[Archived] Season Tickets 2012/13

[kingsleyamis]

The club would be in breach of contract, any agreement, direct debit or otherwise forms a contract, an agreement between two parties, it is irrevocable unless one party breaks that agreement, if it was you who cancelled your direct debit as you didnt want to go any more, you are in fact in breach of the agreement, likewise, as that agreement was in exchange for a fee, any changes by BRFC would be in breach of that agreement and would be liable to a lawsuit.

As earlier stated, should Rovers fail to play matches due to folding etc, then they again have failed in their agreement to provide a service and you can cancel your direct debit!

Thanks for this! Hopefully this is just another rumour, but you never know with Venky's.

[DE.]

Every time I say Venky's can't do anything to make themselves look more stupid they prove me wrong, so I'm not going to say there's no way this rumour is true.

However, I would be absolutely staggered if the part about adding 40% to the price of tickets already bought is true. Pretty sure it wouldn't even be legal.

[davulsukur]

Every time I say Venky's can't do anything to make themselves look more stupid they prove me wrong, so I'm not going to say there's no way this rumour is true.

However, I would be absolutely staggered if the part about adding 40% to the price of tickets already bought is true. Pretty sure it wouldn't even be legal.

I am certain it isn't. They could obviously increase the ticket price so anyone who went to buy one would have to pay the new increased price but if you have bought a ticket already they can't demand anymore money off you.

If you walk into a shop and see an ipad on sale for £35 and you take it to the till and they say the ticket is a misprint and it comes up on their system as being £350, you would have to buy it for £350.

If you take it to the till and they sell it to you for £35 and then as your walking down the street they chase after you and demand the £315 extra, the transaction is complete and you have entered into a legally binding contract to buy the product for £35. They cannot ask you for anymore money, well they can but you don't have to pay it.

[DE.]

I am certain it isn't. They could obviously increase the ticket price so anyone who went to buy one would have to pay the new increased price but if you have bought a ticket already they can't demand anymore money off you.

If you walk into a shop and see an ipad on sale for £35 and you take it to the till and they say the ticket is a misprint and it comes up on their system as being £350, you would have to buy it for £350.

If you take it to the till and they sell it to you for £35 and then as your walking down the street they chase after you and demand the £315 extra, the transaction is complete and you have entered into a legally binding contract to buy the product for £35. They cannot ask you for anymore money, well they can but you don't have to pay it.

That's the way I see it as well - if you've purchased a product for an agreed price that was not an error and the transaction is complete I don't see how legally Venky's could turn around and say "actually, that's not enough, we want more."

If they hike the prices up 40% for new tickets it would be just as farcical, though - I'm genuinely not sure they'd sell a single ticket? Any diehards who wanted a ticket would surely have gone for the early-bird offer... and anyone abstaining has literally been given no reason whatsoever to renew - let alone for 40% more!

[Amo]

Unfortunately, with the clowns we have running the club it's all too easy for rumours like these to grow legs. But I doubt it's true, for reasons already stated.

[davulsukur]

I didn't take much away from Uni and the legal frameworks module i did was dogger but i am pretty sure this subject came up a few times (totally unrelated to the course i was doing mind you) and thats how the lecturer explained it. Things might have changed in the last few years for companies to get round it but thats my understanding of it.

Pretty sure i saw a program on tv explaining your rights as a customer on it also.

[Stuart]

I am certain it isn't. They could obviously increase the ticket price so anyone who went to buy one would have to pay the new increased price but if you have bought a ticket already they can't demand anymore money off you.

If you walk into a shop and see an ipad on sale for £35 and you take it to the till and they say the ticket is a misprint and it comes up on their system as being £350, you would have to buy it for £350.

If you take it to the till and they sell it to you for £35 and then as your walking down the street they chase after you and demand the £315 extra, the transaction is complete and you have entered into a legally binding contract to buy the product for £35. They cannot ask you for anymore money, well they can but you don't have to pay it.

In any case, you are not walking down the street at this point. You've been home for over a month. It would be "unreasonable" (important word when debating unclear contracts) for them to cry foul at this stage.

Before we get carried away, this is a rumour - although virtually every rumour to date has turned out to be true - but having said that, it would be the last straw for me if I get an invoice for the additional 40%.

Do these people not want supporters? And if not, why not? I'd love to know what convenants, if there are any, affect the use and sale of Ewood and Brockhall land.

[J*B]

According to a few people the reason Mrs D is annoyed is because she wanted a price increase, and tickets where sold at early bird price without her go ahead. Allegedly the reason for the wait now is Desai trying to find who was responsible for tickets being sold, and trying to find a way to recoup the lost money.

I dont believe it unless Kamy says its true anyway.

[Stuart]

According to a few people the reason Mrs D is annoyed is because she wanted a price increase, and tickets where sold at early bird price without her go ahead. Allegedly the reason for the wait now is Desai trying to find who was responsible for tickets being sold, and trying to find a way to recoup the lost money.

I dont believe it unless Kamy says its true anyway.

Didn't she sack the person responsible?

It's amazing though how Desai is used as the reason behind everything. One minute, NOTHING can happen without her agreement, next minute something has happened without her approval.

I'll wait for Kamy too.

[DE.]

According to a few people the reason Mrs D is annoyed is because she wanted a price increase, and tickets where sold at early bird price without her go ahead. Allegedly the reason for the wait now is Desai trying to find who was responsible for tickets being sold, and trying to find a way to recoup the lost money.

I dont believe it unless Kamy says its true anyway.

ffs, if people had been waiting for her go ahead there would still be zero season tickets sold.

[Mercer]

According to a few people the reason Mrs D is annoyed is because she wanted a price increase, and tickets where sold at early bird price without her go ahead. Allegedly the reason for the wait now is Desai trying to find who was responsible for tickets being sold, and trying to find a way to recoup the lost money.

If correct, just shows, again, how detached from the business they really are.

I flagged several times over the last three months that, initially, I heard Rovers were looking at a 10% to 15% increase, with the bigger increase on the more expensive seats, and I am pretty confident that at the time, that was correct.

If now 40% then obviously a complete and utter joke. However, easy to see how Desai has arrived at that number - she, or someone, has simply benchmarked other teams' pricing which may be fine in theory but clearly there's no cognizance of 'local conditions' and history.

IMO, complete amateurs and incompetents.

[Rover_Shaun]

I think rumours and the ease in which they are given credence has hit new depths

[OJRovers]

That's the way I see it as well - if you've purchased a product for an agreed price that was not an error and the transaction is complete I don't see how legally Venky's could turn around and say "actually, that's not enough, we want more."

They could argue that the 'product' has changed i.e. you are now getting 23 games rather than 19 ?

[Stuart]

They could argue that the 'product' has changed i.e. you are now getting 23 games rather than 19 ?

I purchased a "season ticket", not a "19 game ticket".

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Has there ever been a more warped evil villain depicted in film, tv or literature than Mrs Desai?

[Seggie]

I am certain it isn't. They could obviously increase the ticket price so anyone who went to buy one would have to pay the new increased price but if you have bought a ticket already they can't demand anymore money off you.

If you walk into a shop and see an ipad on sale for £35 and you take it to the till and they say the ticket is a misprint and it comes up on their system as being £350, you would have to buy it for £350.

If you take it to the till and they sell it to you for £35 and then as your walking down the street they chase after you and demand the £315 extra, the transaction is complete and you have entered into a legally binding contract to buy the product for £35. They cannot ask you for anymore money, well they can but you don't have to pay it.

Spot on

[only2garners]

I flagged several times over the last three months that, initially, I heard Rovers were looking at a 10% to 15% increase, with the bigger increase on the more expensive seats, and I am pretty confident that at the time, that was correct.

If now 40% then obviously a complete and utter joke.

That's pretty close to my understanding too. I thought that staff at Ewood had initially suggested a modest rise to prices at the outset but that the owners told them to go out for the Early Bird at last season's pricing. Staff had then been assuming a small increase on subsequent sales but Mrs Desai has been insisting on a 40% rise, although I understood this was only on the expensive JW seats and not everywhere. A more cynical mind than mine might guess that this was to cut down on protesters behind the dug out.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

If they are looking to impose a 40% increase on ticket sales after relegation then it just simply goes to highlight how out of touch our owners are with the clubs fanbase and local economics.

Why am I left with the suspicion that they are trying to 'hit back' at the supporters in anyway possible?

[BlueWhiteDynamite]

Although a rumour and something that would be crazy if true, there may be a difference between the 'high street' sale equivalent. I suppose you aren't buying a product but a service. Similarly to a tariff provider on a mobile. Orange was known to have increased contracts by £1, therefore allowing people to cancel, due to breach of contract, but if you didn't reply within 14 days you accept the new terms ( or similar).

I wonder what the ticket office staff have been doing since April? Can't imagine it's been any fun working there.

[Stuart]

Although a rumour and something that would be crazy if true, there may be a difference between the 'high street' sale equivalent. I suppose you aren't buying a product but a service. Similarly to a tariff provider on a mobile. Orange was known to have increased contracts by £1, therefore allowing people to cancel, due to breach of contract, but if you didn't reply within 14 days you accept the new terms ( or similar).

I wonder what the ticket office staff have been doing since April? Can't imagine it's been any fun working there.

There's nothing in the terms and conditions (that I can see) that means they can increase the price of a season ticket after they've sold it to you.

One Rover - Terms and Conditions

[Ossydave]

They can't put the price up for us early birders, its just scare mongering on someone's behalf.

[Baz]

Wouldn't be suprised if the 40% was a ruse to make people think 20% was a acceptable price hike.

[gumboots]

Wouldn't be suprised if the 40% was a ruse to make people think 20% was a acceptable price hike.

Well, I know they think we are dumb but some of us do have brains and can realise that paying 20% extra for something we've already refused to buy at the lower price just doesn't make sense unless certain other conditions (i.e. at a minimum the dismissal of Kean and the arrival of someone worthy of the name manager) are met

[Baz]

At the end of the day, the product we are buying is worse than last season, therefore the price should reflect that. More games but less quality should equal at most the same price as last season.

[stuwilky]

Fair enough, but then we're not in physical possession of the product as yet, are we? Yes, we're expected to use the same cards, but what's to stop the club from not activating them for 2012/13 until they've received additional payment?

Blackburn Rovers own terms and conditions

As earlier stated, should Rovers fail to play matches due to folding etc, then they again have failed in their agreement to provide a service and you can cancel your direct debit!

I'm actually not sure here. The credit agreement is not with Blackburn Rovers, it is with Zebra Finance who have already paid Blackburn Rovers FC.

Would be massively complicated, and no doubt would get chucked out of county court - but not without some serious messing about!

Finance companies are complete barstewards at the best of times.

As for the 40% hike on already sold tickets. Clearly someone very bored.....