What's annoying me today

And that’s exactly it.

My next game was going to be the Fulham one but not bothering now and will go and watch my non league team that day. With me writing off £35 for the tour and then ‘saving’ £45 on that game it leaves me £10 ‘up’ so fuck you mr fan engagement manager. (I fully realise he doesn’t give a fuck either and someone else will take the seat).

It’s not even about the money, it’s being about right with people. They could easily put us on a future tour at no/negligible cost to the them but have chosen not to.

Well, that depends if there’s any capacity or if all future tours are fully booked, doesn’t it?

I'm not sure they give out Dad of the Year this early but they should for this effort.

Cost incurred is minimal as they only have to pay someone open the door, they will just have lost some profit. Club could have done better here.

Similar one for the NFL reception yards I saw once, Jerry Rice and his brother. Jerry [many yards], his brother 0

In that case, even more reason to give a voucher for a future tour that will never be redeemable?

Assuming the number on a tour is fixed, then by doing that, unless they can shift seven’s place at short notice, they’ve lost the revenue of two tickets. And created a precedent.

But in your scenario where ALL future tours are booked then the voucher will never be redeemed. Seven feels a bit better as he's got a voucher (he doesn't know at that point that he can never redeem it).

I thought it was obvious that I meant that they would be fully sold before starting not that they are fully sold today. If Seven books onto a tour in a month’s time, does that mean that someone else who tries to book next week won’t be able to and the club lose those sales? I’m assuming it doesn’t work for seven to be on call at five minutes notice if there’s a vacancy.

Apparently not to me! I see what you meant.

I’m quite sure a club who spent 40k per week on Harry Arter for years and gave Origi £5m last year could have given up £35 for a couple of tour places (that’s even if fully booked).

They didn’t want to. They couldn’t even be arsed to reply to my email until I chased them.

As I said, that’s policy and ultimately up to them. They’ve done nothing wrong but for me it’s a little bit off.

With stuff like this it’s often not about what any individual ‘accomodation’ costs or requires, it’s about the potentially hundreds or thousands of accomodations that might be requested across the club. Each is individually doable and reasonable, but if you try to do them all a shitshow ensues. So you need to have a pretty clear policy, and a high bar for going against it.

You’re probably not the only person who emailed the club asking for a favour this week. Maybe they could have done better or should have a few more staff answering emails, but the £35 probably doesn’t have much to do with anything. These decisions and policies more likely come down to prioritising smooth running for the many over mucking about catering for awkward mongs and their offspring.

Yeah, over-officious dayglo security goons are a scourge everywhere. Maybe it’s partly to do with perceived increased risk of being on the wrong end of a liability lawsuit if someone who’s just moseying around does a mischief of some sort.. which is a wider societal issue around balancing of responsibilities. I can see why organisations become too cautious.

That’s not really the complaint here though. It’s about what system the club has in place for people who have agreed to do A but need to change and do B. They appear to have decidied that the system is ‘you can’t’. Only by knowing the context of that decision can we determine if it’s a ‘fuck you’ to Seven, or simply in the best interest of all the other numbers.

And there you have it. We are all numbers not people.