|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 15, 2015 16:31:47 GMT
Good for Sussex in not wishing to profit excessively from a match curtailed due to a freak accident. Was always confident that the club would do the right thing, although it should have been like for like - ie another T20 ticket, not CC or the Cup nobody wants.That occurred to me, BM - but I figured it would inhibit the sale of the remaining T20 match tickets, and it wouldn't look good to have offered something and then have to turn round and say "sorry, we've sold out". There is of course the commercial consideration, which won't have been lost on the club - it won't cost anything to give seats away for CC or 50 over matches - as you say, no-one's really interested in the latter! Standard marketing practice - give away something that doesn't cost you anything. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 15, 2015 17:27:28 GMT
Fair play to Sussex who were under no obligation to offer refunds as the rules which are set by the ECB not Sussex indicated there were no grounds to give anyone a refund or offer them free entry to another game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 17:35:30 GMT
Rory Burns merrily tweeting from hospital and has even changed his cover pic to a hospital shot.#allswellthatendswell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 17:39:02 GMT
Fair play to Sussex who were under no obligation to offer refunds as the rules which are set by the ECB not Sussex indicated there were no grounds to give anyone a refund or offer them free entry to another game. If refund policy in county cricket is an ECB diktat, how come different counties have different policies on the matter? Is it it a case of the ECB saying, "this is the level of stuff-the-public rip-off you can get away with legally, but if you want to behave more reasonably towards your customers , that's up to you'' ? |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 15, 2015 17:46:35 GMT
Fair play to Sussex who were under no obligation to offer refunds as the rules which are set by the ECB not Sussex indicated there were no grounds to give anyone a refund or offer them free entry to another game. If refund policy in county cricket is an ECB diktat, how come different counties have different policies on the matter? Based on the terms and conditions on which the ticket was purchased by the customer there was no grounds for them to ask for a refund as the minimum requirement had been fulfilled. By buying that ticket they agreed to the terms set out in relation to that ticket. For a small club like Sussex's I don't think we can afford to being giving free tickets away when it isn't obliged to. Most of them will probably never return and were only there being KP was playing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 18:01:45 GMT
Based on the terms and conditions on which the ticket was purchased by the customer there was no grounds for them to ask for a refund as the minimum requirement had been fulfilled. That wasn't my question, which was about your statement that the ECB not Sussex sets the terms and conditions. Is it more a case of the ECB issuing 'stuff-the-public-this-is-the-minimum-you-can get-away-with' advice, and decent counties offer a mnore generous policy ? I just wonder how the ECB diktat works, because refund policy is not uniform across the 18 counties as far as I can make out. In my opinion, Sussex has done the bare minimum the club needed to do in order to retain respect. If it was more than the legal minimum requirement, well done to them for not being totally unscrupulous. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 15, 2015 18:04:26 GMT
Based on the terms and conditions on which the ticket was purchased by the customer there was no grounds for them to ask for a refund as the minimum requirement had been fulfilled. That wasn't my question, which was about your statement that the ECB not Sussex sets the terms and conditions. Is it more that the ECB issues 'stuff-the-public-this-is-the-minimum-you-can get-away-with' advice, and decent counties offer a mnore generous policy ? How does it work? Because in my opinion, Sussex has done the bare minimum the club needed to do in order to retain respect under the circumstances. Rubbish. They owed the public nothing. They had 19 overs the ticket said there had to be a minimum of 10 overs end of. Bad luck. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 18:09:11 GMT
You still haven't answered the question, you have merely shouted 'rubbish'. I'm glad Zac Toumasi is running the club and taking such sensible decsions rather than you, cp!
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 15, 2015 18:15:29 GMT
I don't think any other county would have offered a refund or to exchange the tickets. They would have said there was no entitlement to a refund as there was more than ten overs in the game. The ticket makes no specific reference to rain and therefore there was no entitlement to a refund. If it did you might have a case for what you are saying but since it doesn't you don't.
Sussex's refund policy is very clear on the matter:
If play is restricted or does not take place at the ground on the day for which this ticket is valid, you may claim a refund of only the match ticket value subject to there being: 9.5 overs or less of the headline match of the day because of adverse weather conditions and no result is obtained - a full refund. In no other circumstances can money be refunded.
How many will take up the offer? Half were probably only there because of KP, others will be Surrey fans and others knowing that there was more than 10 overs and therefore not entitled to a refund may have understandably got rid of their ticket. It remains to be seen how many take up the offer. Although I think Sussex got it spot on by offering the 50 over and county championship games. In any case the T20 games have probably sold out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 18:40:37 GMT
I don't think any other county would have offered a refund or to exchange the tickets. They would have said there was no entitlement to a refund as there was more than ten overs in the game. The ticket makes no specific reference to rain and therefore there was no entitlement to a refund. If it did you might have a case for what you are saying but since it doesn't you don't. Sussex's refund policy is very clear on the matter:If play is restricted or does not take place at the ground on the day for which this ticket is valid, you may claim a refund of only the match ticket value subject to there being: 9.5 overs or less of the headline match of the day because of adverse weather conditions and no result is obtained - a full refund. In no other circumstances can money be refunded. But you said it was not Sussex's policy but the ECB's policy. All I have done is ask you to clarify that , and you haven't! As for "The ticket makes no specific reference to rain and therefore there was no entitlement to a refund. If it did you might have a case for what you are saying but since it doesn't you don't.", can I ask what "case" is it that you think I am making? I am merely congratulating Sussex on doing the right thing ethically and in terms of good PR - nothing to do with what the club could get away with as the minimum sue-grabbbit-and-run legal requirement. Believe it or not, it is sometimes the right thing to treat your customers with respect rather than shafting them with the small print of t&c. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 15, 2015 18:45:47 GMT
I don't think any other county would have offered a refund or to exchange the tickets. They would have said there was no entitlement to a refund as there was more than ten overs in the game. The ticket makes no specific reference to rain and therefore there was no entitlement to a refund. If it did you might have a case for what you are saying but since it doesn't you don't. Sussex's refund policy is very clear on the matter:If play is restricted or does not take place at the ground on the day for which this ticket is valid, you may claim a refund of only the match ticket value subject to there being: 9.5 overs or less of the headline match of the day because of adverse weather conditions and no result is obtained - a full refund. In no other circumstances can money be refunded.
But you said it was not Sussex's policy but the ECB's policy. All I have done is ask you to clarify that , and you haven't! As for "The ticket makes no specific reference to rain and therefore there was no entitlement to a refund. If it did you might have a case for what you are saying but since it doesn't you don't.", what "case" is it that I am making? Merely that Sussex has done the right thing ethically and in PR terms, too- nothing to do with what it could get away with the legal minimum requirement. Believe it or not, it is sometimes the right thing to do - both commercially and morally - to treat your customers with respect rather than shafting them with the small print of t&c. No other professional sporting club in the world would have done so. It is the customer responsibility to read the terms and conditions before they buy the ticket. If they fail to do so that's their own fault. Legally speaking there was no requirement. However, if you are arguing ethically, commercially or in PR terms that's another matter. Fair play to Sussex. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 18:51:54 GMT
No other professional sporting club in the world would have done so. It is the customer responsibility to read the terms and conditions before they buy the ticket. If they fail to do so that's their own fault. Legally speaking there was no requirement. However, if you are arguing ethically, commercially or in PR terms that's another matter. Really? One doesn't have to look very hard. Spurs v Bolton when game was abandoned due to Muamba's heart-attack. Or the Charlton Athletic game I went to which was abandoned at half-time due to fog. I could go on but will spare you! And yes, you've finally got it. I have never made any legal argument, but one consitently based on ethics and what is good for the reputation of the club. |
|
jim
2nd XI player
Posts: 182
|
Post by jim on Jun 15, 2015 20:01:12 GMT
|
|
henryr
2nd XI player
Posts: 33
|
Post by henryr on Jun 15, 2015 20:21:16 GMT
I don't post often, but it's amazing the things we manage to argue about isn't it? I'm sure a few years ago a game was curtailed by floodlight failure and ticket holders were invited to present their stubs from that game for a couple of drinks at the next match they attended, at their relative leisure.
A no win situation for the club, but the refund procedure as released in their statement sounds like a headache for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Jun 15, 2015 21:47:44 GMT
Just popped onto this thread to express my approval of the Club's gesture to the fans who attended the T20 yesterday, although not legally obliged to do anything I think they were morally obliged and they have taken this on board and done the best they can. Well done Sussex. Maybe some fans will opt for a days County Cricket and discover that it is in fact much better than T20.
|
|
