Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Resale Club 2023


Jack.194

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, incident said:

Stating the obvious here, but precedent suggests that whichever intern is monitoring their social media won't actually know and so any answer you get back can't be trusted to be correct. Plenty examples of them assuming something and it being wrong in reality, most recently in the Campervan sale when their social media assured people it wasn't possible to buy more than one ticket.

You're right.....I've raised enquiry with Cust Services against my existing ticket ref though so hopefully might get someone a bit more clued up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going to be the guinea pigs to see if the new non payment method can be utilised for the main sale. I fully expect this to be very quick indeed and plenty resorting to page monitoring in the event of secret sales taking place ater the 24 hour window to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fingerbobs said:

We're going to be the guinea pigs to see if the new non payment method can be utilised for the main sale. I fully expect this to be very quick indeed and plenty resorting to page monitoring in the event of secret sales taking place ater the 24 hour window to pay.

Yeah, if this works then I can see it being used in future main sales too.

It is unfair that people have got through and missed out due to a bank issue they can’t control. This would avoid that.

I think it would also increase the number who try to see if they can and then decide straight away not to, so could increase the resale pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colorblindjames said:

"A very limited number of tickets"

Does this indicate a lot less than previous years?

Just setting expectations most likely. There will still be people asking how they managed to get no tickets over 2 different onsales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, t0paz said:

Yeah, if this works then I can see it being used in future main sales too.

It is unfair that people have got through and missed out due to a bank issue they can’t control. This would avoid that.

I think it would also increase the number who try to see if they can and then decide straight away not to, so could increase the resale pot.

100% would increase the resale pot. 

Current system all tickets get sold 100% vs at least some tickets will be left like this - especially with no deposit taken.

Given people will be paying after they get a ticket in October could see this being the foundation for payment plans / paying it in full in October if you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Colorblindjames said:

"A very limited number of tickets"

Does this indicate a lot less than previous years?

I suspect it's expectation management. 

I have a longstanding belief that any event should advertise the exact number of tickets available for any sale/presale etc before they happen in the interests of transparency, but that would be in the interests of punters not ticket sellers so will never happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a good idea as the payment seems to muck up for so many.

 

Its probably paving the way for a lottery style allocation going forward.

 

Hopefully not.

 

Would be preferable if the chosen ticket agency could handle it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, collectivisedfarming said:

I suspect it's expectation management. 

I have a longstanding belief that any event should advertise the exact number of tickets available for any sale/presale etc before they happen in the interests of transparency, but that would be in the interests of punters not ticket sellers so will never happen. 

I think a lower number of tickets would attract people that would not care to even go if tickets were in abundance.

I welcome the 24 hour payment window. The FOMO people get the thrill of succeeding and then have a few hours think about whether they really want to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, king_oxymoron said:

While I can’t argue that it’s unfair (it isnt) I definitely think this is the start of the end of being able to get tickets through sheer resilience. It makes it even more of a luck game. 

They won't get a more diverse audience (and therefore be able to put on a more diverse lineup including headliners) if they don't change the audience I guess. Means a lot of us won't get chance to go every year, but that's probably not fair anyway

Edited by efcfanwirral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

ah but was the throttling to make it not go so quick, or because too many payments at once broke the site?

They've been artificially throttling to achieve a desired sell out time for over 10 years now - most of that being before the change to implement SCA which is what introduced all the extra load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can now “game” the system pretty easily based on your popularity. This was limited before because you either had to share payment details, or strangers had to trust you’d pay them back.

Now, say you had a social following, get a load of them to try on your behalf and your chances increase markedly. I think we’ll see people sharing their reg details everywhere online as a result.

Edit: predicted end result for seetickets is an extremely large increase in initial traffic, causing just as many problem as they had with the payment funnel being overwhelmed. 

Edited by Radiochicken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Radiochicken said:

You can now “game” the system pretty easily based on your popularity. This was limited before because you either had to share payment details, or strangers had to trust you’d pay them back.

Now, say you had a social following, get a load of them to try on your behalf and your chances increase markedly. I think we’ll see people sharing their reg details everywhere online as a result.

What was the issue where people get locked out - is that when somebody has already got them but a group tries with them included afterwards? And that locks out the group that tried? Can't remember what the issue was - I only read about it. Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

What was the issue where people get locked out - is that when somebody has already got them but a group tries with them included afterwards? And that locks out the group that tried? Can't remember what the issue was - I only read about it. Anyone?

That used to happen but now they just highlight the one(s) that have already had a ticket bought for them and you can delete that line and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

weird change. what if people dont buy them? miss th email? it goes to junk?? i have a ticket but i dont know how much better this is than the normal way. what are we going to have like 2/3 secret sales going forward?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...