Rob Sinclair
127 posts
Rob Sinclair
@RobSinclailgfo
Man Utd fan since 1985 🔴 Home and Away, no matter what Raised on Fergie time Schmeichel my all time #1 🧤
Nottingham, England Katılım Ocak 2026
137 Takip Edilen65 Takipçiler
Rob Sinclair retweetledi
For the supporters facing account restrictions and being told via email that they have only 3 days to submit an appeal. This directly violates Paragraph 3 of the club's official Sanctions Guidance, which explicitly grants fans a 14-day window to challenge an initial decision.
Even if this is the first time it has happened to you personally, you can take immediate action to challenge this unfair practice under UK consumer law. When you buy a ticket or membership, you enter a binding consumer contract. The club cannot enforce arbitrary, accelerated deadlines that contradict its own published terms.
Here is how you can handle this individually:
- Demand your full timeline. Do not rush a panicked response. Reply immediately to appeals@manutd.co.uk, quote Paragraph 3 of the Sanctions Guidance, and state that you are exercising your contractually stated right to 14 days to prepare your case. Request formal confirmation that your deadline has been extended.
- Report the breach to Citizens Advice. Call the Citizens Advice Consumer Service at 0808 223 1133. Report that Manchester United is restricting a paid-for service and refusing to adhere to the 14-day dispute timeline in their own terms. This logs your specific case directly into the National Trading Standards database to help flag systemic consumer detriment.
- Flag it to Trafford Council. Once you have a Citizens Advice reference number, you can forward your case details to Trafford Borough Council’s consumer enforcement team. Because Old Trafford sits in their jurisdiction, they are the local Trading Standards team with direct enforcement oversight.
- Submit your evidence for collective leverage. Send a copy of your short-deadline email to the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust via islo@imust.org.uk. Even a single email provides the Trust with the ammunition needed to prove to senior executives and the Independent Football Ombudsman that the ticketing department is routinely operating outside its own rules.
On that final point, as you'll have seen here:
x.com/OhCheesesChris…
Manchester United Supporters' Trust (MUST) and the Fans' Forum are challenging the club's overall approach to these sanctions, as set out in the letter they've sent to the club.
Let's see how quickly the club responds.
Cheeses Of Nazareth@OhCheesesChrist
In 2022, the club was pulled up on how it handled a supporter's sanctions appeal. The Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO) upheld the complaint and overturned the club's decision. One of the key issues identified was that the club had not followed its own published sanctions process. Given the number of sanctions now being issued, it's fair to ask whether those lessons have actually been learned. Let's look at some of the IFO's findings from 2022. "The IFO found certain shortcomings in the Club’s management of the suspension and appeal." This wasn't simply a disagreement over the outcome; the Ombudsman identified failings in the club's process. "The Club gave the complainant less than three days to appeal the sanction, although according to their Terms and Conditions he should have been allowed 14 days." The club's own Terms & Conditions allowed 14 days, yet the supporter was given less than three. Anyone currently going through this process should familiarise themselves with the published timescales and ensure they're afforded the rights set out in the club's policy. "There is also a requirement that the appeal should be heard in the first instance by a Senior Manager." That raises a reasonable question: who is considered the "Senior Manager" for these appeals? If that person sits within the same function responsible for issuing sanctions, supporters may reasonably ask how the club ensures the appeal process remains sufficiently independent. "Although the Club told the complainant on [REDACTED] that his appeal had followed the documented process, that clearly was not the case, as they had told the complainant at the outset that the appeal, submitted on [REDACTED], would be heard by the Appeals Panel in week commencing [REDACTED]. In response, the Club said that they recognise that their communications could have been clearer and acknowledged that the sanctions process appeared to have been rushed through." The IFO concluded that the documented process hadn't been followed. The club accepted that its communications could have been clearer and acknowledged that the sanctions process had appeared rushed. Given the volume of sanctions currently being issued, supporters are entitled to ask whether the club has taken sufficient steps to ensure the process is robust, transparent and fair. "They had taken that decision on the basis that Appeals Panel meetings take place on a monthly basis and they had wanted to ensure that as many cases as possible were reviewed by the Panel without having to wait a further month. The Club said that, in hindsight, from a supporter's perspective it might appear that the correct process had not been followed, but they would like to clarify that that was not the case for the complainant." The club explained that it wanted as many cases as possible heard without waiting another month. While understandable from an administrative perspective, it also highlights the importance of ensuring operational convenience doesn't override the procedures and protections set out in the club's own rules. For me, the bigger concern is the process itself. When an organisation has previously been criticised by the IFO for shortcomings in its sanctions and appeals process, it's reasonable to expect those issues to have been fully addressed. With the apparent increase in sanctions in recent days, I think supporters deserve confidence that every case is being handled consistently, fairly and in accordance with the club's published Terms & Conditions. If supporters believe those standards are not being met, then referring concerns to the Independent Football Ombudsman may be an appropriate course of action. @FootballOmbuds should be made aware of the club's recent actions.
English
@United_Webby Haha!! Hope you’ve had a good summer mate 🇾🇪🇾🇪
English
Can’t wait for the moaning to start about 4.14 today 🙄god I’ve missed you so much 🇾🇪#unitedareback
English
Rob Sinclair retweetledi
Making our way home after a brilliant few days in Atlanta at the @FIFAWorldCup . Not the result we wanted for @England but I’ve loved every second of it with my boy and made some real memories
Now back to the UK, bring on the Premier League and watching our true love @ManUtd
Atlanta, GA 🇺🇸 English
Rob Sinclair retweetledi
The Fans Forums have spoken. And it's a bit of a read:
In acknowledging an email to us earlier today from the Club, the Fans Forum is writing to express our deep concern about the large number of fans who have, in recent days, received club sanctions as a result of analysis flagging suspicious activity patterns relating to their accounts.
We would like to initiate a proper discussion with the club but we need to do that with cool heads, to give it the consideration required. For that reason we are asking the club to pause any further issuance of new suspensions and hold off cancelling any season tickets to allow that discussion to happen without pressure growing further on fan representatives. Reps have been receiving messages of concern and anger - meanwhile criticism on social media is building and doing damage.
The Fans' Forum fully supports the Club's objective of tackling ticket touting, organised abuse of the ticketing system and the use of automated purchasing technology. Genuine supporters are among the biggest victims of these practices, and robust action against professional touting has widespread support across the fanbase.
However, where genuine supporters perceive that obtaining tickets through official channels has become increasingly difficult, some may adopt behaviours which, whilst not motivated by profit or commercial gain, nevertheless attract scrutiny. It is therefore essential that enforcement activity distinguishes clearly between genuine supporters trying to obtain tickets for their own and friends use and those engaged in organised commercial abuse of the system. We should focus on improving the systems and processes that drive supporter behaviour, rather than penalising genuine fans acting in good faith. We are increasingly concerned that the current approach risks causing significant unintended consequences. If measures designed to protect genuine supporters instead result in long-standing Season Ticket Holders feeling unfairly targeted, the Club risks doing more damage to supporter trust than the abuse it is seeking to prevent.
There is already a widespread perception among many Season Ticket Holders that they are facing an increasing number of restrictions, policy changes and sanctions. Over recent seasons this has included price increases, changes to ticketing policies and tougher enforcement measures. Relationships between the Club and supporters had begun to improve after what has been a difficult period, but these latest actions risk reversing that progress.
As supporter representatives, this is particularly concerning. We are regularly asked to explain and defend changes where we believe they are justified and in supporters' interests. That becomes extremely difficult if loyal supporters believe they are being treated as suspects rather than valued supporters. The level of frustration we are hearing is growing rapidly and should not be underestimated.
We therefore ask the Club to consider the following principles:-
1. Investigations must not become convictions
The use of sophisticated analytics to identify suspicious behaviour is entirely sensible. However, such systems should identify accounts requiring further investigation rather than providing sufficient evidence, by themselves, to justify sanctions.Suspicion should trigger investigation; it should not constitute proof.
2. Different standards should apply to Member accounts and Season Ticket Holders
We understand from the club that the scale of abuse involving “disposable” Member accounts managed by touts is substantial and may justify a lower threshold for initiating investigations.
However, Season Ticket Holders represent a very different category. Their identities have already been verified, many have held tickets for decades and have established histories with the Club. The cancellation of a Season Ticket can represent the loss of a relationship with the Club and friends built over decades and often spanning multiple generations of the same family. Where sanctions of this severity are contemplated, the evidential standard should reflect the seriousness and permanence of the consequences.
We do not believe behavioural analysis alone should ever be regarded as sufficient evidence to sanction a Season Ticket Holder. It must be based on actual evidence of wrongdoing - especially where the ultimate sanction of cancellation of a season ticket is to be applied.
3. Supporters must be able to understand the case against them
We appreciate the Club's reluctance to disclose detection methods which could undermine future investigations.However, there is an important distinction between intelligence and evidence.
If information cannot be disclosed because it would compromise investigative techniques, then it should be used as intelligence to trigger enquiries, not as evidence to determine guilt. A supporter cannot reasonably defend themselves or make an informed appeal without understanding the substance of the allegation against them.
Fundamental fairness requires that supporters know enough about the evidence relied upon to respond meaningfully.Supporters should have access to a fair and genuinely independent appeal process. Where sanctions are imposed, supporters should be given sufficient information to understand the allegations, provide an explanation and submit relevant evidence. An appeal process cannot command confidence if supporters are unable to understand the basis upon which decisions have been reached.
4. Club systems can influence supporter behaviour
We continue to believe that aspects of the current away ticket returns process unintentionally encourage behaviour which many supporters perceive as necessary if they are to have any realistic chance of obtaining returned tickets.
Supporters know that others are monitoring the system continuously and therefore feel compelled to do likewise. In most cases, this is not driven by commercial gain but by extraordinary commitment and determination to follow the team.If the Club believes these behaviours are undesirable, the long-term solution is to improve the design of the ticketing system so that supporters no longer feel they must compete in this way.
Good system design is generally more effective than increasingly punitive enforcement.
5. Touting should be clearly defined
There should be a clear distinction between professional ticket touting and other breaches of ticketing policy.
For most supporters, "touting" means repeated or organised resale for financial gain above face value. In our discussions and in communications to supporters (and indeed rules) we have to adopt the definition which is commonly understood by fans otherwise we are talking about different things.
Professional touting activity deserves the strongest sanctions and enjoys broad support for firm enforcement.
Conflating it with other forms of ticket misuse risks undermining confidence in the disciplinary process and reducing public support for action against genuine touts.
6. Sanctions should be proportionate
For breaches which do not involve professional touting or fraud, the default response should normally be education and a warning for a first offence.The Club should also consider whether aspects of its own ticketing systems may have contributed to the behaviour before determining an appropriate sanction.
We should manage fan behaviour by education and by optimising systems not by applying sanctions which do huge damage to club-fan relations and create massive resentment undermining all the good work we do together.
7. Sharing of account login credentials
Sharing of log in details with trusted friends and family is common and should not be an offence. If the club disagrees then we should have a proper debate on this point and review the rules and communications after that debate has concluded but not apply any rule changes (or contested interpretation of existing rules) retrospectively.
We know many fans (including, no doubt members of the FF) do this to help manage accounts for friends and family - for example when applying as larger groups for away games. This should not be outlawed.
8. Finally, reassure supporters regarding the future of Season Tickets
There is an increasing belief among supporters that recent policy changes and tougher enforcement are being driven, at least in part, by a desire to reduce the number of Season Ticket Holders in favour of higher-yield ticket sales.Whether or not this perception is correct, it is becoming increasingly widespread and is damaging confidence.
We therefore ask the Club to provide reassurance by confirming:
the current number of Season Ticket Holders;
that the Club is not pursuing a policy of reducing Season Ticket numbers; and
that Season Tickets surrendered or withdrawn will continue to be reallocated as Season Tickets rather than converted into Member or other ticket categories.
The Club and supporters share the same objective: ensuring tickets are used fairly by genuine fans. Achieving that objective requires not only effective enforcement but also confidence that investigations are fair, proportionate and transparent. Maintaining the trust of loyal Season Ticket Holders is essential if the Club is to retain the goodwill and support of our fanbase. Nowhere does this apply more than our away following and we should not be doing anything to damage what is considered the best away support in the league. That enviable support has been built on a sense of camaraderie, community and a culture involving fan networks and ticket sharing over decades.
English
@Tommytwoshoes69 @TraMufc Yep!! Completely agree, thanks Thomas
Will let you know - cheers
English
@RobSinclailgfo @TraMufc You've been accused of the same and are an executive ST holder? Wow. That tends to suggest their detecting system is shite rather than the suggestion that the club are trying to reduce 'cheap' ST numbers.
Anyway best of luck with your case.
English
So, two more of ours recently had the email inferring that they have been touting their STs.
Father & son, both time-served and as loyal as they come, neither have ever missed a home game in at least 9 years since TRA began.
T is 75 yrs old, 1968 ECF attendee and S, his son, is a key member of the TRA leadership team.
Both are devestated and understandably ill with anxiety.
What The Club fail to take into account (or don't seem to care about), is the impact that unfounded accusations against a person's character can have on their mental health and well being.
Innocent Reds may now miss games or worse, have their hard earned money stolen from them & banned under a presumption of guilt.
Couple that with the fact that for some, this may be the one real release that they have in their lives and the one activity that they do together with friends or as a family - and this doesn't reflect at all well on a Club which prides itself on being at the head of 'the United family'.
Naturally we're looking into how we can work together alongside other groups and individuals to have the 'guilty until proven innocent' approach overturned and replaced with one which demonstrates empathy & respect to Manchester United's loyal, match-going supporters.
We're all against touting but a system like this only serves to widen the divide between The Club and its match-going fanbase and deepens a long-standing, well founded distrust of the people making these decisions.
Watch this space🤞
🇾🇪
@MU_ST @muyscofficial @The__1958 @dipsMUFC @OhCheesesChrist
English
@dipsMUFC Thank you 🙏 will let you know how I get on with my appeal
English
@RobSinclailgfo I know Rob. The way in which this is communicated is a huge concern. We have raised it and will continue to do so.
English
I’ve seen all your messages/tweets about the latest ticket office email. If you’ve received one, the best thing you can do is respond fully to the questions. This is part of a wider crackdown on bots/touts, but unfortunately some genuine fans have been caught up too! #MUFC
English
