Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Season Tickets 2020-21


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, arbitro said:

It isn't and never was about money for me. It was anger at being taken for granted with Waggott (or whoever) not having a clue about my (or anybody's) personal circumstances. The tone of the original communication was what really angered me.

It's the general tone period Tony. If he'd taken the time to look at how many away tickets you purchase over a season in addition to your season tickets, it deserves a much better response than you got. Surprised he didn't ask which part of the ground you'd prefer to be moved to when supporters are permitted in the ground again or if you'd like to upgrade to a Premier Suite package!

We should treat our life blood so much better but you already know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

So those fans without the internet/smart phones, which will be a fair few of our older supporters (and they make up a large part of our ST base), have been told ‘you’ve lost four games, no refunds, you should have used ifollow, oh and by the way we are turfing you out of the Jack Walker too’

Whatever the small print, those fans have had a raw deal, and I would wager many won’t be back...

That is the main issue. For all of those defending every single decision that the club has done, whether people thing it is the right or wrong thing to do by the club, the main thing that is important is whether those fans affected will continue to attend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

It wouldn't be a £90 claim would it. It would be a potential for a £90 claim + court costs x approx. 8,500. So effectively the liability for Rovers on the back of a hypothetical court scenario would be £765,000 minimum. If arbitro did go ahead, and the court ruled in his favour, it would pave the way for mass refunds. You could even bet your bottom quid that representatives from PNE would assist in the defence claim.

Secondly, it wouldn't even get to court. Rovers' own season ticket terms and conditions are as follows:

NO REFUNDS can be given under any circumstances for individual matches that the Season Ticket holder cannot attend. The Club cannot guarantee that your seat (or the designated area of the stadium in the case of the Bryan Douglas Darwen End Season Ticket) will not be affected by adverse weather conditions. Blackburn Rovers excludes to the maximum extent permitted by law any liability for loss, injury or damage to persons/property in or around the ground.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/tickets/season-ticket-terms-conditions/

 

Lastly, this seasons' tickets would have to be sold under the same conditions, given the climate and reluctance from BRFC to issue refunds. Therefore, had Waggott sold 8,500 season tickets (unlikely) then the government said no, you can only have 1000, it would put the club in the position of needing to notify 7,500 people of their unfortunate circumstances about not being able to see the game live and no refund whatsoever. Otherwise it would break the stance he is taking on last seasons' tickets. However, from an accounting p.o.v, as we are making a loss, you'd have to assume the income gained from those 7,500 tickets is already accounted for and spent, meaning any refund is a further cost to the club.

I'm not defending him but only looking to try and understand the motives behind it. Call it nonsense all you want, it's some guess work so may well be. I'm not particularly supportive of Waggott or the board. 

Bloody hell, already wishing I didn't post. Fuck it - Rovers bad, mmm'kay.

 

You must have difficulty understanding plain English or something. That refund clause relates to Rovers understandably not having to provide refunds if the customer cannot attend an individual game through some fault or reason of their own. 

The other clauses relating to possibly having to change customers' seats in the event ofextreme weather or excluding liability for personal injury are irrelevant to this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

You must have difficulty understanding plain English or something. That refund clause relates to Rovers understandably not having to provide refunds if the customer cannot attend an individual game through some fault or reason of their own. 

The other clauses relating to possibly having to change customers' seats in the event ofextreme weather or excluding liability for personal injury are irrelevant to this discussion.

I copied and pasted the paragraph Revidge, didn't say it was all relevant. It says under any circumstance the customer cannot attend which I would assume would fit this hypothetical scenario. For clarity and not to confuse you any further, the bit I find relevant is:

NO REFUNDS can be given under any circumstances for individual matches that the Season Ticket holder cannot attend

My very basic, and clearly not as established as your own, understanding of English would lead me to believe "no refunds....under any circumstance....for matches the ST holder cannot attend" is pretty fecking relative to the point I am making! But please DickensBlue, do proceed to educate me

Genuinely uncertain to as why the hostile reaction to what I posted. Maybe it went against the grain?

I responded to a poster saying take him to court, but given my experience with pandemic related claims in my own industry, it would be rather fruitless trying to take him to court given a) the T&Cs attached to the terms of service b) Force Majuere is a recognised clause in Consumer Rights Act 2015 and c) I'm certain a company like Rovers would insert an 'act of god' clause into any contract they enter....although judging by the Sala vs Cardiff case maybe not....

In any case, I wasn't looking to beef with you but given the blokes liking your posts one would assume this is a matter of 'playing the man, not the ball'. Not to worry. You win amigo, well done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom

It’s a very poor response and makes a bit of a mockery of the line asking fans to take the streaming when in reality there was no alternative.

I mean for the sake of the odd £80 here and there it seems a big own goal 

Still at least Richie and Sharty got that extra month and ‘we are all in this together’

Edited by Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I copied and pasted the paragraph Revidge, didn't say it was all relevant. It says under any circumstance the customer cannot attend which I would assume would fit this hypothetical scenario. For clarity and not to confuse you any further, the bit I find relevant is:

NO REFUNDS can be given under any circumstances for individual matches that the Season Ticket holder cannot attend

My very basic, and clearly not as established as your own, understanding of English would lead me to believe "no refunds....under any circumstance....for matches the ST holder cannot attend" is pretty fecking relative to the point I am making! But please DickensBlue, do proceed to educate me

Genuinely uncertain to as why the hostile reaction to what I posted. Maybe it went against the grain?

I responded to a poster saying take him to court, but given my experience with pandemic related claims in my own industry, it would be rather fruitless trying to take him to court given a) the T&Cs attached to the terms of service b) Force Majuere is a recognised clause in Consumer Rights Act 2015 and c) I'm certain a company like Rovers would insert an 'act of god' clause into any contract they enter....although judging by the Sala vs Cardiff case maybe not....

In any case, I wasn't looking to beef with you but given the blokes liking your posts one would assume this is a matter of 'playing the man, not the ball'. Not to worry. You win amigo, well done.

 

You're obviously an intelligent chap so I'm guessing you know very well that the clause you refer to (drafted before anyone ever heard of Covid) means that any ST holder who is ill,  wakes up with a hang over, or has to go to work, or go to their daughter's birthday party or simply can't be arsed going etc quite rightly can't go running off to Rovers for a refund for that game.

Any attempt to twist the clause round and interpret it in a way that it meant rhe Club didn't have to provide refunds if a match didnt take place would be laughed out of Court.

As for "Force Majeure" it releases Rovers from the need to perform obligations under the contract if the event in question  has made those obligations impossible to fulfill but it doesn't mean they can simply keep the money for those unfulfilled obligations if they've been paid for them in advance does it?

Edited by RevidgeBlue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tom said:

It’s a very poor response and makes a bit of a mockery of the line asking fans to take the streaming when in reality there was no alternative.

I mean for the sake of the odd £80 here and there it seems a big own goal 

Still at least Richie and Sharty got that extra month 

Exactly right, it's the tone and attitude (not the lack of a refund per se) that is most offensive.

Incredibly shortsighted too. Numbers actually wanting a refund would probably be relatively small, but it's unlikely anyone wanting a refund who got a response like that will be back.

So for every £60 - £90 saved on a refund you're risking losing £350 p.a. indefinitely. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You're obviously an intelligent chap so I'm guessing you know very well that the clause you refer to (drafted before anyone ever heard of Covid) means that any ST holder who is ill, wakes, wakes up with a hang over, or has to go to work, or go to their daughter's birthday party or simply can't be arsed going etc quite rightly can't go running off to Rovers for a refund for that game.

As for "Force Majeure" it releases Rovers from the need to perform obligations under the contract if the event in question  has made those obligations impossible to fulfill but it doesn't mean they can simply keep the money for those unfulfilled obligations if they've been paid for them in advance does it?

A post ago I struggled to understand basic English. You'll want to watch yourself Revidge, you give me a bit of praise and you'll have hell to pay with the minions.

Before I speak I should point out that I think the club have acted badly with respect to refunds and future ST sales. It seems odd that I should have to point this put but nevertheless...

That line in the T&Cs would be my first point of defence if I was Waggott. You knowingly bought a product of me with a very specific attached condition which said no refund will be considered if you cannot attend. I guess, the response would be from yourself, that it was in effect an act of God which meant you couldn't attend. To which I'd say, that isn't my problem.

Force Majeure does technically mean that. Within my profession we have seen "extension of time" claims denied because of this. It basically alleviates any responsibility from the supplier, Rovers, to the customer, you, because the ability to provide that service was only taken away by an Act of God, not by Blackburn Rovers FC.

In the earlier posts I did come up with a solution which I would assume would be the way forward, which would be that the difference between the cost of steaming the iFollow link (£10.00 per game as an example) and the cost of a Season Ticket sale pro-rata the amount you get (£399 / 23) should technically be the refund given to all 8,500 season ticket holders given the alternative product provided isn't "as sold". In effect that would have alleviated the need for a blanket refund, and allowed cash to remain in the club.

In the event of not being able to use the iFollow link then had I been running Rovers I'd have offered a full refund, but the stance of the club is that a provision was made for you free of charge (ie: I haven't charged you any administration fee), and if you don't choose to accept it then that is your fault and you aren't suitable for any recompense. 

I would assume that by the letter of the law what Steve Waggott has done is fine, but I will concede that I haven't read in detail the terms of service pack you must receive when purchasing a ticket. In any case, any prospect of a court case against the club is dim, as it will have the financial backing of 3 Championship clubs at least who will all be seeking to assure themselves a court doesn't rule in the favour of fans and urge refunds. In which case you'd be looking at all 8,500 fans looking to receive at least £50 back which is a very costly exercise. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

A post ago I struggled to understand basic English. You'll want to watch yourself Revidge, you give me a bit of praise and you'll have hell to pay with the minions.

Before I speak I should point out that I think the club have acted badly with respect to refunds and future ST sales. It seems odd that I should have to point this put but nevertheless...

That line in the T&Cs would be my first point of defence if I was Waggott. You knowingly bought a product of me with a very specific attached condition which said no refund will be considered if you cannot attend. I guess, the response would be from yourself, that it was in effect an act of God which meant you couldn't attend. To which I'd say, that isn't my problem.

Force Majeure does technically mean that. Within my profession we have seen "extension of time" claims denied because of this. It basically alleviates any responsibility from the supplier, Rovers, to the customer, you, because the ability to provide that service was only taken away by an Act of God, not by Blackburn Rovers FC.

In the earlier posts I did come up with a solution which I would assume would be the way forward, which would be that the difference between the cost of steaming the iFollow link (£10.00 per game as an example) and the cost of a Season Ticket sale pro-rata the amount you get (£399 / 23) should technically be the refund given to all 8,500 season ticket holders given the alternative product provided isn't "as sold". In effect that would have alleviated the need for a blanket refund, and allowed cash to remain in the club.

In the event of not being able to use the iFollow link then had I been running Rovers I'd have offered a full refund, but the stance of the club is that a provision was made for you free of charge (ie: I haven't charged you any administration fee), and if you don't choose to accept it then that is your fault and you aren't suitable for any recompense. 

I would assume that by the letter of the law what Steve Waggott has done is fine, but I will concede that I haven't read in detail the terms of service pack you must receive when purchasing a ticket. In any case, any prospect of a court case against the club is dim, as it will have the financial backing of 3 Championship clubs at least who will all be seeking to assure themselves a court doesn't rule in the favour of fans and urge refunds. In which case you'd be looking at all 8,500 fans looking to receive at least £50 back which is a very costly exercise. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think what Waggott has done is within the letter of the law and I think he knows that as well otherwise, if legally he had no need to refund, he would not have been pleading with fans not to make the request.

I do think you are spot on with your fifth paragraph about what SHOULD have happened but I also think the main point is not about whether Waggott has acted within the letter of the law as I think in practice numbers of requests for refunds would have been relatively small and the number prepared to take it even further would have been even smaller. 

Overall this would vindicate Waggott's belligerent stance from a very short term financial perspective even though imo he technically hasn't a leg to stand on.

  The main point is however how they're treating the fan base at a difficult time for everyone and how they can possibly expect to retain decent numbers of customers with an attitude like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think what Waggott has done is within the letter of the law and I think he knows that as well otherwise, if legally he had no need to refund, he would not have been pleading with fans not to make the request.

I do think you are spot on with your fifth paragraph about what SHOULD have happened but I also think the main point is not about whether Waggott has acted within the letter of the law as I think in practice numbers of requests for refunds would have been relatively small and the number prepared to take it even further would have been even smaller. 

Overall this would vindicate Waggott's belligerent stance from a very short term financial perspective even though imo he technically hasn't a leg to stand on.

  The main point is however how they're treating the fan base at a difficult time for everyone and how they can possibly expect to retain decent numbers of customers with an attitude like that.

Yeah agreed. In truth it’s hard to know either way because we aren’t privvy to the full details. 
 

What we can agree on is that Waggot has acted in a way that isn’t befitting of where we see Rovers as a brand. That isn’t a surprise though given his remit is to care for the accounts and to hell with customer relations. 
 

At least that’s what you have to conclude otherwise why would he have done anything he has done in his time here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Some legacy - 

Darwen End closed

Jack Walker Upper closed

Radio Rovers closed

Blues Bar closed 

Club shop still closed later than any of our competitors 

Price rises across the board 

Season ticket sales down 

Match day Surcharge 

‘Cat A+’ and £45 tickets in an area like ours 

‘Timeline’ mural painted over 

Pitch a mess in August 

Ewood Park in disrepair 

(Probably more)


I hope there’s something resembling a club still left when he does feck off...


 

 

Spot on.

It reminds me (imo) a bit of Lambert flogging Rhodes on the last day of the January window.

"I'm only here for another 3 months so why should I care?"

 

Edited by RevidgeBlue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Some legacy - 

Darwen End closed

Jack Walker Upper closed

Radio Rovers closed

Blues Bar closed 

Club shop still closed later than any of our competitors 

Price rises across the board 

Season ticket sales down 

Match day Surcharge 

‘Cat A+’ and £45 tickets in an area like ours 

‘Timeline’ mural painted over 

Pitch a mess in August 

Ewood Park in disrepair 

(Probably more)


I hope there’s something resembling a club still left when he does feck off...


 

 

I do regularly see people refer to Mowbray and Waggott as the people who have ensured that our club has "stabilised" and returned to some sense of normality.

Mowbray, for all of his flaws, you cant really argue that he has not been positive for our club. Waggott on the other hand, I have yet to see why he warrants the respect he regularly receives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

I have sent a response back. I haven't mentioned it anywhere else to be honest. And having seen Waggotts response today makes me think that bringing it up anywhere else will be futile. 

Did you get anything back for your request for a refund for the recent game where you paid but couldn't view it?

Thanks for reply. 

Not sure for. So I sent another email today.

I've just got a reply and refund. 

Edited by chaddyrovers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, arbitro said:

After chasing up my request for recompense after not taking up the iFollow offer I got the following earlier signed by Waggott. I have responded to this.

The Club is doing everything possible to ensure we survive the unique challenges of Covid19 and the absence of any income over the last six months.

 

As such, we are not in a position to offer any cash refunds for games played behind closed doors last season. The provision of live streaming of the nine games in question was the best available solution in the circumstances and has been regarded as a reasonable alternative by supporters of the Club.

 

Nothing about the current situation is ideal and we acknowledge everyone is doing their utmost to navigate through to a return to normality when we can welcome fans back to the stadium.

 

It would be good to know how Waggott is personally contributing to these unique challenges. Every ST holder has been forced to pay for something they didn’t receive.

The current update is that ST prices for this season will be increased as well so that die hard fans can dig even deeper.

Will he be taking a pay cut for the coming season as a show of solidarity with fans? Even something nominal? Perhaps he could pay for a ST for his own seat in the new corporate only area of the ground?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Makes the Smallwood, hart , gladwin etc contract extensions even more galling. Absolutely piss poor from swaggott and a disgusting way to treat loyal fans. At the end of the day we are just consumers on a spreadsheet and the club that jack built is crumbling to the ground. Hardly makes the floating few want to commit and get the season ticket numbers back up and the fans back in the ground . Throw in his pre game tax the man is a walking bellend. Never felt so disconnected to something i love dearly and I’m far from the only one. From top to bottom, Madame to Tony and the shadows in between The whole set up is a farce. At a time when clubs need loyal fans more than ever. Take us for granted at your peril Steve. People are getting sick and tired of it

What a great post.

Bravo Sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

I have replied to Waggott and mentioned the expensively unnecessary contracts and also the Mulgrew situation. My closing comment to him was that he is doing reflects badly on Rovers and himself.

Well done!

Couldn't agree with you more. Let us know if he responds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Makes the Smallwood, hart , gladwin etc contract extensions even more galling. Absolutely piss poor from swaggott and a disgusting way to treat loyal fans. At the end of the day we are just consumers on a spreadsheet and the club that jack built is crumbling to the ground. Hardly makes the floating few want to commit and get the season ticket numbers back up and the fans back in the ground . Throw in his pre game tax the man is a walking bellend. Never felt so disconnected to something i love dearly and I’m far from the only one. From top to bottom, Madame to Tony and the shadows in between The whole set up is a farce. At a time when clubs need loyal fans more than ever. Take us for granted at your peril Steve. People are getting sick and tired of it

This sums up exactly how I feel too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Makes the Smallwood, hart , gladwin etc contract extensions even more galling. Absolutely piss poor from swaggott and a disgusting way to treat loyal fans. At the end of the day we are just consumers on a spreadsheet and the club that jack built is crumbling to the ground. Hardly makes the floating few want to commit and get the season ticket numbers back up and the fans back in the ground . Throw in his pre game tax the man is a walking bellend. Never felt so disconnected to something i love dearly and I’m far from the only one. From top to bottom, Madame to Tony and the shadows in between The whole set up is a farce. At a time when clubs need loyal fans more than ever. Take us for granted at your peril Steve. People are getting sick and tired of it

 

They aren't bothered at all like you say just figures on spreadsheets to the likes of him. The numbers go down the prices go up to compensate so it balances out and his wages are protected.

Just read his less can be more type comments in that interview i posted that gives clues how he works, squeeze what you have to the point of popping. 

Just another corporate self serving over size suit more interested in rubbing shoulders with the corporates. All this whilst putting zero pressure on manager and team. Sad thing is he's the best we'll get whilst that lot run it we know how they trust agency people who say the right things over anybody with Rovers in their blood.

Edited by tomphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still confused about the JWU. It says here prices are £459/£499 but in the blurb in the attached link it only references the Diamond Club passes in the JWU at £599? I presume they are on sale but just didn't reference it. 

Renewals not mentioned as far as I can see. Same seat as last season not available to ST holders?

SEASON PASS 20-21 PRICES 1280x720.jpg

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2020/september/show-your-support---season-passes-now-on-sale/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the JW Upper is available, good to see the club hasn’t completely lost its senses.

15% price increase is some jump considering we won’t get close to being in the ground for all games. (30% increase on what we were paying in 2017/2018, ‘cheap’ ‘lowest in the league’ they certainly ain’t these days)

Edited by Mattyblue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.