Search results

True, now that the new rules have delivered a level playing field.

The crucial part of that ruling is that the Father had been e mailed by the club to inform him of the checks and yet still chose to break the rules. To use the son’s mental health needs to try to avoid the consequence is, well…I am struggling to finish that sentence.

Well, it’s probably all of the above. It’s just nice to have the opportunity if you do want to travel.

The new rules banning passing on tickets having their desired effect of making more available at lower tier levels. Hopefully some left for Members on Tuesday.

Actually I think that’s likely a good summary of what’s changed in a lot of cases. Before the new rules it was an easy decision to buy a ticket even if plans weren’t definite. Maybe the ticket buyer went, maybe not and if the latter then the ticket could be passed on. Some were sold on and...

Great. So combined with the fact that there are significant penalties for passing on tickets and random checks to ensure compliance we shouldn’t have a problem any more.

You say that but this thread was posted by somebody who doesn’t like the new rules. I have never started a thread on the subject but if people are going to keep arguing for a return of their rights to pass on their tickets to the people they choose then I am going to keep arguing against that...

I’m repeating what the club say they know is happening. I’m thinking they are a better source than you are. Anyway, the club have solved the problem so all is good.

It goes to all STH tomorrow. The closed shop is in tickets for the high demand games. By earning points for unattended games people preserve their right to tickets at the London and other big games. This has been explained so many times and is never answered.

The club have not complained about ‘a massive administrative pain in the arse.’ Photo ID you just keep in your wallet. Arriving early at stadiums is pretty standard at away games. Not much point in traveling across the country and not planning for unexpected delays/queues. Whether or not away...

The negatives for you outweigh the positives. That does not mean it’s the same for everyone or that the club should not defend the integrity of the LP scheme, which is intended to reward attendance at matches. The checks you disapprove of are the only way of making sure people at the top of the...

And if people attend all the games for which they buy tickets then nobody has any issue with that. If people buy and don’t attend which keeps their points topped up and that enables them to buy a ticket for a high demand game over someone in the next tier down then that’s the closed shop in...

All the London games. Midlands as well. Maybe some of the bigger Northern ones this coming season as well because of people trying to up their points totals for Europe.

In theory, yes. Maybe with the additional tweak of a maximum number of times you can do this; to prevent people from buying tickets ‘just in case’ they can go. Also, refunds only made if the ticket re sells.

I went to the other Bournemouth game that week. The PL one. Only 5 points as I remember but chose to go to that for the importance of the game rather than choose the 15 points harvesting from the meaningless cup game. Couldn’t do both in a week from Norfolk. This all comes down to human nature...

Everyone has seen the resale tickets on Twitter etc. The club outlined the scale of the problem they were dealing with when they introduced the checks. That Bournemouth game was simply the first time the activities of the cosy cartel were exposed for all to see and the first public response...

Then perhaps your club isn’t bothered about a closed shop of the same people always buying the tickets regardless of whether or not they go to the game thereby re-enforcing their ability to hoover up all the tickets for the high demand games. Maybe it doesn’t happen at Derby or maybe you have...

It also undermines the stated aim of fair access to tickets via the LP scheme. It comes across as tokenism designed to park the complaint about 1901ers having away ticket distribution rights denied to other fans. Badly thought out idea but thanks to the OP for highlighting.

I’m not sure that is clear. A name on its own is not comparable data to that given by ordinary STH and members who also give contact details and have a fan number. I find it difficult to believe that a 1901er can simply assign an away ticket to any name with no other details. How does that help...

Presumably 1901 members will need to submit a list of these names and details to the club. Otherwise it would be meaningless.