Refund on ST ?

[StGeorge]

50 minutes ago, Nibor said:

For the giant army of suits you see at Ashton Gate if you go to any event they run, I've yet to see any evidence of competency.

The Ground?

 

[Phileas Fogg]

1 hour ago, Spoons said:

Hardly discussing. Going into meltdown about not getting a refund when they are getting a refund. 

Why are you so determined to view everything as a ‘meltdown’?! 

[Mrdc]

I still haven’t received my email.

Has anybody else not received it?

[Davefevs]

Nope

[reddoh]

nope

[NcnsBcfc]

5 hours ago, Nibor said:

I didn't know they did that.  I think it's probably illegal to expire a cash balance.  There are banking regulations that cover this sort of thing.

 

I think it's more of a credit, than actual money.

But it's just the needless penny pinching of it all. When it would from a PR perspective, been better just to say; "to recognise your loyalty at this difficult time; we'll carry it over to next season".

We really aren't great with engaging with our fan base.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, phantom said:

This has NOTHING to do with next season 

Not directly but a combination of a self inflicted loss of goodwill and a serious economic downturn, talking a lot worse than the late 2000s,this could have a negative impact on many sectors of the economy.

Football attendances would surely be at risk in this scenario.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Ours could survive without crowds indefinitely, if league rules allowed that.

As Steve, Lee and the players are rolling in it - and I'm not - I'm considering either the refund or Option 3. I'd be straight for option 3 if the credit counted towards cup tickets, but they've rather meanly excluded that.

Not for me. I pay sky for red button which we as fans (in the main) get double charged for. It’s a disgraceful offer - they aren’t offering a similar or comparable service; which is being in attendance viewing.
 

People can accept a utilitarian offer but their offering is not in line with what they should and must offer - a full refund. I am not getting what I paid for. This is equivalent to ‘we won’t host your wedding but livestream it or fk off’ 

I am done. If watching on tv is equivalent they’ll never get a ticket from me again 

[flipflopcity]

I received it.. see my post ref under 12's

[Lrrr]

7 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Not for me. I pay sky for red button which we as fans (in the main) get double charged for. It’s a disgraceful offer - they aren’t offering a similar or comparable service; which is being in attendance viewing.
 

People can accept a utilitarian offer but their offering is not in line with what they should and must offer - a full refund. I am not getting what I paid for. This is equivalent to ‘we won’t host your wedding but livestream it or fk off’ 

I am done. If watching on tv is equivalent they’ll never get a ticket from me again 

You got the option of a refund pro-rata because of the fact that they can't provide the service you paid for...

[Silvio Dante]

7 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Not for me. I pay sky for red button which we as fans (in the main) get double charged for. It’s a disgraceful offer - they aren’t offering a similar or comparable service; which is being in attendance viewing.
 

People can accept a utilitarian offer but their offering is not in line with what they should and must offer - a full refund. I am not getting what I paid for. This is equivalent to ‘we won’t host your wedding but livestream it or fk off’ 

I am done. If watching on tv is equivalent they’ll never get a ticket from me again 

They have offered a full refund for the equivalent value of the remaining games. Again, be annoyed with the timing and tone of the email but the content is clear.

[Spoons]

38 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Why are you so determined to view everything as a ‘meltdown’?! 

19 pages of panic. Very few considered posts. 

[Red-Robbo]

13 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Not for me. I pay sky for red button which we as fans (in the main) get double charged for. It’s a disgraceful offer - they aren’t offering a similar or comparable service; which is being in attendance viewing.
 

People can accept a utilitarian offer but their offering is not in line with what they should and must offer - a full refund. I am not getting what I paid for. This is equivalent to ‘we won’t host your wedding but livestream it or fk off’ 

I am done. If watching on tv is equivalent they’ll never get a ticket from me again 

Take the refund then. I'm considering it. 

Options 1 or 2 - and watching via BCFCTV is not an option I'm interested in. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, hodge said:

You got the option of a refund pro-rata because of the fact that they can't provide the service you paid for...

Did I? I read it as a credit carry forward. Back in my box if they did - with lashings

okay. - I’ve seen it hidden; after the ‘you have 3 options’. Very, very deviant. One is not amused  

You have the option; absolutely not clear - I saw 3 options and stopped reading. Don’t give a fourth in ‘JL’s statement’. I’m glad I’m not counsel for BCFC; that email is disgusting and totally designed to mislead. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

It’s worth pulling this up again. Aside from being last, what have the club done differently to (say) Fulham, or anyone?

You can get your money back if you want.

Complain about the tone of the comms if you like, but really, what else do people want now? We are being offered something totally in line (and in some cases better) than the rest of the league but the reaction on here is as if Steve Lansdown has come round and taken a dump on your doorstep.

If they’d offered these options 2-3 days ago, would there be this reaction? And (straw man) - the delay may have been as they wanted to offer the kit option (over and above other clubs) and had to make sure Hummel could do it...

Fair points but it'd be worth reading the other 23 statements and comparing. Might do it, wonder if each come across with similar tone or.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fair points but it'd be worth reading the other 23 statements and comparing. Might do it, wonder if each come across with similar tone or.

There’s a contract law principle - the red hand rule - if you want to rely on something so out of the ordinary it needs a red hand pointing to it (not literally but make it clear). Option 1 option 2 option 3 ... and a fourth if you read on. It’s shitty behaviour 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, JonDolman said:

Lets imagine games behind closed doors happened for a whole season.

Do people think there's potentially more money to be made from that?

10 pounds a game. I think thousands of fans from each club would pay that.

Then you are gaining 2 full sets of fans money every game, rather than the home fans and the many less away fans on normal match days.

Wouldn't have thought so tbh.

£10 per game, say 20k fans. 46 League games and 2 Cup games is £9.6m.

On the other hand, you have to disregard all of the matchday revenue. Catering taken in house wasn't it.

All that gone! Fanzone revenue? Gone. Sports bar and grill, coffee shop and Impromptu trips into the club shop? Gone, gone gone!

Plus any matchday tickets. Most if not all surely cost more than £10. Money spinning big ties in Cup say derby games or vs PL clubs? Gone!

You can also subtract matchday staff of course but on balance, I'd be surprised if the club or a club gained from it. 

[Lrrr]

2 minutes ago, 29AR said:

There’s a contract law principle - the red hand rule - if you want to rely on something so out of the ordinary it needs a red hand pointing to it (not literally but make it clear). Option 1 option 2 option 3 ... and a fourth if you read on. It’s shitty behaviour 

But a general refund isn't out of the ordinary in fact its the least out of the ordinary and therefore shouldn't require the red hand, it just requires people reading the email/article properly, which judging by a lot of posts in here, people haven't done.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, hodge said:

But a general refund isn't out of the ordinary in fact its the least out of the ordinary and therefore shouldn't require the red hand, it just requires people reading the email/article properly, which judging by a lot of posts in here, people haven't done.

Option 1 option 2 option 3 click here ... read below for a statement not clearly offering option 4.  There’s no read on lecture there. If you can’t see the general pop are being misled then you have higher standards than anyone would hold the general population to - courts included I have zero doubt. I’m not a layman; I was misled 

[MarkDavis1986]

1 minute ago, 29AR said:

There’s a contract law principle - the red hand rule - if you want to rely on something so out of the ordinary it needs a red hand pointing to it (not literally but make it clear). Option 1 option 2 option 3 ... and a fourth of you read on. It’s shitty behaviour 

This is exactly why this announcement and the tone leaves a sour taste.

" You can click these three options, we encourage you to take 1 or 2"... if you read the fine print then sure you can email to get a refund.

 

When I read earlier as well I didn't realise cup matches weren't included so unless you buy matches on behalf of your friend it is a credit you can only use for 21/22 season. I originally thought this was a good option until I saw this pointed out.

 

The article from Jon Lansdown is icing on a shitty cake for me, we've fallen on hard times so much so we've put people on furlough but our players don't want to reduce their salaries to top up

[Bristol Rob]

Thing that annoys me, is there is no saying what sort of devices the streaming option will work on or what happens to the cash if we select option 2. Or the fact that if you are central Lansdown you'd have paid a lot per match than someone in a less expensive seat. 

How (as well) is this academy funding quantified? Never knew it was struggling before, but if they said, 'if 10,000 of you donate to the academy, we can buy 'x' for it.

A lot of blind faith involved here.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, MarkDavis1986 said:

This is exactly why this announcement and the tone leaves a sour taste.

" You can click these three options, we encourage you to take 1 or 2"... if you read the fine print then sure you can email to get a refund.

 

When I read earlier as well I didn't realise cup matches weren't included so unless you buy matches on behalf of your friend it is a credit you can only use for 21/22 season. I originally thought this was a good option until I saw this pointed out.

 

The article from Jon Lansdown is icing on a shitty cake for me, we've fallen on hard times so much so we've put people on furlough but our players don't want to reduce their salaries to top up

I’m with you mark - it’s an education in how never to communicate with your ‘customers’. Considering most have become accustomed to life without football, really ain’t the time to bite the hand that feeds. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, optored said:

I can't see how it is legally enforceable that you have to claim a refund by midday Tuesday.  You are entitled to a refund for any service/product not supplied.  It's not up to Bristol sport to decide when you apply for it.

I wondered this too! The very narrow window and time limit seems a bit strange.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wondered this too! The very narrow window and time limit seems a bit strange.

They are breaching contract fundamentally, offering a remediation but making one option hidden plus time-limited. I’d rather be consumer than supplier in that instance. 

[Lrrr]

16 minutes ago, MarkDavis1986 said:

This is exactly why this announcement and the tone leaves a sour taste.

" You can click these three options, we encourage you to take 1 or 2"... if you read the fine print then sure you can email to get a refund.

 

When I read earlier as well I didn't realise cup matches weren't included so unless you buy matches on behalf of your friend it is a credit you can only use for 21/22 season. I originally thought this was a good option until I saw this pointed out.

 

The article from Jon Lansdown is icing on a shitty cake for me, we've fallen on hard times so much so we've put people on furlough but our players don't want to reduce their salaries to top up

Why would they include cup matches when they can't guarantee we'd have a home cup game next season? If they did that and it happened you'd then have loads of fans complaining about that instead. Which clubs have actually reduced the salaries of their players rather than deferred? As I've only seen deferrals and its just the length of time that differs.

19 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Option 1 option 2 option 3 click here ... read below for a statement not clearly offering option 4.  There’s no read on lecture there. If you can’t see the general pop are being misled then you have higher standards than anyone would hold the general population to - courts included I have zero doubt. I’m not a layman; I was misled 

From what I can read of that law its not a case of being mislead or not, 'There is a general principle that the more unusual a clause, the more attention should be drawn to it', the point I'm trying to make here is the clause (or option in this case) that you'd most likely expect to see is the refund option so there is nothing unusual about the clause, in fact the club have drawn attention to the unusual clauses (options) and made them clear. So given the option of a refund isn't unnatural it doesn't need to have special attention drawn to it. 

[Lrrr]

21 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

How (as well) is this academy funding quantified? Never knew it was struggling before, but if they said, 'if 10,000 of you donate to the academy, we can buy 'x' for it.

Don't think they're specifying it is, its just a case of if that's where you'd like your money to go within the club then that can be facilitated rather than option 2 which would seem it just goes in the pot so to say.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, hodge said:

Why would they include cup matches when they can't guarantee we'd have a home cup game next season? If they did that and it happened you'd then have loads of fans complaining about that instead. Which clubs have actually reduced the salaries of their players rather than deferred? As I've only seen deferrals and its just the length of time that differs.

From what I can read of that law its not a case of being mislead or not, 'There is a general principle that the more unusual a clause, the more attention should be drawn to it', the point I'm trying to make here is the clause (or option in this case) that you'd most likely expect to see is the refund option so there is nothing unusual about the clause, in fact the club have drawn attention to the unusual clauses (options) and made them clear. So given the option of a refund isn't unnatural it doesn't need to have special attention drawn to it. 

They are breaching contract. We pay for attendance to 23 league games. This is an offer to accept that breach. It’s a compensatory offer and they should not hide the cash refund in the way they did - ignore the legality, no comment on that just observations... morally they’ve got this wrong 

[formerly known as ivan]

3 hours ago, phantom said:

How many season tickets do you have @WolfOfWestStreet

Isn't that what the club has done @formerly known as ivan ?

Yes they have. I did say earlier I hadn’t seen that part

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Nibor said:

I honestly read the email several times and came to the conclusion that literally any grown up who has at least some English could to a better job of communicating.  For the giant army of suits you see at Ashton Gate if you go to any event they run, I've yet to see any evidence of competency.

Unsure about this. Been there for football, rugby and a concert. Not sure what you're getting at, seems run alright to me. Perfect? No but what is.

[Selred]

3 hours ago, man in the middle said:

Sad to hear some fans think like this. BCFC means more than this to most I hope. All teams pay £££ to players that’s football I’m afraid 

BCFC means a lot to me, if we were on the brink I'd help the club absolutely and already have put a lot of time and money into it over the years. 

However again they are using this loyalty and making the average Joe pay. If we had financial issues then I would like to see pay cuts from the players, or Lansdown to cover this. Not asking fans to lose hundreds of their own money so players can drive top of the range cars and have nice houses. We really aren't all in this together financially.