Search results

Not sure that's true at all. 70% or so of the ground is already taken by STHs so they can't all be 'better', and I know some that have STs in less expensive areas to minimise cost, sit in family stand etc etc. Everyone has a different view of 'better' too - for example I really don't like being...

Might soon be outsider........

Don't disagree with your first para - it was impeccable. As for this, it's shambolic - can't believe it's been properly considered at the top level.

We've got a PR department ??

Agree with this. Very odd to jump on the forum with a sledgehammer to crack a nut rubbish piece of policy on the hoof, then disappear again despite loads of additional comments questions about said new 'policy'. Strange way to operate, particularly as the policy will only reach a % of NSC users...

Flog it on a ticket resale site?

Insider you've been noticeably absent since your policy-on-the-hoof post. Any further thoughts?

Yup. Had to be said.

Imagine the intention was 'we need to expressly approve a permanent transfer to someone else, but if, occasionally, you hand it to a pal at no more than face value that's ok'....the process they have for issuing a ticket kind of confirms this.

What does the next sentence mean? The one you've quoted appears to relate to a permanent transfer..... It's badly worded....

No. ST t&cs explicitly allow game-by-game transfer to someone else as long as at face value or below