Seasoncard Amnesty

[Prestwich_Blue]

Giving details of the lead booker is common, to stop touting. Standards TCS. But the others on the booking do not need to give names nor provide photo ID. Very different to City's approach. If there's case at the Crucible the lead booker informs their party.

The Oval held a test event for 1000 members. Again, no photo ID or checks and that event has contributed to the industry standards to expand.

It's not conspiracy theory shit, it's debate.

As mentioned previously there are many ways of providing details for track and trace purposes and many ways some will evade it, who knows why.

But the cessation of sharing cards between friends and family (which this could lead to) seems to be an unnecessary step. Covid provides a very convenient cover for the club to end this common practice, forcing photo ID in the process which will further criminalise attendance at football matches.

But you were wrong about photo ID. These events currently are test events though. 1,000 at the Oval, which is 4% of capacity. 100 stewards and quite a few government officials were checking things. And you don't know what identity checking was carried out. How many people are going to be at each session at The Crucible? The maximum capacity is 1,000 so the chances are it's going to be 250-300. You can take contact details off these people quite easily but it's more difficult when there are going to be maybe 15,000. The scale is completely different but it could be that we move to a more pragmatic system once things get under way.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You need at least 150 reponses to have a chance at claiming any sort of robust consultation, they could have done this easily by email to look for "unintended consequences" like a proper consultation would.

It was a typical City Matters meeting where they played back the suggestions they'd come up with. Some were sensible and some got challenged quite heavily, which I think caused the club to change their thinking. Some we're still discussing among ourselves as a group and there are some widely contrasting views.

I'll give you one example, which we're still hotly discussing, which is what happens to points when a seasoncard is transferred under the amnesty, which is obviously a hot topic. I have to stress that there is no decision on this but there a number of options, some of which we discussed:

1. Full transfer of all points, added to any the new owner already had. so if they had 1,000 in their own name and there were 10,000 on the card they'd have 11,000 after the transfer
2. Transfer of all points but with a maximum limit so that the new owner only got the higher of their own points or the points on the old card. So that's 10,000 after the transfer
3. Transfer of the last 3 (or 5) year's points earned on the card, plus their own points. So maybe 2,000 transferred plus the 1,000 already earned by the new owner, making 3,000
4. Part transfer of points on a percentage basis (say 50%) and the remainder either lost or kept by the old card holder (if they wanted them). So that would be 5,000 plus the 1,000 already earned.
5. Transfer by agreement, where the person named on the card is still alive and agrees with the new owner how to split the points. So the old owner might want to give them 7,500, which can be added to their own 1,000.
6. As would happen with anyone taking out a new seasoncard, 1,000 points plus any points they had in their own name. so if they had 1,000 points themselves, they end up with 2,000 after the transfer.

There's another consideration. The more points someone stands to get, the more incentive they have to take advantage of the amnesty, which the club wants, particulalry as it needs to ensure all contact data for ticket holders is up to date. But there's a large element of unfairness in (1) and (2) potentially, which has been pointed out already and is an argument I understand fully.

If we go with option (6) on the other hand, it's fairer on the surface but what if you've built up most of the points on the ticket you've been using, which is in someone else's name? You wouldn't see that as "fair" and might decide to sit out this current crisis until all the restrictions are off and you could use it again. But if you don't transfer it then you won't be coming to games while those restrictions are on.

So we have to try to balance a number of competing factors.

 

[RegMuffin]

So we've gone from an amnesty to ensure track and trace to pooling of cards to maximise points.

 

[Scotty76]

It was a typical City Matters meeting where they played back the suggestions they'd come up with. Some were sensible and some got challenged quite heavily, which I think caused the club to change their thinking. Some we're still discussing among ourselves as a group and there are some widely contrasting views.

I'll give you one example, which we're still hotly discussing, which is what happens to points when a seasoncard is transferred under the amnesty, which is obviously a hot topic. I have to stress that there is no decision on this but there a number of options, some of which we discussed:

1. Full transfer of all points, added to any the new owner already had. so if they had 1,000 in their own name and there were 10,000 on the card they'd have 11,000 after the transfer
2. Transfer of all points but with a maximum limit so that the new owner only got the higher of their own points or the points on the old card. So that's 10,000 after the transfer
3. Transfer of the last 3 (or 5) year's points earned on the card, plus their own points. So maybe 2,000 transferred plus the 1,000 already earned by the new owner, making 3,000
4. Part transfer of points on a percentage basis (say 50%) and the remainder either lost or kept by the old card holder (if they wanted them). So that would be 5,000 plus the 1,000 already earned.
5. Transfer by agreement, where the person named on the card is still alive and agrees with the new owner how to split the points. So the old owner might want to give them 7,500, which can be added to their own 1,000.
6. As would happen with anyone taking out a new seasoncard, 1,000 points plus any points they had in their own name. so if they had 1,000 points themselves, they end up with 2,000 after the transfer.

There's another consideration. The more points someone stands to get, the more incentive they have to take advantage of the amnesty, which the club wants. But there's a large element of unfairness in (1) and (2) potentially, which has been pointed out already and is an argument I understand fully.

If we go with option (6) on the other hand, it's fairer on the surface but what if you've built up most of the points on the ticket you've been using, which is in someone else's name? You wouldn't see that as "fair" and might decide to sit out this current crisis until all the restrictions are off and you could use it again. But if you don't transfer it then you won't be coming to games while those restrictions are on.

So we have to try to balance a number of competing factors.

The fact that they are considering transferring points at all is ridiculous.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The fact that they are considering transferring points at all is ridiculous.

Well then you haven't read what I've written, or simply haven't understood it. You've just taken one view, your own, and ignored all the other factors that come into play. And again I'll stress that no decision has been made and there's still a wide divergence of views on this.

 

[RegMuffin]

There's sweet fa in government guidance about having to have a photo ID. Name and contact details yes. Photo ID, no.

So who's insisting on having to have a photo ID to attend a game, the club or the PL?

Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.

www.gov.uk

 

[easyken]

There's sweet fa in government guidance about having to have a photo ID. Name and contact details yes. Photo ID, no.

So who's insisting on having to have a photo ID to attend a game, the club or the PL?

Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.

www.gov.uk

No-one's forcing you to go to the game though, are they?

If you don't like it, don't go.

Not ideal, but them's the breaks.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I know I'm late to this thread but I can't help but chuckle to myself at reading some of the posts in it. There was absolute uproar about people passing on away tickets last season that couldn't make the game and yet the same people up in arms about it are openly admitting sharing or passing on season cards to others that don't have the same name on the card, can someone please explain what the difference is?

It's interesting that one poster was talking about transferring his seasoncard to his son when he moves abroad, so his son got all his points. Yet none of the people jumping on me, claiming transferring points is wrong, jumped on him. There's been people on here who've openly said that allowing a mate to buy away tickets on their card is fine, as they've earned the points and should be allowed to use the card as they want. The level of hypocrisy on here among some is staggering.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There's sweet fa in government guidance about having to have a photo ID. Name and contact details yes. Photo ID, no.

So who's insisting on having to have a photo ID to attend a game, the club or the PL?

Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.

www.gov.uk

You really do have trouble reading things properly. That covers the pilot events only and is a draft. These won't be pilot events and discussions have taken place between the various parties about requirements, which aren't freely available but this is what we've been told by the club and something we asked them to clarify yesterday.

We also asked them to be quite clear and transparent in their communication over this so why don't we wait and see what actually happens?

 

[RegMuffin]

No-one's forcing you to go to the game though, are they?

If you don't like it, don't go.

Not ideal, but them's the breaks.

I get that.

My point is (earlier up the thread) is that photo ID is another step to criminalise going to a football game. Steps that will not be reversed post covid. So many fans fought so hard for so many years on this because no other sport is doing the same.

And once this amnesty is complete and cards carry a photo the practice of sharing cards will become impossible, which PB refers to as conspiracy shit but I can't help think this is a position the club would like to find itself in because it forces ticket sales entirely via the club.

I've no problem with an amnesty (done well) and no problem with them having my contact details (which they already have). I'm just interested in why City suggest photo ID when the government (and other clubs) are not insisting on this.