LCFC Supporter Bans.

[blueharmie]

Top copying the two tier Kier approach.

 

 

Always works 

[Skidmark]

23 minutes ago, Viva said:

A football club, like any business is allowed ban people from using it’s premises. 
A pub for example can bar people and refuse to serve them. 

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that the letter posted has sanctioned someone on the basis of no evidence.

 

 

[Viva]

15 minutes ago, Skidmark said:

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that the letter posted has sanctioned someone on the basis of no evidence.

 

 

Their opinion was that he either did it, or helped to conceal the person that did it. 
 

Whether he did it or not, was not my point. You talked about legal action. I just said a business can ban a person from their premises, just like a pub can bar somebody even if it’s for no reason. 

[Bert]

2 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Football banning orders and club bans are two different things aren’t they. 
 

Though people will always get a club ban if they have an FBO. 

Yeah that right, so regardless of how many people get banned just by the club unless it’s a FBO it won’t get added to the statistics. 

[iancognito]

10 hours ago, John rayner said:

Well tbh we are customers simples 

No, we're not. They're not selling us a product, or providing a service. They are running a club and providing entertainment through the players on the pitch. We're stakeholders in that club through our season tickets and memberships. We've been supporters/stakeholders for decades longer than the faceless suits running it. The club belongs to all of us through that, we're far more than customers.

[goose2010]

11 minutes ago, Viva said:

Their opinion was that he either did it, or helped to conceal the person that did it. 
 

Whether he did it or not, was not my point. You talked about legal action. I just said a business can ban a person from their premises, just like a pub can bar somebody even if it’s for no reason. 

Humm not really especially when they were still expecting you to pay for your ticket you cannot use. 

 

It is obvious that you struggle to see anything wrong with the club at all but come on, surely this is something you don't agree with. 

[Foxmeister]

14 hours ago, StanSP said:

This is so weird because then the club feel like they have jurisdiction over something they actually have no control over. 

 

I'd be interested to know where they actually stand legally to do this...

They're a privately owned business so they do have the right to not serve anyone they don't wish to as long as it's not on grounds of discrimination against a protected group.

 

If I was in this position I'd be making a Subject Access Request by writing to the company secretary of the club, it should throw up their real motive for banning.

[ozleicester]

8 minutes ago, iancognito said:

No, we're not. They're not selling us a product, or providing a service. They are running a club and providing entertainment through the players on the pitch. We're stakeholders in that club through our season tickets and memberships. We've been supporters/stakeholders for decades longer than the faceless suits running it. The club belongs to all of us through that, we're far more than customers.

Yes we are... we are sold "enteretainment" by the club. As long as anyone sees this differently they will be exploited

[Viva]

Just now, goose2010 said:

Humm not really especially when they were still expecting you to pay for your ticket you cannot use. 

 

It is obvious that you struggle to see anything wrong with the club at all but come on, surely this is something you don't agree with. 

I try to bring a bit of balance to the never ending, relentless negativity about anything and everything on here. 

Not all bans given out would be unjustified. 

[suffolk fox]

13 hours ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Strewth! Reading all this is making me really feel paranoid.

So-much-so, I'm glad we no longer have floodlight pylons at each corner of the ground - I've convinced myself that KP would hire 4 marksman to take up positions there and take out any ringleaders on Saturday.

Ala Squid Games, albeit not Korean.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

6 minutes ago, Viva said:

I try to bring a bit of balance to the never ending, relentless negativity about anything and everything on here. 

Not all bans given out would be unjustified. 

Not every subject needs a tiresome contrarian bringing "balance". 

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, Viva said:

Not all bans given out would be unjustified

Of course not, some will be justified. But those people probably don't post about it.

 

Whereas much of the evidence given in this page is of bans that were not justified and were from the "kangaroo court" the club run 

[Bert]

13 minutes ago, iancognito said:

No, we're not. They're not selling us a product, or providing a service. They are running a club and providing entertainment through the players on the pitch. We're stakeholders in that club through our season tickets and memberships. We've been supporters/stakeholders for decades longer than the faceless suits running it. The club belongs to all of us through that, we're far more than customers.

Technically you’re right in some ways. But we have no say in any way how the club operates. They don’t care about anything other than us feeding their coffers. 

[Leicesterpool]

13 hours ago, Lineker's Left Foot said:

Well Cov had Sisu owning them and tbf many refused to attend and not give them any money until they’d gone.

 

Fair play to them

Did work eventually though took years...

[ealingfox]

1 hour ago, blueharmie said:

Top copying the two tier Kier approach.

 

 

Always works 

 

What on earth has this got to do with Keir Starmer?

Edited 14 February by ealingfox

[Sol thewall Bamba]

10 minutes ago, Viva said:

Not all bans given out would be unjustified. 

No one ever said that. What about the ones that aren't justified or evidenced?

[FoxesDeb]

Can those of us who feel strongly about this do anything to help? Contact someone in particular, either by email or on sm?

[Skidmark]

18 minutes ago, goose2010 said:

Humm not really especially when they were still expecting you to pay for your ticket you cannot use. 

 

It is obvious that you struggle to see anything wrong with the club at all but come on, surely this is something you don't agree with. 

99% sure that in the eyes of a court this would be viewed as a fine, and I'm 100% sure that Leicester City Football Club Limited have not been given the power by a government body to fine.

 

With this you could probably send baliffs or enforcement agents around the the club to collect money for failing to provide services which were paid for. 
 

 

[Lako42]

5 minutes ago, Skidmark said:

99% sure that in the eyes of a court this would be viewed as a fine, and I'm 100% sure that Leicester City Football Club Limited have not been given the power by a government body to fine.

 

With this you could probably send baliffs or enforcement agents around the the club to collect money for failing to provide services which were paid for. 
 

 

cancel DD

[justfoxes]

14 hours ago, Bert said:

Anything and everything it seems. Although in this instance from reading between the lines was due to a pyro being activated. 

Bit silly taking a pyro into a crowded space I’ve seen some nasty injuries from them in the past !

[lcfc278]

24 minutes ago, justfoxes said:

Bit silly taking a pyro into a crowded space I’ve seen some nasty injuries from them in the past !

Maybe so, but the club were all over it last season, using photos of it on socials to brag. 

 

Double standards. It's clear they want nice, easy, placid fans that sit on their hands at games.

[jammie82uk]

23 minutes ago, justfoxes said:

Bit silly taking a pyro into a crowded space I’ve seen some nasty injuries from them in the past !

I agree and I don’t think no one will debate that, but that’s not the issue, the issue is the club banning people based on nothing more then a probability 

[Claridge]

47 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

No one ever said that. What about the ones that aren't justified or evidenced?

seems to be what’s happening on here with regards to the club. people commenting without all of the facts

[grobyfox1990]

Who is 'Dan' who broke the internet with his Twitter post, on this forum? Very eloquent post following a clear and logical timeline, not some emotional and garbled 'shambles mate clubs gone' type post. Well done, we need more Dan's. 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, iancognito said:

No, we're not. They're not selling us a product, or providing a service. They are running a club and providing entertainment through the players on the pitch. We're stakeholders in that club through our season tickets and memberships. We've been supporters/stakeholders for decades longer than the faceless suits running it. The club belongs to all of us through that, we're far more than customers.

We're not though, unless we organise ourselves like we do in Germany. The trust have got c.£38k in reserves so that's a good start in buying the club