"All he had to do" why should he have to do anything? The club have banned him from the stadium but still want to take his money. I know there is some confusion because it looks like he was paying for two tickets but only one of those got banned. What happened to the guy holding the other side of the Allam Out flag?
If the bans are ridiculous then even less reason to complain about having to pay for an unbanned membership,
Seems pretty self-explanatory. If he's paying for a membership, and it hasn't been banned, and he hasn't canceled it, what is he complaining about? Seems to just be leveraging off the general atmosphere to have a whinge about a stuff up, and based on the phrasing of his complaint doesn't strike me as the brightest spark.
I've no idea who the second seat is for, but if it's for his son, then he can't take him due to his ban and it's perfectly reasonable that he shouldn't continue paying for seats he can't use. No idea why you're sticking up for the club on this, he should never have been banned in the first place.
Then complain about the ban not something essentially unrelated. As I've said twice now, if he can't take his kid then cancel that membership as well so he doesn't have to pay for something he can't use. Would seem to be pretty simple.
If you ban someone, you should stop charging them, not try to make them keep paying for games they can't go to for another two months ffs.
So the club should decide its charging policy on hypotheticals? Do you know how old the kid is? Another family member could buy tickets to sit with the kid even if they're underage... I get it it's fun to bash the allams, but I'm sorry this situation is farcical.
Not a ****ing clue and neither do you, but you've decided he should carrying on paying for the seat he's not using regardless.
Was the letter/e-mail sent to him or someone else? If it was sent to him then the contract is in his name and he's been banned so cannot fulfill it. The terms and conditions may cover what happens if a person paying for two or more memberships is banned, but I'd be surprised if it does.
He's the account holder not the pass holder. I'd have to see the terms but I suspect just because you pay the pass doesn't mean you have to actually be able to use the pass or else no junior would be able to go as they can't personally pay for their pass It would be interesting, you'd hope they have clauses regarding banned members but I doubt the clowns considered it.
I'm ****ing stunned you think he should pay for games the club won't allow him to attend. I'm not surprised the in slightest the club think he should pay, but a fellow fan? Wtf?
I'm surprised people think he should be allowed an active pass for free? Or are you saying if he's banned his kid should be banned too? If the latter then I'm happy to agree he shouldn't have to pay.
