I'm not going Saturday, I've sent my ticket and bribe vouchers back to our CEO with a covering letter.
How have you sent the vouchers back if they weren't posted out?
They sent a voucher which you present to North Stand reception to get your food vouchers.
I assume you don't know that because you weren't affected by the move.
As I said at the very begining the club could have communicated this alot better. I don't disagree whith what they have done but do sympathise with @iaitch and @cafcnutter.
What i can't get my head round is this post from @iaitch and why the vouchers could not be sent to the recipients instead of a voucher to get a voucher, hopeful;ly i am not the only one that thinks this is daft.
Its mentioned earlier in the thread, also someone suggests its to stop us copying/duplicating vouchers if we got them before Saturday. Not sure if they were joking or not.
Think people will get there, big queue moving slowly, people say sod it lets not bother.
Also not sure if you can only use the vouchers in the West stand or also at the outside catering. I don't eat or drink at the ground but judging by the catering thread I don't think I'm missing much in terms of quality of the food or the service.
It's pleasant, I think, that so many people want to be so charitable to Bournemouth fans.
I'm looking at it in a slightly different way: as a consumer rather than a fan. Mainly because I believe that's the way the club sees me
If a Ford dealer had sold me a Kuga but then actually delivered me a, say, Ka, with free floor mats to make up for the difference, I would not be too happy about it, especially if they went on to tell me that, although the Kuga had been on order for nearly a year, at the last minute, a very nice gentleman from the South Coast had offered them more money for it and they sold it to him instead. I would then explain in words of more than one syllable why it was unacceptable and in breach of (quite a few different bits of) consumer legislation.
In this instance I have a contract with a company called Charlton Athletic Football Club Ltd. I fulfilled my part of the contract by paying in advance for a seat at 23 games close to the half way line in the Upper Tier of a stand in order to get just about the best possible view.
If CAFC Ltd are now reneging on that contract, they will have to pay me recompense in terms of some actual money, not a fecking food voucher. I will I hope (I've more research to do) be citing either the Sales Of Goods Act or the Supply of Goods And Services Act together with the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations whenever they can be arsed to call me. We'll see what happens but the CPFUTR seem quite promising in that they appear to indicate that I'll be able to claim additional costs and I'll be able to point out that what they've done may very well be criminal in nature.
Pass on this to me as I would like to challenge this too.
I don't see why "bait and switch" shouldn't apply. But then IANAL!
I've now gone back to ask what specific T&C covers this.
Why?
The Club aren't going to change their mind and tell Bournemouth that they can't now have these extra tickets.
You're not happy. We get it. The Club now gets it. Most of the people it has effected aren't happy, but they've accepted the alternative and inderstand why it's being done.
For the sake of your blood pressure, build a bridge and get over it.
No and it's not affecting my blood pressure either I will take as far as I can thanks for your sarcastic comments though
Addickted was responding to iaitch, not you.
Did you contact the disability team today ?
Yes waiting for someone to call back. Ps I know who he was responding to but as it affects me too I responded
I have now been given tickets 2 and 2 separated by an aisle which is better however having sorted this out we get another call from the ticket office asking if two of the tickets can be moved 10 rows back I'll leave you to guess what we answered.
It's pleasant, I think, that so many people want to be so charitable to Bournemouth fans.
I'm looking at it in a slightly different way: as a consumer rather than a fan. Mainly because I believe that's the way the club sees me
If a Ford dealer had sold me a Kuga but then actually delivered me a, say, Ka, with free floor mats to make up for the difference, I would not be too happy about it, especially if they went on to tell me that, although the Kuga had been on order for nearly a year, at the last minute, a very nice gentleman from the South Coast had offered them more money for it and they sold it to him instead. I would then explain in words of more than one syllable why it was unacceptable and in breach of (quite a few different bits of) consumer legislation.
In this instance I have a contract with a company called Charlton Athletic Football Club Ltd. I fulfilled my part of the contract by paying in advance for a seat at 23 games close to the half way line in the Upper Tier of a stand in order to get just about the best possible view.
If CAFC Ltd are now reneging on that contract, they will have to pay me recompense in terms of some actual money, not a fecking food voucher. I will I hope (I've more research to do) be citing either the Sales Of Goods Act or the Supply of Goods And Services Act together with the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations whenever they can be arsed to call me. We'll see what happens but the CPFUTR seem quite promising in that they appear to indicate that I'll be able to claim additional costs and I'll be able to point out that what they've done may very well be criminal in nature.
Pass on this to me as I would like to challenge this too.
I don't see why "bait and switch" shouldn't apply. But then IANAL!
I've now gone back to ask what specific T&C covers this.
Why?
The Club aren't going to change their mind and tell Bournemouth that they can't now have these extra tickets.
You're not happy. We get it. The Club now gets it. Most of the people it has effected aren't happy, but they've accepted the alternative and inderstand why it's being done.
For the sake of your blood pressure, build a bridge and get over it.
No and it's not affecting my blood pressure either I will take as far as I can thanks for your sarcastic comments though
Addickted was responding to iaitch, not you.
Did you contact the disability team today ?
Yes waiting for someone to call back. Ps I know who he was responding to but as it affects me too I responded
I have now been given tickets 2 and 2 separated by an aisle which is better however having sorted this out we get another call from the ticket office asking if two of the tickets can be moved 10 rows back I'll leave you to guess what we answered.
Really glad you've got something sorted and hope you are all able to enjoy the game
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.
Anyone going to clap Kermorgant AND Francis? I think I will, although bank holiday weekend means lots of beer. Or beer and cricket, decisions.
18th minute i will be standing up ,clapping and cheering loudly for someone who gave their all for the Charlton cause and gave me some of my most entertaining moments following Charlton
I will clap Kermogant - but I despise Francis, the fact that he has shown his ability at Bournemouth just shows he wasn't pulling his weight while at Charlton.
Wellwickman It's the little ' ole Charlton mentality resurfacing. Am sure that no-one on CL would abuse an away fan in the wrong end but the spiteful reaction to a number of elderly, infirm, female and young Brighton supporters found on the east terrace truly pathetic. I was an addick in the 'Harry Redknapp' stand 2011/12 lording it when we underserved lay nicked a win thanks to Yann. Surely they're only making the newbies in A & B relocate sideways. Pretty much what many of them do anyways according to observers opposite. Maybe we're still bruised by the collapse in our fortunes since 2007. Console yourselves with the trauma experienced by LUFC fanatics from 2004/05. If you really want to know what sporting abyss looks like take a look down Elland Road way.
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.
Great - what seat did you end up with after all ?
Cafc said and I quote"the T&Cs are located at the back"of the season ticket books.
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...
Anyone get to spend their vouchers? They expire at 12:15 so no good for half time. Queued for ten minutes before game to get a pint to be told they won't accept them at the drink only seller. So much for "can be exchanged at any kiosk".
It was disgraceful we were sitting in the upper west with stewards separating us from Bournemouth supporters. We more or less boxed in as they were all around us. I have seen long serving supporters around us walk out confront stewards and opposing fans. These are supporters who are committed to the club and were put in a very very difficult position. The ticket office manager came down to justify this decision and was told by a number of cafc fans that nothing justified how they were treated by the club in their own ground.The vouchers were a waste time food and sweets sold out, run out of drinks. Seriously don't feel I want to go next season.
Didn't bother me. I was more concerned about the the poor performance on the pitch. If we can get an extra 1000+ away fans in, in the future I don't see why we shouldnt take their cash.
Anyone get to spend their vouchers? They expire at 12:15 so no good for half time. Queued for ten minutes before game to get a pint to be told they won't accept them at the drink only seller. So much for "can be exchanged at any kiosk".
Didn't bother me. I was more concerned about the the poor performance on the pitch. If we can get an extra 1000+ away fans in, in the future I don't see why we shouldnt take their cash.
Well, if it's only about taking the cash then why don't we give them your seat as well?
Maybe if we had a really big game and there was enough demand we could give the away team the whole ground? For the cash, of course.
Anyone get to spend their vouchers? They expire at 12:15 so no good for half time. Queued for ten minutes before game to get a pint to be told they won't accept them at the drink only seller. So much for "can be exchanged at any kiosk".
No everything was sold out
Was a bit of a shambles.
I handed out my vouchers to random people in the queue then fucked off to the pub at half time. Only so many packets of M&Ms a man can eat.
Didn't bother me. I was more concerned about the the poor performance on the pitch. If we can get an extra 1000+ away fans in, in the future I don't see why we shouldnt take their cash.
Maybe it would of bothered you if you were surrounded by opposing supporters who were throwing all sorts of items down on you and shouting that have taken your seats. When my families safety was put at risk today money means nothing.
Comments
What i can't get my head round is this post from @iaitch and why the vouchers could not be sent to the recipients instead of a voucher to get a voucher, hopeful;ly i am not the only one that thinks this is daft.
Think people will get there, big queue moving slowly, people say sod it lets not bother.
I await the views on here after the game.
Well done enjoy the game.
Don't each too much and remember it's a 12.15 KO
Simon Church thank you x
It's the little ' ole Charlton mentality resurfacing. Am sure that no-one on CL would abuse an away fan in the wrong end but the spiteful reaction to a number of elderly, infirm, female and young Brighton supporters found on the east terrace truly pathetic.
I was an addick in the 'Harry Redknapp' stand 2011/12 lording it when we underserved lay nicked a win thanks to Yann.
Surely they're only making the newbies in A & B relocate sideways. Pretty much what many of them do anyways according to observers opposite.
Maybe we're still bruised by the collapse in our fortunes since 2007. Console yourselves with the trauma experienced by LUFC fanatics from 2004/05.
If you really want to know what sporting abyss looks like take a look down Elland Road way.
They expire at 12:15 so no good for half time. Queued for ten minutes before game to get a pint to be told they won't accept them at the drink only seller. So much for "can be exchanged at any kiosk".
personally I didn't like it.
If we can get an extra 1000+ away fans in, in the future I don't see why we shouldnt take their cash.
Maybe if we had a really big game and there was enough demand we could give the away team the whole ground? For the cash, of course.
I handed out my vouchers to random people in the queue then fucked off to the pub at half time. Only so many packets of M&Ms a man can eat.