"usually" does not mean "always"

<span /></p>

<span class="hw"><font size="3">usually</font></span> <div>adverb <span class="Syn"><font color="#1d4994">normally</font>, <font color="#1d4994">generally</font>, <font color="#1d4994">mainly</font>, <font color="#1d4994">commonly</font>, <font color="#1d4994">regularly</font>, <font color="#1d4994">mostly</font>, <font color="#1d4994">routinely</font>, <font color="#1d4994">on the whole</font>, <font color="#1d4994">in the main</font>, <font color="#1d4994">for the most part</font>, <font color="#1d4994">by and large</font>, most often, <font color="#1d4994">ordinarily</font>, <font color="#1d4994">as a rule</font>, <font color="#1d4994">habitually</font>, as is usual, as is the custom, USU (S.M.S.)</span> <span class="illustration"><font color="#226699">The best information about hotels usually comes from friends.</font></span></div></p>

4.7 Tickets for cup competitions are priced in agreement with the opposing Club, but usuallyno higher than for League matches.</p>

FFS get over it. Patrick has put his hands into his pockets far deeper than we have.</p>

<span /></p>

<span /></p>

<span /></p>

<span /></p>

 

I'd not heard of this charter thing before the cup draw but have read lots about it since (mainly here). Now, if that word "usually" was there from the start WHAT THE feckING HELL ARE PEOPLE feckING WELL MOANING ABOUT? Now, I know I can moan for England, but FOR feckS SAKE ON A feckING BIKE what the **** have the club done wrong? NOPTHING - FACT

 

And updated June 2009 USUALLY means updated in june.

Taken from the Barnsley FC Customer Charter on the official site on the 30th September 2009 &quot;4.7 Tickets for cup competitions are usually priced in agreement with the opposing Club, but are no higher than for League matches.&quot; And taken from the same charter the day after on 1st October 2009 &quot;4.7 Tickets for cup competitions are priced in agreement with the opposing Club, but usually no higher than for League matches.&quot; And yet if you look at the customer charter now it claims to have been last updated in June &quot;BARNSLEY FC CUSTOMER CHARTER - UPDATED JUNE 2009&quot;. Why is the club trying to pretend that its charter was updated in June when in actual fact it was updated in October? So you're right the word usually does not mean always but likewise it would appear that the word June does not always mean June, sometimes it means October.

 

Wrong

"but FOR feckS SAKE ON A feckING BIKE what the **** have the club done wrong? NOPTHING - FACT" That is not a fact. It is not a fact because the word usually was NOT there originally, it was added AFTER.

 

RE: Wrong

"Now, if that word "usually" was there from the start "

So it wasn't. Fine.

I still think people are going on a bit too much about this particular issue though.

 

RE: And updated June 2009 USUALLY means updated in june.

Did you highlight a customer charter spelling mistake on purpose ha.

 

Perhaps then....

.. it was a genuine mistake.</p>

Perhaps they meant &quot;usually&quot; but it was omitted and didn't get picked up at final stage. I don't know.</p>

However, it is evident that is what is inferred, and knowing what limited facts we have to hand regarding cup arrangements, I would have thought that we all accepted that ticket prices had to be agreed by both parties. If that is the case, then surely it must follow that no club has final control or say over the ticket price until it is agreed.</p>

It would therefore make sense to insert &quot;usually&quot;. I think some folk just seem to enjoy making issues out of virtually nothing. We have a club which has moved on from the pathetic state we were in a couple of months ago, to one with promise, and a chairman who loves the place so much he is reportedly finding resources from within himself to pay our way.</p>

And for the price of a couple of pints, we have all this bother.</p>

 

Do you not agree that if the club has a charter which has been agreed with a supporters organisation and is designed to ensure CUSTOMERS are treated correctly then that charter should be adhered to?

Do you not also agree that it shows an apparent lack of respect for the customers that after being found to be in breach of the charter the club has chosen to simply alter one word in order to make the breach disappear?

Do you not agree that section 4.11 should have been adhered to? If you are not aware then section 4.11 states that "The Club gives the earliest possible notice of any changes to its ticketing policy and the reasons for the changes via the Club programme, official website, and/or via the local media" ie that the club should have given the reasons for the breach of section 4.7. Don't you agree that this failure to do so is unacceptable and means the charter has been broken twice?

Do you not agree that the claim that the charter was last updated in June 2009 is a false claim and as such is totally unacceptable?


Fine raise the price if they need to, I don't care if that reason is because manchester united forced them to or if it is simply a decision made by PC to help fund the cost of getting shut of davey and bringing robins in. The fact of the matter is that all was needed was for a statement to be released explaining why this was done. This would have kept the club within the guidelines of its own customer charter and would have averted any of this unrest and bad feeling. Instead they chose to ignore section 4.11, turn a blind eye to customer complaints and simply alter one word whilst pretending that the charter has been as it currently reads since June which is blatently untrue. I think that this is a major issue and one that should be challenged and taken right to the top by the supporters trust. One statement was all it needed yet instead we have found ourselves staring at what appears from the outside to be a cover up and for what reason? I can think of none.

 

maybe the charter was updated in june but the website not updated til october

eh? eh? eh?

 

How is that possible jock?

It said on the charter on the website 'updated in June 2009'. Impossible for it to say that if that page had not been updated

 

not necessarily

the charter may have been updated in june with the BFCSC. not sure if there is a charter posted anywhere at oakwell but that could have been updated. i seem to remember Rob being on hols in June so it may have just forgotten to put it on the website then updated online it when the furore kicked off and someone realised they'd not updated it.

just playing devil's advocate. the charter may have been updated in june and maybe that's why they state that online when the changed the site on the 30th sep

 

Perhaps then

section 4.11 should have been followed and an explanation of why the charter was broken should have been posted on the official site?

I mean i'm no expert but isn't that a bit friendlier than simply changing a word without acknowledgment?

 

Sorry I don't think I was very clear, the charter on the official site stated that it was updated in June prior to the amendment that occured on the 1st Oct.