Fosse Boy Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Too many football clubs pay only “lip service” to customer service, according to a comprehensive review of Premier League and Championship club charters by the Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF). It is 12 years since the government-appointed Football Task Force Report proposed that all clubs should adopt a customer charter. The FSF, which represents more than 180,000 fans across England and Wales, looked at every club charter in the top two divisions. Every club charter was rated 0-5 across a range of categories encompassing accessibility, timeliness, quality, clarity of complaints procedure, appeals process, and contacts for the relevant league and Independent Football Ombudsman. * Click here to see where your team finished in the club charter table. Tottenham Hotspur topped the Premier League’s club charter table scoring an impressive 31 out of a possible 35 with North London rivals Arsenal taking second spot with 23. Birmingham City and Blackburn Rovers completed the top four as both scored a respectable 22. Everton finished rock bottom of the Premier League when it came to club charters with the Toffees failing to pick up even a single point. The Toffees’ club charter is seemingly non-existent as an internet search for “Everton” and “club charter” only returns links to Liverpool’s website. The table will also make unusual reading for Manchester United fans as the club finished second from bottom with eight points. Fellow on-field title contenders Manchester City (13) and Chelsea (12) also performed poorly leaving a table with many Premier League heavyweights struggling at the wrong end. Searching for “Fulham” and “club charter” shows that the Cottagers’ club charter is available – although it is hidden in the Visitors Guide section of their site. This could be misleading as club charters apply to both home and away fans. In the Championship disappointing seasons for mid-table Derby County and Ipswich Town are at odds with their excellent position in the club charter table. The Tractor Boys scored an impressive 32 points out of a possible 35 while the Rams finished on 31. The remaining play-off places were taken by Norwich City (29), Leeds United (26), Millwall (26), and Preston North End (25). Club charter relegation beckons for Leicester City and Sheffield United as both scored a miserably. The Foxes managed 11 points while the Blades faired even worse with zero points ensuring they finished bottom of the Championship’s club charter table. Middlesbrough and Crystal Palace battled it out to avoid the final relegation position with 14 points each. The FSF’s research found that many club charters were out of date and so generic as to be almost meaningless - some clubs do not even include the contact names of key club personnel on their website. This is despite excellent guidance being available from the Football League on how to best construct a club charter. However, it isn’t just football clubs who publish charters, so too do England’s three main football authorities – the Football Association (FA), Football League, and Premier League. They were scored out of 25 across five categories and the Football League topped the table with 23 points. The FA managed to score 20 while the Premier League scored a fairly miserable five – their last fans’ charter reports were dated 2004/05. Amanda Jacks, spokesperson for the FSF, said: “Any other industry which had customers as loyal as football fans would be counting its lucky stars and doing everything possible to keep them happy. Sadly many clubs just pay lip service to their supporters - a truth reflected in the attitude to charters. It’s quite obvious many documents had little thought put into them and were given very low priority by clubs. “Many fans face long waits before clubs reply to their emails or complaints, even when club websites promise swift turnaround times. It is very, very rare that a complaint we assist with has a swift and satisfactory response. “Complaints procedures are often not comprehensive, references to the Independent Football Ombudsman almost non-existent, and far too many clubs adopt a default ‘we're right, you're wrong’ approach. One club even stated that they always back their stewards regardless! For many clubs sorry seems to be the hardest word.” Derek Fraser, The Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO), said: “The IFO welcomes the FSF’s survey into club charters. The Ombudsman places great reliance on the charters in evaluating whether clubs have met their stated obligations to supporters. The FSF has identified a number of shortcomings and improvements and the IFO supports the wish to make the charters an even more effective way of clarifying and enhancing the relationship between clubs and their supporters.” Clubs were scored from 1-5 on the above criteria. 5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = poor, 0 = no charter on site. http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Football-fans-organisation-rates-club-charters.php
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Worthless opinion by FSF who love publicity and speak for a very limited number of supporters.
lcfc"weasel" Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Worthless opinion by FSF who love publicity and speak for a very limited number of supporters. Bullshit.
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 The report by FSF does not say that LCFC have the second worst customer care. It just looks at the club charters of clubs but does not evaluate how that club treats its customers. The report states "The FSF, which represents more than 180,000 fans across England and Wales, looked at every club charter in the top two divisions". Perhaps I have misread the report.
Houdini Logic Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Customer Care isn't great, but I can't imagine it's much better anywhere else. Other than picking up the phones once in a while, I don't really know what people expect from a football club
lcfc"weasel" Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Customer Care isn't great, but I can't imagine it's much better anywhere else. Other than picking up the phones once in a while, I don't really know what people expect from a football club Reply to e-mails within a reasonable amount of time(if they reply at all), answer phone calls and allow you to speak to the person you wish without just speaking to a recptionist or whatever. The club could be doing a lot more for the fans in this respect in my opinion.
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Reply to e-mails within a reasonable amount of time(if they reply at all), answer phone calls and allow you to speak to the person you wish without just speaking to a recptionist or whatever. The club could be doing a lot more for the fans in this respect in my opinion. But that's not what the report by FSF says. It just talks about the small print of club charters. Amanda Jacks has a vendetta against LCFC due to Fosse Boys' activities earlier this season so I wouldn't place much trust in her comments.
Babylon Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Not surprised we are bottom, probably got fed up of all the phone calls and email campaigns. "Don't hire John Gregory" "Don't hire Neil Warnock" "Save the Birch" "Don't harass the fosse boys" "Don't sell Fryatt, Weale, Hobbs, Berner, Morrison (delete as appropriate) we love them" "Save the Birch Mk2" "Why didn't you hire Warnock he's doing great at QPR" "Please harass the Fosse Boys, they are annoying me".
Guest Bilo Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Customer service isn't great and fans are generally treated pretty shoddily on the whole, though there have been some improvements since Top et al took over. In terms of how the Fosse Boys and some of the people who support us are treated, that's been done to death on here. Complaints regarding stewarding and the general experience of fans who enjoy a more lively atmosphere, who in spite of what unreachable says hardly constitutes a tiny minority, are shamefully ignored by the club hierarchy. Those of us who've had to deal with such things won't be overly surprised by the findings. Also, I'm pretty sure that Amanda Jacks has met and disagreed with numerous club officials in her time so to suggest she has a specific agenda to denigrate Leicester City is nothing short of idiotic.
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 How many more times?? The FSF report is a "comprehensive review of Premier League and Championship club charters" and for them to form a league table is just nonsense and attention seeking. Perhaps Bilo could consider whether a league table based upon the small print of club charters and not upon how a club actually treats its customers has any worth at all.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Not surprised we are bottom, probably got fed up of all the phone calls and email campaigns. "Don't hire John Gregory" "Don't hire Neil Warnock" "Save the Birch" "Don't harass the fosse boys" "Don't sell Fryatt, Weale, Hobbs, Berner, Morrison (delete as appropriate) we love them" "Save the Birch Mk2" "Why didn't you hire Warnock he's doing great at QPR" "Please harass the Fosse Boys, they are annoying me". Sometimes you're very funny Babs
Guest Bilo Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 But surely the club charter colours how a club treats its fans or customers if you prefer? If a club has a decidedly unimpressive charter, or doesn't publish it in the case of Sheffield United, how can we expect their treatment of the people who pay their wages to be any different? What exactly is your overall hostility to the FSF, abundantly clear from your reply to the OP, actually based on?
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 But surely the club charter colours how a club treats its fans or customers if you prefer? If a club has a decidedly unimpressive charter, or doesn't publish it in the case of Sheffield United, how can we expect their treatment of the people who pay their wages to be any different? What exactly is your overall hostility to the FSF, abundantly clear from your reply to the OP, actually based on? I don't like my club being attacked and placed second to bottom in a "table" which does not actually deal with the relative customer care provided by clubs in the table. Most people would regard "customer care" as meaning the care actually provided in practice to real customers not to the relative virtues of the small print of customer charters. LCFC may well have a dreadful customer care practice but to grade it on an unscientific basis is pointless and attention seeking. I don't like FSF for its poor and misleading journalism.
Magictv Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 But that's not what the report by FSF says. It just talks about the small print of club charters. Amanda Jacks has a vendetta against LCFC due to Fosse Boys' activities earlier this season so I wouldn't place much trust in her comments. Is there any solid evidence of this vendetta?
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Is there any solid evidence of this vendetta? I withdraw my comment against Amanda Jacks who is a trustworthy and well respected officer of FSF and has no reason to denigrate LCFC unfairly. It is common knowledge that LCFC are not held in high respect by FSF for its stewarding policies and for its policy towards fans' groups.
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 It's all Fosse Boy's fault for posting a misleading thread title and the moderators for permitting it/not changing it.
Guest Bilo Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 I don't like my club being attacked and placed second to bottom in a "table" which does not actually deal with the relative customer care provided by clubs in the table. Most people would regard "customer care" as meaning the care actually provided in practice to real customers not to the relative virtues of the small print of customer charters. LCFC may well have a dreadful customer care practice but to grade it on an unscientific basis is pointless and attention seeking. I don't like FSF for its poor and misleading journalism. The problem is that if LCFC treated its fans/customers better then there weould be no need for negative journalism. Just as much attention has been paid to what the FSF regards to be positive examples at Ipswich and Derby as the negatives here and at Sheffield United. The fault therefore lies primarily with the club for its failings, not the FSF for reporting them. The general consensus is that clubs must do better, and that's a judgement lots of fans would agree with.
accessory Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 I don't like my club being attacked and placed second to bottom in a "table" which does not actually deal with the relative customer care provided by clubs in the table. Most people would regard "customer care" as meaning the care actually provided in practice to real customers not to the relative virtues of the small print of customer charters. LCFC may well have a dreadful customer care practice but to grade it on an unscientific basis is pointless and attention seeking. I don't like FSF for its poor and misleading journalism. Better get it sorted then Top. Congrats on your English by the way - it's better than that of most who post on here..
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 The problem is that if LCFC treated its fans/customers better then there weould be no need for negative journalism. Just as much attention has been paid to what the FSF regards to be positive examples at Ipswich and Derby as the negatives here and at Sheffield United. The fault therefore lies primarily with the club for its failings, not the FSF for reporting them. The general consensus is that clubs must do better, and that's a judgement lots of fans would agree with. Clubs can always do better but are you seriously suggesting that fans are that bothered with how they are treated so long as they can buy a ticket and watch their team in relative comfort and at a reasonable cost. We have a good stadium with good facilities. I have been treated impeccably by the club over the years and enjoy my Keith Weller Suite season ticket. The staff are very courteous and helpful and I enjoy the matchday experience. The new owners are backing Sven and that's good enough for me. I don't care what FSF think about club charters. What matters is the matchday experience for fans. FSF have their own agenda in getting publicity for themselves.
unreachable Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Better get it sorted then Top. Congrats on your English by the way - it's better than that of most who post on here.. Thank you very much. You've blown my cover.
Poakey Posted 15 March 2011 Posted 15 March 2011 Clubs can always do better but are you seriously suggesting that fans are that bothered with how they are treated so long as they can buy a ticket and watch their team in relative comfort and at a reasonable cost. We have a good stadium with good facilities. I have been treated impeccably by the club over the years and enjoy my Keith Weller Suite season ticket. The staff are very courteous and helpful and I enjoy the matchday experience. The new owners are backing Sven and that's good enough for me. I don't care what FSF think about club charters. What matters is the matchday experience for fans. FSF have their own agenda in getting publicity for themselves. Ughh, i hate that word!!
Fosse Boy Posted 15 March 2011 Author Posted 15 March 2011 Clubs can always do better but are you seriously suggesting that fans are that bothered with how they are treated so long as they can buy a ticket and watch their team in relative comfort and at a reasonable cost. We have a good stadium with good facilities. I have been treated impeccably by the club over the years and enjoy my Keith Weller Suite season ticket. The staff are very courteous and helpful and I enjoy the matchday experience. The new owners are backing Sven and that's good enough for me. I don't care what FSF think about club charters. What matters is the matchday experience for fans. FSF have their own agenda in getting publicity for themselves. Oops! Sorry chief, my bad. Will make sure in future to double check that everything I'm posting is relevant or interesting to you. Not that you seem particularly disinterested in what I've posted given how up in arms and active you've been in this thread... Much love. x
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.