Don't criticise Charlton or you can't have a season ticket?

[bobjimwilly]

https://twitter.com/Matt5cott/status/764015785228374017

granting of the season ticket will be 'conditional' and subject to you signing an "Agreed Behavioural Contract" (ABC) which will request that you refrain from posting derogatory or inflammatory comments regarding the Club or people representing the club in the future on any social media websites

What the actual f*ck? 

[DearneValleyRover]

It goes to show social media is a double edged sword

[Copps is Magic]

It's a worrying trend.

However, we might be fine ones to talk given that (I believe) the club have enforced behavioral contracts for stuff posted on social media in the past. Certain posters will be able to confirm if true.

[IDM]

I dunno...

It depends on where you draw the line on "derogatory and inflammatory" - and it looks like this is an isolated case for one individual.

I'm all for freedom of speech and folks can have whatever opinions they like, regardless of how bizarre or irrational.  However, if things are bordering on libel and slander then that is a different issue?  Maybe this type of action is one step below taking an individual to court??

[bobjimwilly]

It's a worrying trend.

However, we might be fine ones to talk given that (I believe) the club have enforced behavioral contracts for stuff posted on social media in the past. Certain posters will be able to confirm if true.

I know behavioural contracts have been sent out in the past, which I 100% disagree with, I didn't think they specifically mentioned social media posts? If true then whoever received them should do the same thing; clubs need to be exposed for this sort of behaviour!

Needless to say, Charlton fans aren't taking too kindly to it, although they also seem to expect this sort of behaviour these days

I'm all for freedom of speech and folks can have whatever opinions they like, regardless of how bizarre or irrational.  However, if things are bordering on libel and slander then that is a different issue?  Maybe this type of action is one step below taking an individual to court??

I see your point IDM, but I would have expected Charlton to mention in the letter if such posts on social-media were potentially libellous.

Either way it's still no way to treat your "customers". Can you imagine ASDA writing to a customer and telling them they will be banned if they complained about a dodgy pack of ham on twitter? I recently mentioned Subway in a tweet about some sandwiches I purchased recently; they wouldn't dare send such a letter in response!

I fear when clubs take such measures they prey on the fact we, as fans, love our clubs and most of the time would do anything to avoid being banned from (or charged more to) watch matches.

[IDM]

I think the situation would be clearer if it was known what the "derogatory and inflammatory" comments were?

We are only seeing one side of the story here, and the reaction is understandable. 

[GazLaz]

It's not going to build a bond between the club an the fans is it. The fans already hate the owners, this is bound to make it worse.

[Colin C No.3]

It goes to show social media is a double edged sword

Never a truer word spoken!

[silent majority]

We have had people connected with our club who have reverted to legal action in the past when they felt supporters were asking too many questions. I still have the letters!

[bobjimwilly]

And don't forget their Cheif Exec, Katrien Meire, was appointed to the FA Council just this week! 

[Chris Black come back]

Are we allowed to mention JR again yet?

[Sad-Rovers]

I can confirm that DRFC have sent out Acceptable Behaviour Contracts for posts made on social media. I also remember the lack of interest in that by some of the posters in this very thread.

[graingrover]

Social media is a fine technological advancement  but when people can ASSUME a  personality and play it out on social media then we are  in a fantasy world .

 

[IDM]

You would like to think that the football clubs are aware of the kind of backlash they can expect from sending out something like this, which is one reason I think there may be more to this story than is in the public domain.

There must be something more than "criticism" in this for the club to react as it did?

[albie]

Apart from it being an obvious own goal in terms of PR, I would have thought this is very dodgy from a legal point of view.

Unless the person has committed an offence to warrant exclusion, the basis for imposing a gagging order is simply a form of discrimination. In this case, the freedom to hold an opinion different to the official line is cited as a cause to exclude.

Unleash the lawyers...they will be at Charlton like scrapyard dogs.

At the very least they should be required to justify their decision with a reasoned argument. Nothing in the letter to offer that.

[IDM]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37058470

More here on the BBC.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Apart from it being an obvious own goal in terms of PR, I would have thought this is very dodgy from a legal point of view.

Unless the person has committed an offence to warrant exclusion, the basis for imposing a gagging order is simply a form of discrimination. In this case, the freedom to hold an opinion different to the official line is cited as a cause to exclude.

Unleash the lawyers...they will be at Charlton like scrapyard dogs.

At the very least they should be required to justify their decision with a reasoned argument. Nothing in the letter to offer that.

Not sure that stacks up in legal terms Albie (not that I have any expertise whatsoever on this - just applying a bit of logic to it).

As I see it, a football match is an event in which the hosting club has a right to admit or exclude whomsoever it wishes. I don;t see it as being any different (legally) to a pub or club having bouncers on the door to stop aggressively mouthy t**ts getting in.

Morally, of course, we all know that football clubs are not just private organisations; they are a part of the community and this sort of exclusion is very worrying. However, triangulating again (like the good Blairite I am supposed to be...) if the people at Charlton have been behaving as d**kheadedly on Twitter as some of our followers,  trolling players and having a go at club staff, then I haven't got a massive amount of sympathy for them.

[albie]

Don't know what the fella did, so it's difficult to say the rights and wrongs of it.

Charlton do seem to be offering season tickets on different terms to different customers. It is not like they are saying all punters must sign up to their good behaviour code in social media, just this fella.

The rules on entering the ground or club premises can place conditions, but asking folk to change their opinion (or not express it) on social media outside the club is a different kettle of fish. Slippery slope here.

Anyway, whats to stop a mate buying a ticket and letting him use it?

[IDM]

I (my opinion) believe its not about having an opinion or criticising, but more about crossing a line in terms of abuse.

The general reaction seems to be that Charlton were trying to restrict the freedom to criticise, which as someone said on here is terrible PR.

[BobG]

If the powers that be at Charlton feel they are not sufficiently protected by existing laws, surely they would have sued if it was libellous? As they haven't sued, surely they can only be one (or more) of thin skinned, working to an agenda they don't want to be questioned, or, attempting to set themselves up as arbiters of public morals and behaviour? All three of which, of course, should be challenged.

Poor old Charlton. They were the original trailblazer for the carpetbaggers 30 years ago. Now it looks like they are trailblazing again - the 21st C way. Possibly a bit daft of the owners though: Charlton supporters have proved well enough they're neither mugs nor incapable. They won't be lying down.

BobG

[Sammy Chung was King]

I would tell them to 'stick it where the sun doesn't shine', they have no right, to tell people what they can and can't post, i don't think they will last very long as owners.

[albie]

It looks like Charlton had second thoughts about the contract, after the fella turned up with the Supporters Trust man at his side;
‘They’re destroying the club’: Charlton fan threatened with ban hits back | Football | The Guardian

Still a ridiculous own goal though, as fans turned out with North Korea signs at the game on Saturday.

One or two on here might qualify for a behaviour contract if the idea caught on!
Still, Rovers would never, would they?

[Drover]

It's a worrying trend.

However, we might be fine ones to talk given that (I believe) the club have enforced behavioral contracts for stuff posted on social media in the past. Certain posters will be able to confirm if true.

Was they actually Enforced?I thought They cannot force you to sign can they?I think the Charlton ABC was a Threat(not enforced),along the lines,sign this ABC or we might not grant you a season ticket.(conditional)?

[silent majority]

There's a little bit of misinformation going off here.

Firstly the issue was settled before the Charlton supporter published the letter he received. To me that's not the way to do things. Secondly, nobody yet has published what the supporter actually did or said which precipitated the meeting. Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for the individual we need the whole story to evaluate properly.

[SydneyRover]

"derogatory or inflammatory'' to one person could be "truth" to another

[phil old leake]

Lets not be too critical.  Does anyone actually know what the comments were.   Maybe the club are justified. It alright everyone being high and mighty slagging Charlton let's look at both sides

[Copps is Magic]

Not really the issue that Phil. If someone is causing problems inside the ground, kick them out. If there is a known trouble causer (in any way) don't let them in. No problems.

But these behaviour contracts seem to be a way of controlling what individuals can do. They are also dangerously close to being pre-preemptive justice - i.e. dished out before anyone has done anything wrong. Most worrying of all, clubs now seem to be monitoring what individuals are doing in private forums and in their own time and handing out punishments based on this information.

It's complicated now isn't it? I caught the back end of the old system when I was youner - if someone was causing a problem 'off you go son'. Now with CCTV and online monitoring there's a whole micro world of football justice that we needs to be carefully understood.

[IDM]

- i.e. dished out before anyone has done anything wrong. Most worrying of all, clubs now seem to be monitoring what individuals are doing in private forums

But we don't know what was said to offend Charlton, do we?  The fan in question may have already done something wrong, and social media is anything but private!