Banned for Season Ticket Misuse? (Club statement)

[Taxman Dave]

I agree with you that the member had b en abusing the system. That would have been known to the hierarchy for some time. I have an issue with how the club decided to handle it from the point in which they became aware of the situation. By dealing with it during a time when it was bound to be in the public spotlight (ie during match day itself) they intentionally or unintentionally gave the particular individual a platform in which to claim unfairness as well as some of the apparent untruths.

From what I can glean from the various posts, the individual was always likely not to go quietly. In fact it should have come as no to surprise to the club that the individual would have claimed all manner of reasons as to why he was publicly thrown out of Home Park, thereby inviting all manner of rhetoric (including it was because of a sticker?!). My overriding point is that this pedestal would not have been given to the individual had the club adopted a different approach, one that was not so public and one that ultimately would have had the same effect!

 

[Maidenhead Green]

I said we would disagree and I respect your opinion. If another member of the green army had been identified as basically abusing the system as this individual clearly had been, the sensible and professional approach would have been to bring this to he attention of the individual outside of a match day environment. That way the club would have been able to impose their sanctions outside of the public glare, would have been able to maintain the morale high ground and given a stark warning about future conduct.

They didn’t! They deliberately chose to castigate the individual (who is well know to the clubs hierarchy as a chief detractor) as publicly as they possibly could. Whilst this has had the effect of highlighting the policy, it has, to those that have no sides in the debate, shown how the club will look to silence its detractors. I do not for a minute believe that if this was a different member of the green army the same actions would have ensued.

So my initial point of the club not acting in a sensible and professional remains clear to me. By specifically identifying the individual, by making such a public declaration (the club would have clearly been aware that this was happening over a significant period of time and therefore chose to act on the day of the match), by including the police and using such emotive words as fraudulent then I believe I am not clearly wrong on so many levels. Instead I remain convinced the club could have avoided this disastrous PR mess and not provided further evidence to the detractors that you can’t gave an option if it goes against the clubs hierarchy.

That's exactly how I read it. People cheating the club should be dealt with, but this was also an excuse to punish an "anti".

 

[davie nine]

I said we would disagree and I respect your opinion. If another member of the green army had been identified as basically abusing the system as this individual clearly had been, the sensible and professional approach would have been to bring this to he attention of the individual outside of a match day environment. That way the club would have been able to impose their sanctions outside of the public glare, would have been able to maintain the morale high ground and given a stark warning about future conduct.

They didn’t! They deliberately chose to castigate the individual (who is well know to the clubs hierarchy as a chief detractor) as publicly as they possibly could. Whilst this has had the effect of highlighting the policy, it has, to those that have no sides in the debate, shown how the club will look to silence its detractors. I do not for a minute believe that if this was a different member of the green army the same actions would have ensued.

So my initial point of the club not acting in a sensible and professional remains clear to me. By specifically identifying the individual, by making such a public declaration (the club would have clearly been aware that this was happening over a significant period of time and therefore chose to act on the day of the match), by including the police and using such emotive words as fraudulent then I believe I am not clearly wrong on so many levels. Instead I remain convinced the club could have avoided this disastrous PR mess and not provided further evidence to the detractors that you can’t gave an option if it goes against the clubs hierarchy.

Are you really a taxman?

 

[Guiri Green]

I said we would disagree and I respect your opinion. If another member of the green army had been identified as basically abusing the system as this individual clearly had been, the sensible and professional approach would have been to bring this to he attention of the individual outside of a match day environment. That way the club would have been able to impose their sanctions outside of the public glare, would have been able to maintain the morale high ground and given a stark warning about future conduct.

They didn’t! They deliberately chose to castigate the individual (who is well know to the clubs hierarchy as a chief detractor) as publicly as they possibly could. Whilst this has had the effect of highlighting the policy, it has, to those that have no sides in the debate, shown how the club will look to silence its detractors. I do not for a minute believe that if this was a different member of the green army the same actions would have ensued.

So my initial point of the club not acting in a sensible and professional remains clear to me. By specifically identifying the individual, by making such a public declaration (the club would have clearly been aware that this was happening over a significant period of time and therefore chose to act on the day of the match), by including the police and using such emotive words as fraudulent then I believe I am not clearly wrong on so many levels. Instead I remain convinced the club could have avoided this disastrous PR mess and not provided further evidence to the detractors that you can’t gave an option if it goes against the clubs hierarchy.

That's exactly how I read it. People cheating the club should be dealt with, but this was also an excuse to punish an "anti".

'Anti' what exactly ?

 

[Argyle sy]

Cut and dry false representation to me, which means that it does indeed come under the statutes of fraud and deception. Some people seem to be missing the point to me, if this guy deliberately used a disabled persons ticket, when he himself isn't disabled then I fail to understand how anyone can defend his actions. It is akin to a non disabled person parking in a disabled parking bay in my opinion. He clearly didn't do himself any favours by posting misleading statements as to why he was removed from the ground. I do understand people mentioning the similarities between this incident and othet forms of ticket sharing, for me the fact is that he used a disabled persons ticket to enter the ground when he is not actually disabled so no pity from me.

 

[Taxman Dave]

I said we would disagree and I respect your opinion. If another member of the green army had been identified as basically abusing the system as this individual clearly had been, the sensible and professional approach would have been to bring this to he attention of the individual outside of a match day environment. That way the club would have been able to impose their sanctions outside of the public glare, would have been able to maintain the morale high ground and given a stark warning about future conduct.

They didn’t! They deliberately chose to castigate the individual (who is well know to the clubs hierarchy as a chief detractor) as publicly as they possibly could. Whilst this has had the effect of highlighting the policy, it has, to those that have no sides in the debate, shown how the club will look to silence its detractors. I do not for a minute believe that if this was a different member of the green army the same actions would have ensued.

So my initial point of the club not acting in a sensible and professional remains clear to me. By specifically identifying the individual, by making such a public declaration (the club would have clearly been aware that this was happening over a significant period of time and therefore chose to act on the day of the match), by including the police and using such emotive words as fraudulent then I believe I am not clearly wrong on so many levels. Instead I remain convinced the club could have avoided this disastrous PR mess and not provided further evidence to the detractors that you can’t gave an option if it goes against the clubs hierarchy.

Are you really a taxman?

I sit on the right side of the fence these days, helping those that find themselves in a spot of trouble with the taxman!

 

[NorfolkGreen]

Cut and dry false representation to me, which means that it does indeed come under the statutes of fraud and deception. Some people seem to be missing the point to me, if this guy deliberately used a disabled persons ticket, when he himself isn't disabled then I fail to understand how anyone can defend his actions. It is akin to a non disabled person parking in a disabled parking bay in my opinion. He clearly didn't do himself any favours by posting misleading statements as to why he was removed from the ground. I do understand people mentioning the similarities between this incident and othet forms of ticket sharing, for me the fact is that he used a disabled persons ticket to enter the ground when he is not actually disabled so no pity from me.

I don’t think and would hope no one has tried to defend him, there are just varying opinions on the action taken by the club.

 

[IJN]

I would say 'He's being picked on as he was anti JB' was defending him.

 

[Ollieargyle9]

Safe to say if he hadn't caused a stir about this on Facebook nobody would have been any the wiser. You may have seen a 2 page thread on here asking if anyone else saw a bloke being removed, if he hadn't made it public knowledge that would have been that.

He took it upon himself to announce to the world that he'd been removed, he then tried to play the martyr by claiming it was because of stickers. He opened this incident up for public viewing; not Argyle or the police.

With lies published online and building momentum the club stepped in to provide the facts. They did so professionally by playing it straight down the line without naming him. With the word out the club used this to confirm its ticketing policy to dissuade others from doing the same.

I honestly can't see how much differently the club could have handled it.

 

[Maidenhead Green]

I said we would disagree and I respect your opinion. If another member of the green army had been identified as basically abusing the system as this individual clearly had been, the sensible and professional approach would have been to bring this to he attention of the individual outside of a match day environment. That way the club would have been able to impose their sanctions outside of the public glare, would have been able to maintain the morale high ground and given a stark warning about future conduct.

They didn’t! They deliberately chose to castigate the individual (who is well know to the clubs hierarchy as a chief detractor) as publicly as they possibly could. Whilst this has had the effect of highlighting the policy, it has, to those that have no sides in the debate, shown how the club will look to silence its detractors. I do not for a minute believe that if this was a different member of the green army the same actions would have ensued.

So my initial point of the club not acting in a sensible and professional remains clear to me. By specifically identifying the individual, by making such a public declaration (the club would have clearly been aware that this was happening over a significant period of time and therefore chose to act on the day of the match), by including the police and using such emotive words as fraudulent then I believe I am not clearly wrong on so many levels. Instead I remain convinced the club could have avoided this disastrous PR mess and not provided further evidence to the detractors that you can’t gave an option if it goes against the clubs hierarchy.

That's exactly how I read it. People cheating the club should be dealt with, but this was also an excuse to punish an "anti".

'Anti' what exactly ?

:doh: :doh: :doh:

James Brent.

 

[Taxman Dave]

I think I’ve explained above exactly how they could have handled it differently. By giving the said individual a platform they’ve created the situation for themselves, having to act in some shape or form. The fact it was a serious detractor gave them the good reason (in their eyes) to go after them...I just think it’s massively backfired with the heavy handed approach the club took and they looked like the bad guys.

So in essence starve the individual the attention through whatever platform (ie FB) and there is no adverse reaction. Therefore I stand by my position that the club were neither sensible nor professional in the way they handled the situation.

 

[Leigh Rapson]

TD, I think you’re being a touch pig headed. The club didn’t give him the platform upon which to stand until AFTER he had publicly gone nuts about it looking for sympathy. The club reacted to the fact that they had been made aware of the incorrrect information he was using and issued a statement in response to that.

I don’t see how the club can have done anymore than that really. If he had said nothing the club would have no need to respond.

 

[jimsing]

I think I’ve explained above exactly how they could have handled it differently. By giving the said individual a platform they’ve created the situation for themselves, having to act in some shape or form. The fact it was a serious detractor gave them the good reason (in their eyes) to go after them...I just think it’s massively backfired with the heavy handed approach the club took and they looked like the bad guys.

So in essence starve the individual the attention through whatever platform (ie FB) and there is no adverse reaction. Therefore I stand by my position that the club were neither sensible nor professional in the way they handled the situation.

Dave, the man was a carer for a disabled supporter. He knew he was not allowed in without him.

All other matters regarding this incident are superfluous and are red herrings.

The man tried to blag his way into the match by using a free ticket that he was not allowed to use. He knew that, the Club then found out and now all the membership knows that.

The Club have publicised the event in order to deter others from doing likewise.

I do not understand where you are coming from if you continue to criticise the Club for their actions.

They have done things the right way. They have done nothing wrong.

If a similar situation occurs in the future I would expect the Club to react in a similar manner.

 

[NorfolkGreen]

Just going round in circles now.

 

[memory man]

Just going round in circles now.

Have been since page 4 of this thread NG.