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 😎

Oasis


Guest

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, -TLR- said:

 

no not at all - but, it IS the decision of the artist / promoter to use dynamic pricing on the sale.

 

I'm sure TM are more than happy to give a nudge in the direction of using it, but it is NOT Ticketmaster's decision as to whether or not dynamic pricing is used on a sale.

I'm not for one minute suggesting the artists aren't culpable, as I said I think they're both just as guilty. I just don't understand why TM choosing whether or not to activate the pricing that THEY have invented and suggested makes them in any way less to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, andyrhodes24 said:

The artist has to agree to it though don’t they, as he been said about a thousand times on here. Hardly held at gunpoint are they. Ticketmaster shouldn’t offer it in the first place but the artist doesn’t need to accept and fleece their own fans i.e. The Cure.

Ugh. I know! As I've said I think they're both just as culpable. Your post suggests that it's entirely the artists fault. By, for example, saying "Everyone thinks it's ticketmaster when it's actually the artist"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Ugh. I know! As I've said I think they're both just as culpable. Your post suggests that it's entirely the artists fault. By, for example, saying "Everyone thinks it's ticketmaster when it's actually the artist"

They are as bad as each other, TM shouldn’t offer it and the artist shouldn’t accept. Doesn’t mean the artist can’t refuse instead of lining their pockets. We’re Oasis the northern working class answer to Blur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Ugh. I know! As I've said I think they're both just as culpable. Your post suggests that it's entirely the artists fault. By, for example, saying "Everyone thinks it's ticketmaster when it's actually the artist"

To some respect though it’s easy for the Gallagher to push the blame to the faceless corporation. I would personally blame the musician more, as the corporation at least doesn’t claim to care about what the fans think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

To some respect though it’s easy for the Gallagher to push the blame to the faceless corporation. I would personally blame the musician more, as the corporation at least doesn’t claim to care about what the fans think.

It'll certainly be interesting if they do take that approach given it's pretty easy for anyone to find out the truth. That's if they even acknowledge it at all - I expect them to take the 'it'll blow over' route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

I was done and dusted by 9:15 confirmation email & all.

 

And the standing tickets were £150 then so it wasn't on from the beginning either.

There were £150 tickets being sold alongside "in demand" tickets all morning. In most cases you were able to select "in demand" tickets without issues while the normal standing were throwing errors.

 

Good for you that you were lucky to get them sorted by 9.15. I spent from 8 up till 13.00 at the 14 pages. By 9.25 when I gained access to the first date they were already selling "in demand" in Manchester. Thank god my bank blocked the transaction. 

 

I had access to all dates in TM around 9.45. Finally got standing tickets at £150 for Edinburg (10.30), Manchester (10.45) and Wembley (11.00). My friends still got face value at 13.00. Clearly there was something wrong.

Edited by yosoyyoberdi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nobby's Old Boots said:

It'll certainly be interesting if they do take that approach given it's pretty easy for anyone to find out the truth. That's if they even acknowledge it at all - I expect them to take the 'it'll blow over' route.

It will just blow over, of that I have no doubt. It’s easy to moan on social media, but making real sacrifices is something not enough people are willing to do. I suspect for many getting likes on instagram for going to the gigs is worth paying the extra.


My guess is that this reunion is about the band making as much money as possible, so it’s naive to think they will make decisions that restrict that earning potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, yosoyyoberdi said:

There were £150 tickets being sold alongside "in demand" tickets all morning. In most cases you were able to select "in demand" tickets without issues while the normal standing were throwing errors.

 

Good for you that you were lucky to get them sorted by 9.15. I spent from 8 up till 13.00 at the 14 pages. By 9.25 when I gained access to the first date they were already selling "in demand" in Manchester. Thank god my bank block the transaction. 

 

I had access to all dates around 9.45. Finally got standing tickets at £150 for Edinburg (10.30), Manchester (10.45) and Wembley (11.00)

Glad you managed to avoid the in demand prices. 

It's a very generous description they give themselves for a disgusting practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't hold out too much hope of picking up tickets on Twickets. Might be proved wrong closer to the time but think this will be similar to Taylor in that hardly any will be re-sold that way.

 

The main reason for this is that the vast majority of people who have tickets to sell will be able to pass them on to someone they know. Question for anyone who got some yesterday - how long would it take you to find a relative, mate, work colleague or friend of a friend who would snap them off you in an instant at the price you paid (unless they were dynamic pricing)?

 

There's way more people who missed out than got them so will be so easy to pass on tickets without the hassle of the internet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

It will just blow over, of that I have no doubt. It’s easy to moan on social media, but making real sacrifices is something not enough people are willing to do. I suspect for many getting likes on instagram for going to the gigs is worth paying the extra.


My guess is that this reunion is about the band making as much money as possible, so it’s naive to think they will make decisions that restrict that earning potential.

Seems too easy to criticise people for buying the tickets - of course that makes the problem worse, but if someone desperately wants to go to the gigs then they know if they don't buy the ticket and instead 'make a stand' then the person behind them will buy the ticket instead.

Then no stand has been taken but some unlucky sod didn't get the tickets they so badly wanted.

This is of course the reason they charge it, not because they think people chasing likes on instagram want to go, but because they know they can essentially monetise FOMO from actual fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Seems too easy to criticise people for buying the tickets - of course that makes the problem worse, but if someone desperately wants to go to the gigs then they know if they don't buy the ticket and instead 'make a stand' then the person behind them will buy the ticket instead.

Then no stand has been taken but some unlucky sod didn't get the tickets they so badly wanted.

This is of course the reason they charge it, not because they think people chasing likes on instagram want to go, but because they know they can essentially monetise FOMO from actual fans.

I wouldn’t say it’s a criticism of the fans, it’s the Gallagher brothers seeing a business opportunity and cashing in.  If fans accept the situation then that is the decision of the fans. I do personally think a drive for attention on social media does contribute to the demand which has been hyped up by the same platform.

 

I see the Gallagher brothers as using their working class roots to hide their true intentions which is making money. In some ways if they were open about it maybe that would be better, but I think there is a proportion of the fanbase that deep down knows it’s the case, but would prefer the working class pretence is upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Glad you managed to avoid the in demand prices. 

It's a very generous description they give themselves for a disgusting practice.

Pure luck in my case. I was desperate enough to fall for them.

 

I am not even that mad at the conecpt of having a bucket of "demand" tickets. It is worse for me that they were not allowing us to select standard face value tickets for most of it. And it was clear there were plenty of them since 3 hours later they were still being sold..

 

Another question is what the hell actually happened with TM? It is the first time I have seen it so glitchy and unresponsive after passing the queue. I thought the whole idea of queuing was to prevent this happening. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, yosoyyoberdi said:

Another question is what the hell actually happened with TM? It is the first time I have seen it so glitchy and unresponsive after passing the queue. I thought the whole idea of queuing was to prevent this happening. 

 

 

Possibly that they have just never had that sheer volume of people trying to get in before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MilkyJoe said:

Possibly that they have just never had that sheer volume of people trying to get in before?

Yeah the sites were clearly just f**ked

 

See didn't even work for the first hour or so - its never been like that bad for glasto

 

14 million people i read, way more than glasto (although bet people for glasto use way more tabs!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, yosoyyoberdi said:

There were £150 tickets being sold alongside "in demand" tickets all morning. In most cases you were able to select "in demand" tickets without issues while the normal standing were throwing errors.

 

Good for you that you were lucky to get them sorted by 9.15. I spent from 8 up till 13.00 at the 14 pages. By 9.25 when I gained access to the first date they were already selling "in demand" in Manchester. Thank god my bank blocked the transaction. 

 

I had access to all dates in TM around 9.45. Finally got standing tickets at £150 for Edinburg (10.30), Manchester (10.45) and Wembley (11.00). My friends still got face value at 13.00. Clearly there was something wrong.

I know of someone who got face value at 2.30 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andyrhodes24 said:

The artist has to agree to it though don’t they, as he been said about a thousand times on here. Hardly held at gunpoint are they. Ticketmaster shouldn’t offer it in the first place but the artist doesn’t need to accept and fleece their own fans i.e. The Cure.


 

its times like these when I look back at 2010 when I was put into a beta testing group for dynamic pricing and platinum tickets for Ticketmaster. They had emailed customers ( I assume ones who went to lots of gigs due to purchase history )  and  we went through multiple scenarios of on sales with different pricing and availability and were able to see how it all worked. Then there was a survey to give input and such. I wrote a lengthy response at the end in the additional comments section warning that this was gonna some bad stuff. And then a year later it began. Time flies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

 

I reckon the reason they announced tye extra dates before they all went on sale was to make more from dynamic pricing. Could they try to justify it if they were selling the last tickets at inflated prices only to pout up another shed load at normal prices?


 

i was fully expecting added dates in the middle of the sale and they wouldve been sold fairly easily despite the pricing. I think they missed their window by thinking they could wait for the dust to settle. Now its going to be very interesting whenever theres other Uk dates as to what they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate but if the dynamic pricing wasn’t there, wouldn’t Oasis have just charged more for the tickets. I guess in one respect this would be more transparent and fairer if everyone pays the same. I however wonder if the current system allows the band to make money they want, while giving the fans a false belief that it isn’t about the band trying to make the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

i was fully expecting added dates in the middle of the sale and they wouldve been sold fairly easily despite the pricing. I think they missed their window by thinking they could wait for the dust to settle. Now its going to be very interesting whenever theres other Uk dates as to what they do. 

 

If they do announce additional UK dates including maybe after touring US and Europe, I wonder if they will do a few extra "cheap seats" i.e the back row in the gods at say £50/£60 and make out its for the fans who could not get tickets this time around.

 

I can't see them not have dynamic pricing on future gigs as it just rubs salt in to the wounds of those who paid the higher prices. Plus, the importantthing for them it will eat in to potential profits.

 

I could still see them releasing a small number of very poor quality and cheapish tickets with restricted views and billing it as given something back to the fans. Could even do a draw for all those who entered the ballot and send someof them codes to get the cheap tickets.

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...