right of this kind is to receive a refund of prepayments made under a contract which does not go ahead, or which ends before any significant benefit is enjoyed. In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end. But a term under which they always lose everything they have paid in advance, regardless of the amount of any costs and losses caused by the cancellation, is at clear risk of being considered an unfair penalty. (So, there goes clause 21 of the T&Cs too.)
Finally, terms which have the effect of making consumers agree to accept obligations of which they can have no knowledge at the time of contracting are open to serious objection. It is a fundamental requirement of contractual fairness that consumers should always have an opportunity to read and understand terms before becoming bound by them. This is clearly not the case as the relevant T&Cs are never available when you contract to buy a season ticket. (They still aren't for next season for example.)
So, it seems to me that however well-meaning, in certain circumstances the club will be breaching consumer legislation. I'd guess that the circumstances affecting @cafcnutter in particular go far beyond what the OFT would consider a reasonable set of circumstances that the consumer should just not worry about.
In short, citing the T&Cs as some form of get out from the club's contractual obligations is bound to fail.
Lets hope the club do something similar for the East, North or Lower West and see the reaction.