Sunderland ban away fans from taking in coins- seemingly vapes too??

[italian dave]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No.  Their house their rules.  You are missing the point.  It is private property therefore they can decide on any rules they want, if you don't like it go somewhere else.

 

 

I don’t think it’s quite that simple though, is it?

That may be the case for private property as in someone visiting you at your home.

But if you put on a public event, and if you offer contractual terms for entry, even on private land, then you’re into different territory? 

[Hxj]

Just now, italian dave said:

But if you put on a public event, and if you offer contractual terms for entry, even on private land, then you’re into different territory? 

You are, but if part of your terms of entry are 'no coins' then that is a contractual term you agree to on entry.  As I said above, no one is entitled to enter private property without agreeing to the occupier's terms.

[italian dave]

4 minutes ago, Hxj said:

You are, but if part of your terms of entry are 'no coins' then that is a contractual term you agree to on entry.  As I said above, no one is entitled to enter private property without agreeing to the occupier's terms.

Firstly, that requires a bit more than just a sign when you get to the ground. Presumably you have to be told at the point where you buy the ticket?

Secondly, those contractual terms still have to be fair (Fair terms in consumer contracts legislation). I’m not sure this one would stand up if challenged. 

[RedLionLad]

16 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Phones? Keys? Belts? Shoes? 

As well as anything bought in the concourse....Hot drinks, Bottled drinks, Chocolate bars, Hot food...

[Hxj]

14 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Secondly, those contractual terms still have to be fair

Well sort of, not unfair is the actual test, which puts a different emphasis on the test.  The actual regulations are available here The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk).  Schedule 1 is a good place to start,

If you can point to a regulation which is broken then you are doing better than I am. 

[italian dave]

34 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Well sort of, not unfair is the actual test, which puts a different emphasis on the test.  The actual regulations are available here The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk).  Schedule 1 is a good place to start,

If you can point to a regulation which is broken then you are doing better than I am. 

I think that in most cases the definitions of what fair and unfair only emerge from case law.

Tempting as it is to rock up on the 18th Feb with the @The Constant Rabbit argument ready, I think I'll probably pass on being the one to test it!

Short answer is, probably no-one knows for sure. But I'd say it had potential as a case. One of the factors they take into account is the relative power of the two parties (so, for example, in landlord tenant 'fair terms' uses they recognise that landlord's hold the upper hand). Which is where the "you can just go somewhere else" argument often fails. It's likely the onus would be on Sunderland to prove it's not unfair. 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by italian dave

[The Constant Rabbit]

52 minutes ago, Hxj said:

No.  Their house their rules.  You are missing the point.  It is private property therefore they can decide on any rules they want, if you don't like it go somewhere else.

As to 'Legal Tender' that is an oft misunderstood term.  Legal tender rules allow you to pay any pre-existing debt by legal tender.  That doesn't force an organisation to accept payment in a manner that does not comply with their payment terms.  So if you go into Sunderland's ground and order a beer, there is no 'debt' until they agree to the purchase.  If their terms insist on card payments only they can refuse to sell you the goods when you offer to buy them with cash and therefore there is no debt.  Therefore you cannot insist on paying with 'legal tender'.  It is all to do with the 'treat', 'offer' and 'acceptance' on a contract.

If you went to a petrol station and filled the car with fuel before payment, then you can insist on payment by Legal Tender, as you already have the goods and therefore a debt pre-exists payment. 

 

I understand that. You are correct in saying that no purchase, no debt is allowed (their house etc) and pre-payment allows that.

However, as the entity that owns Ashton gate also owns the areas around it, where there is scope to 'pay cash' for certain items or in certain facilities - legal tender' has to be allowed. 

To exclude 'cash' then every single facility on all areas owned by the same entity has to be cash free.

I honestly don't know if 100% everything on the AG footprint and surrounding land (owned by same owner) is 100% cashless?

 

Look it is a moot point, as stewards aren't going to get into legal semantics at the access area - they will find a reason not to let you in if they want to rigorously enforce this. I'd be interested though if this went to court - and if BCFC Holdings lost - what the penalty would be.

In reality most people would find it petty, and too far-reaching to be acceptable.

[Harry]

If they take my money on the way in, they damn well better give it back to me on the way out. 

[Never to the dark side]

and the fans reps the FSA will sit on its hands and say nothing,like it normally does.

[Eddie Hitler]

If they had one of those cash machines that you find in supermarkets where you could tip in coins and it pays out notes and a voucher for food and drink for any balance below a quid, less a small percentage for handling, then people would accept it.

As it stands it's a choice between giving up your ticket or giving up your coins.

Or giving up going to Sunderland.

The last is the best option: hit Sunderland AFC where it really hurts.

In the pocket.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

14 hours ago, phantom said:

.... like we haven't already had pages and pages discussing this on here in the past

And it will always be the best way to  get more noise in the gate. City fans both ends of the ground. 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

11 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I don't have a problem with this. Coins will only be confiscated if they haven't been previously discarded as asked. Just don't take coins and use your card or dispose if them in a charity box at somelical pub or restaurant before pitching up to the ground. As for vaoung it's a, disgusting habit anyway 

But then you are not addicted to nicotine 

[italian dave]

6 hours ago, Harry said:

If they take my money on the way in, they damn well better give it back to me on the way out. 

With interest.

[Hxj]

8 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

However, as the entity that owns Ashton gate also owns the areas around it, where there is scope to 'pay cash' for certain items or in certain facilities - legal tender' has to be allowed. 

To exclude 'cash' then every single facility on all areas owned by the same entity has to be cash free.

No.  'Legal Tender' only applies to the payment of debts, if a creditor refuses a payment from a debtor in Legal Tender, they cannot then sue the debtor for non-payment of that amount.  It has no relevance to normal retail transactions.

A retailer is perfectly entitled, their house their rules, to insist on payment only by card, only by coin, only by notes or refuse to take any £10 or £50 notes at one place, but not another.  Or if they so wish, payment by card only on Mondays, Wednesdays and until 14:36 on Saturdays. 

If you don't like their rules you can go elsewhere, or the retailer is perfectly entitled to refuse to sell.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Hxj

[jj77]

13 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Well, if away fans are throwing, inter alia, vapes and coins, at home fans sitting below them, it seems quite fair (to me) to deprive them of such objects prior to entering the ground. 

Re. the confiscated coins, Sunderland have stated that this will be given to a charity of the away Club's choice.

The legal definition of Theft, far more important in my view, requires 'the coins' to have been taken ....dishonestly....

I am quite sure a sign warning away supporters that, should they endeavour to bring coins with them in to the ground, such coins will be confiscated (and given to a charity of their Club's choice) should absolve Sunderland of any allegations of theft.

Or taking someone's property without their permission or consent.

[East End Old Boy]

14 hours ago, redsquirrel said:

is a dumb idea having one set of opposing fans above the other. surely any bonehead can see its asking for stuff to get lobbed over the raillings

If you’ve ever been away to Wolves you would have experienced this first hand!

[BTRFTG]

13 hours ago, Hxj said:

They are not taking the coins from you against your will.  Football grounds are private property and the club can therefore insist on any rules it wishes for you to be allowed entry.  Failure to follow those rules means that they are allowed to prohibit your entry, even if you have a valid ticket.  So with a valid ticket you can either hand over your coins and enter or keep your coins and walk away.

They would have to advertise restrictive terms prior to selling the ticket. One assumes The Stadium of Light does not take cash anywhere, else confiscation of coins may be considered unnecessarily restrictive. There's also an argument to be had re The Equalities Act (2010.) Younger folks may not be eligible for debit or credit cards hence may be discriminated against when encountering issues getting to and from the stadium. Credit cards and (some) debit cards may also fall foul of Islamic doctrine should transaction fees arise, hence forcing fans to use these may be discriminatory. Visually impaired fans might argue they are unable to verify card payments without use of specialist terminals such they have to use money given it affords tactile information on that exchanged.

I'll get my coat ...  

[Mr Popodopolous]

A lot of interesting legal discussion and insight on here.

Issue at hand, it'll either be quietly shelved as unworkable or it has potential to launch some interesting test cases?

What about the aspect of it applying to away fans only, any points of legal challenge there? I appreciate that they may be searched more rigorously for example, but this differentiation of prohibited items between home and away, seems a step too far IMO.

[In the Net]

You still need coins to access some public toilets - you may well encounter these on a journey from Bristol to Sunderland.  Also £1 coins to release supermarket trolleys - okay, maybe you wouldn't be doing your weekly shop enroute, but cash isn't quite as obsolete as some people think.  

It sounds a bit barmy to me. 

[Davefevs]

AG isn’t 100% cashless btw….half-time draw tickets are cash.

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A lot of interesting legal discussion and insight on here.

Issue at hand, it'll either be quietly shelved as unworkable or it has potential to launch some interesting test cases?

What about the aspect of it applying to away fans only, any points of legal challenge there? I appreciate that they may be searched more rigorously for example, but this differentiation of prohibited items between home and away, seems a step too far IMO.

And if they don't shelve it then February provides the perfect opportunity for the OTIB team of barrack room lawyers to turn up as an effective fighting unit to come at them from all angles. I'll pick up the unfair terms bit, if @The Constant Rabbit could take on the legall tender argument and @BTRFTG could cover off the equalities aspects, with yourself making the discrimination case. That'll see them off 

[Mr Popodopolous]

First game in which they will be looking to enforce this is vs Cardiff I believe. Read on their site.

Now there's no local or historic (afaik) rivalry or antipathy there but could be an interesting one?? Then again,  Cardiff may not travel in great numbers.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[RedLionLad]

30 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

AG isn’t 100% cashless btw….half-time draw tickets are cash.

Sometimes as much as £2,000 on a good day.

Also, we sometimes see charity collection buckets around the stadium. All cash there.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

And if they don't shelve it then February provides the perfect opportunity for the OTIB team of barrack room lawyers to turn up as an effective fighting unit to come at them from all angles. I'll pick up the unfair terms bit, if @The Constant Rabbit could take on the legall tender argument and @BTRFTG could cover off the equalities aspects, with yourself making the discrimination case. That'll see them off 

I’ll happily take the “eff off, I’m not giving you my money” stance and see if that one works. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

38 minutes ago, Harry said:

I’ll happily take the “eff off, I’m not giving you my money” stance and see if that one works. 

I expect that you would be refused entry then, if of course it is still in place at that stage or not struck out as unlawful.

It's a nonsense anyway, feels unworkable, arguably discriminatory, and there are many other items that troublemakers can throw should they feel so inclined. Anything to be fair, in the wrong hands can be an item to throw- well maybe not quite anything but for the most part.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Harry]

59 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I expect that you would be refused entry then, if of course it is still in place at that stage or not struck out as unlawful.

It's a nonsense anyway, feels unworkable, arguably discriminatory, and there are many other items that troublemakers can throw should they feel so inclined. Anything to be fair, in the wrong hands can be an item to throw- well maybe not quite anything but for the most part.

Ok. I’ll give all my coins to my daughter and will refuse them to search an under 10. 

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, Harry said:

Ok. I’ll give all my coins to my daughter and will refuse them to search an under 10. 

You don’t get them back either way!!!

[RedLionLad]

What happens when they've searched every away fan and coins still get thrown?

[PHILINFRANCE]

34 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You don’t get them back either way!!!

I have two of the beauties .

[Cowshed]

5 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

They would have to advertise restrictive terms prior to selling the ticket. One assumes The Stadium of Light does not take cash anywhere, else confiscation of coins may be considered unnecessarily restrictive. There's also an argument to be had re The Equalities Act (2010.) Younger folks may not be eligible for debit or credit cards hence may be discriminated against when encountering issues getting to and from the stadium. Credit cards and (some) debit cards may also fall foul of Islamic doctrine should transaction fees arise, hence forcing fans to use these may be discriminatory. Visually impaired fans might argue they are unable to verify card payments without use of specialist terminals such they have to use money given it affords tactile information on that exchanged.

I'll get my coat ...  

Cashless payments can discriminate against people with learning disabilities and people with mental health conditions. These are protected characteristics under the 2010 equalities act.  

Bristol City FC, Bristol Sport, Bristol City Council, Bristol University, shops. Their cashless  services too discriminate against people with learning disabilities and people with mental health conditions.

It is raining outside I'll get the umbrella.