scum.

[bombfrog]

there not under-priced. they are priced at the level that ME wants you and i and everyone else to pay.

[Tugger2k]

Im sure as soon as GF see it as a problem they will take measures against it again. Doesnt look like its bothering them at the minute. If they arent worrying I wouldnt worry either

[Tugger2k]

They are priced under the value that the market is willing to pay. Fact.

[Buddhafish]

They are priced under the value that the market is willing to pay. Fact.

[robalotalob]

measures that will cost money. the anti-touting measures have already put money on ticket, any more and we all pay

because some scum wanted to make a profit on their ticket and some people thought that was fine

[Tugger2k]

I can't see how touting on a large scale could happen. It would mean inventing identities and registering photos for thousands of people. Seems to me all the people selling tickets for profit are individuals with a genuine reason for sale looking to make a quick buck.

[bombfrog]

Glastonbury wasnt, isnt, and i hope never will be market driven. Fact

[ukslim]

They are priced under the value that the market is willing to pay. Fact.

[Tugger2k]

Glastonbury is a business and they sell tickets to the general public. They are having to artificially control the market by asking places like Ebay to take these auctions down.

[bombfrog]

the people play for less because its not market driven.

[ukslim]

Given that it's not against the law to sell your ticket, you're just violating the terms of an agreement, which may not be valid anyway because I'm fairly sure you don't see the Glasto T's & C's until you've already purchased the ticket I wonder what kind of shaky ground Glastonbury are on trying to stop somebody selling a ticket they've paid good money for and technically own?

[bombfrog]

I'm pretty sure you accept the T&Cs before you're sent the ticket.

But the physical ticket is not really what you've bought anyway. What you've bought is an agreement by the festival that they will admit a specific named person. The piece of paper is just a tool for administrating that agreement.

I think you're on shaky ground by separating criminal law and civil law. Violating civil law is still wrong, and fraud is a criminal offence.

[Buddhafish]

A likely effect of ME taking more money for the tickets (instead of letting touts mark-up the difference) is that much more money would go to the charities.

[Tugger2k]

Wrong. They play for less because Glastonbury is a cool gig which helps them sell gazillions of albums and possibly because they know the profits go to charity.

A likely effect of ME taking more money for the tickets (instead of letting touts mark-up the difference) is that much more money would go to the charities.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Tugger2k

[tilt]

Lot of melodrama in this thread.

[DeclarationOfWar]

I love the use of adverbs in some of the descriptions for the tickets. So many times you can see 'reluctantly' or 'upsettingly', plus i love how everybody has suddenly (adverb ) discovered an injury or can't go.

Really annoys me how easily people are getting away with it on eBay, cant anything be done to stop it? This will only get worse, get some proper checks in place to piss em off when they get to the gate when they realise a 30 year old woman with blonde hair does not look like an 18 year old boy with sunglasses and a hat on.

[DeclarationOfWar]

Also, just read 'any profit would be necessary ... can't work atm and we would like any profit possible'.

[DeclarationOfWar]

IF they weren't touts they'd sell them at face value, buy it now full stop.

Sick of these listings at 200 odd and they're recieving six/seven bids, so annoying :/

[jameshunt]

If you can explain to me why me thinking there is nothing wrong with someone making a few quid is thick or spineless then sir, i will go buy a hat and take it off to you.

note. I will try to get the hat for face value but the hat shop up the road insists on making some sort of profit. Scum

[ukslim]

Actually, the same situation exists with "pre-owned" video games and DVDs. The publishers try to stop people selling on their media because they say that they are selling you a license to have a copy of the media rather than selling you the disc that it comes on. The thing is that because the terms and conditions are often sealed inside the box you can't accept them before purchasing so they've never prosecuted anyone for trading in their DVDs, because they can't. Even if they could there would be an outrage because if you buy something you expect to own it and you expect to be able to sell it on if you no longer want it.

[Nedson]

You accused me of being the same as you, that I'd do the same as you would. I pointed out that not only that I wouldn't, but I hadn't in 2005 when my other half couldn't go. You have failed to retract your claim or apologise. Hence you are spineless. Feel free to re-read this thread to refresh your memory.

[bombfrog]

It wouldn't because he would then be paying market prices for the artists, as the bands won't pay for less if it's turned into a venue where only the wealthy can attend.

As I asked before, would you rather the festival was only attended by people that can afford to pay 'market led' prices?

Edited June 10, 2010 by bombfrog

[ukslim]

B ) When you price something too cheaply then you create more demand and people buy tickets who may not be that fussed. Those of us that love the festival would be absolutely gutted if they couldn't get a ticket one year and would happily pay more to buy the ticket off somebody who wasn't that fussed about going. Under the present system I would just have to stay at home and watch it on the telly.

[Tugger2k]

No, but there are problems with the current system.

A ) You can't get a refund after a certain date, that's what's causing so many people to have to try selling them. I know 1 person that can't go because she's been off ill for the last few weeks and another that may not be able to come now because of work. Do you think ME likes people having to pay £185 for a ticket and then staying at home?

B ) When you price something too cheaply then you create more demand and people buy tickets who may not be that fussed. Those of us that love the festival would be absolutely gutted if they couldn't get a ticket one year and would happily pay more to buy the ticket off somebody who wasn't that fussed about going. Under the present system I would just have to stay at home and watch it on the telly.

There are loads of threads on this forum complaining about how the tickets work so the system clearly isn't working for everybody.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Tugger2k

[bombfrog]

Second-guessing M.E.'s motives again, but I think he want to attract (young?) first-timers in order that the festival stays fresh and interesting. This year's "not that fussed" first-timers, are next year's dedicated fans. Plus first-timers may get exposed to the "progressive" elements of the festival, and go on to effect real social change.

I do agree that the cancellation deadline is a problem. Of course people should have bought the insurance. I thought about the idea of making insurance compulsory -- but that penalises people who already have travel insurance that would overlap.

Edited June 10, 2010 by bombfrog