[Albion] Luton/Spurs/Sheff Utd away tickets

[Behind Enemy Lines]

1 seat for Tottenham available...

 

[jackalbion]

I don't think this is a popular view among most of our fans. 1901 should be the corporate lounge comforts, not an ability to game the loyalty scheme for away tickets a long way from Amex comforts

Agree. It happens more commonly than people think. A Spurs fan was in front of me at Brentford because he wanted to tick the ground off. On a separate note I've always tried to avoid taking tickets from people before general sale when I've been to watch other clubs. I don't think its fair on fans of said club, to not be able to get a ticket while a Brighton fan does.

 

[studio150]

Haven’t we just found they don’t really do this?

They just open the initial allocation out to the first X amount of people with the most points. Then, it goes to the next 25%, then 50%, then any other STHs.

This makes it seem arbitrary approach for all games rather than based on data/judgment calls for individual games.

Would it be possible for the FAB to query if the system could be looked at when we have high demand/low allocation games such as Luton, Bournemouth, Brentford and a host of potential European opponents (or lower league cup opponents)? Still following the initial principle of the first X amount of people with the most points tiered first, then staggered at shorter intervals than 25%/50% after that to reflect a reward for loyalty to those who have been to more games and want to go to the higher demand games.

I'm sure you meant more points rather than games given that the likes of Burnley away are worth 3 London games

So you want to do away with the Wednesday morning scramble, followed by the deluge of NSC posts on I bagged a ticket, I missed out, the loyalty scheme is rubbish...

On a more serious note, I think part of the current perception is clouded by our European campaign, in that we have played 6 additional games (35 points) and some fans attending more away games than they usually do to try and ensure tickets for European away games. So we currently have more fans on 300+ points than past seasons, and perhaps people are looking at past seasons and believe that this year's total should give them a greater chance of getting a ticket but comparing the totals to previous years.

So far this season, if I have got this right, prior to this Tuesday 155 points were available if you attended all games. More than enough to move higher up the tiers.

If we fail to secure European football next season, I would expect things to settle down to fail in line with previous years

Next up, demands loyalty points for attending our next pre season tour

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Hi Barry. I think the main thrust of the argument for Luton was that the Tier 2 range was too broad. Looking at the earlier post from @Bozza

Tier 1 : The Allocation (so 1150 in the case of Luton)
Tier 2 : Top 6000 (minus the allocation so about 4850) Points holders. Given there was about 100 tickets left we had potentially 4850 people fighting over a handful of tickets. On that basis, Tier 2a could have been a lot higher than 246 and not much lower than 361 which was the Tier 1 benchmark.

None of this affected me, so I'm not speaking through a lens of missing out but given the small allocations for Luton (and Bournemouth and Brentford I guess have the same issues), something a bit more targetted towards the top end of Tier 2 would have been slightly fairer.

By and large, most people on here are happy with the system and a few comments have been made (myself included) that praise the balance of reward between longevity and new fans. I also fully appreciate that there will be disappointments when supply exceeds demand and it is impossible to please everyone without making Luton's ground magically bigger.

I like it as it is, tbh. If there are 3,000 seats, they are effectively offered first to the 3,000 people who attend the most away games historically. Then the 500 - 1,000 that are not taken up, are available (in a scramble) effectively to all the people that do SOME away games. It means that everyone who attends semi-regularly should be in with at least a CHANCE of a ticket.

The alternative, that some seem to be asking for is that effectively every seat for each match, goes to the people (who want them) with the most points. This would create something akin to a closed shop, and would disenfranchise the thousands of Albion fans who can only afford the time or money to attend four or five away games a season.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I like it as it is, tbh. If there are 3,000 seats, they are effectively offered first to the 3,000 people who attend the most away games historically. Then the 500 - 1,000 that are not taken up, are available (in a scramble) effectively to all the people that do SOME away games. It means that everyone who attends semi-regularly should be in with at least a CHANCE of a ticket.

The alternative, that some seem to be asking for is that effectively every seat for each match, goes to the people (who want them) with the most points. This would create something akin to a closed shop, and would disenfranchise the thousands of Albion fans who can only afford the time or money to attend four or five away games a season.

But anyone who only attends 4/5 away games a season will very likely be in tier 2 for the 3k allocation games already - their semi-regular attendance gets them this status.

What people are arguing is that it shouldn’t give that category of STH a space in tier 2 alongside STH who do 14/15 away games when trying to get tickets for a smaller allocation away game which is more desirable. This is what has happened with Luton (though anyone who’s already been to Kenilworth might not describe it as desirable!) and could easily happen in the EL or in the FA Cup against lower division sides.

 

[London Irish]

It's interesting to note that there was no moaning from any Tier 3 status folks, demands to narrow the bands etc, about their very limited ticket scramble this morning. It seems the higher the loyalty points tree you go, a little bit of entitlement starts creeping in?

 

[Husty]

Yes but the 1901 member pays a massive premium for their tickets so should be afforded these perks, I suspect the actual number of people taking advantage of the system is very low considering the potential consequences of giving out ticket and being responsible for that persons behavior at away games.

The premium paid is for the superior service and seat location at home games, what on earth does it have to do with away games? No reasonable reason for this perk to exist.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

It's interesting to note that there was no moaning from any Tier 3 status folks, demands to narrow the bands etc, about their very limited ticket scramble this morning. It seems the higher the loyalty points tree you go, a little bit of entitlement starts creeping in?

Probably because the gap between tier 2 and 3 for Spurs was much narrower (46 points) than the gap between tier 1 and 2 for Luton (135 points).

 

[hans kraay fan club]

But anyone who only attends 4/5 away games a season will very likely be in tier 2 for the 3k allocation games already - their semi-regular attendance gets them this status.

What people are arguing is that it shouldn’t give that category of STH a space in tier 2 alongside STH who do 14/15 away games when trying to get tickets for a smaller allocation away game which is more desirable. This is what has happened with Luton (though anyone who’s already been to Kenilworth might not describe it as desirable!) and could easily happen in the EL or in the FA Cup against lower division sides.

Perhaps you've exaggerated for effect here, but I find it hard to believe, that even for Luton or Bournemouth, a STH who attends FIFTEEN away games per season, and is not in Tier 1.

Apologies if that is genuinely the case.

 

[Creaky]

The premium paid is for the superior service and seat location at home games, what on earth does it have to do with away games? No reasonable reason for this perk to exist.

As I posted earlier, this perk is an additional encouragement, to pay a premium and commit to a 5 year contract for those seats, that doesn't actually cost the club a penny to include.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I don't think this is a popular view among most of our fans. 1901 should be the corporate lounge comforts, not an ability to game the loyalty scheme for away tickets a long way from Amex comforts

Yeah, it’s difficult to believe that a seat in with the plebs at an away game in any way represents corporate hospitality. It’s a loophole that undermines the spirit of the away ticket scheme.

 

[jackalbion]

Probably because the gap between tier 2 and 3 for Spurs was much narrower (46 points) than the gap between tier 1 and 2 for Luton (135 points).

Yet there is 10,000 more people in that category if I am following this correctly @Bozza ?

 

[S.T.U cgull]

Hi Barry. I think the main thrust of the argument for Luton was that the Tier 2 range was too broad. Looking at the earlier post from @Bozza

Tier 1 : The Allocation (so 1150 in the case of Luton)
Tier 2 : Top 6000 (minus the allocation so about 4850) Points holders. Given there was about 100 tickets left we had potentially 4850 people fighting over a handful of tickets. On that basis, Tier 2a could have been a lot higher than 246 and not much lower than 361 which was the Tier 1 benchmark.

None of this affected me, so I'm not speaking through a lens of missing out but given the small allocations for Luton (and Bournemouth and Brentford I guess have the same issues), something a bit more targetted towards the top end of Tier 2 would have been slightly fairer.

By and large, most people on here are happy with the system and a few comments have been made (myself included) that praise the balance of reward between longevity and new fans. I also fully appreciate that there will be disappointments when supply exceeds demand and it is impossible to please everyone without making Luton's ground magically bigger.

Made this point in post #224 - by applying the Tier 2 as 25% of STH minus allocation you go from up to 4,750 people chasing the “leftovers” of a 3k allocation to 5,250 chasing the leftovers of a 1k allocation - working off 22k STH…

Accept that that is not an exact science but broadly speaking the probability of securing a Tier 2 ticket on a 3k allocation is much easier (to be expected).

By no means should this be a closed shop but a more dynamic Tier 2 dynamic is logical on the rare occasions of small allocations. Tier 2/3 boundary is an interesting one to further define - as Tier 2 tends to facilitate the majority of interested parties a ticket to any non “Cat A” games

 

[jackalbion]

Yeah, it’s difficult to believe that a seat in with the plebs at an away game in any way represents corporate hospitality. It’s a loophole that undermines the spirit of the away ticket scheme.

Especially with the strong bans given to those without 1901, if we are going to enforce (which we should), we should enforce for all.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Yeah, it’s difficult to believe that a seat in with the plebs at an away game in any way represents corporate hospitality. It’s a loophole that undermines the spirit of the away ticket scheme.

Let's be clear (@jackalbion too), it's not a 'loophole'. It's a benefit that has been in place for 12 years - and not taken away when many other benefits have been deliberately removed.

A benefit that, imo, should never have been put in place.

However, to the extent that the benefit is used, and I genuinely no no one who does - but I know no proper corporate 1901ers, only fan 1901ers - the users would be seriously pissed off.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Perhaps you've exaggerated for effect here, but I find it hard to believe, that even for Luton or Bournemouth, a STH who attends FIFTEEN away games per season, and is not in Tier 1.

Apologies if that is genuinely the case.

Not deliberately, no. We had 24 away games in cup and league last season - I don’t think it’s far-fetched to suggest ‘only’ doing 14/15 would fail to put you in the top tier for Luton. I know people who did 11 and they weren’t close to the 381 threshold.

Out of interest what did you make of the rest of my response? Not being cagey just genuinely curious as I’m trying to see both sides.

 

[The Colonel]

Not deliberately, no. We had 24 away games in cup and league last season - I don’t think it’s far-fetched to suggest ‘only’ doing 14/15 would fail to put you in the top tier for Luton. I know people who did 11 and they weren’t close to the 381 threshold.

Out of interest what did you make of the rest of my response? Not being cagey just genuinely curious as I’m trying to see both sides.

I went to 11 away games last season and I've got over 400 points.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Not deliberately, no. We had 24 away games in cup and league last season - I don’t think it’s far-fetched to suggest ‘only’ doing 14/15 would fail to put you in the top tier for Luton. I know people who did 11 and they weren’t close to the 381 threshold.

Out of interest what did you make of the rest of my response? Not being cagey just genuinely curious as I’m trying to see both sides.

There are two factors that determine your LP - the length of time you've held a ST (8 years maxes out your entitlement - at 200) and the number of home cup games and the number of away games you've done over the last several years - with the value of those done 6 years ago being worth 3% of the initial points value.

I did 12 away games last year and am comfortably North of 400 LP. Mind you, I've got the full 200 for ST length of ownership and I've also done 12-14 away games every season for several years. If your mate hasn't been a ST for 8 years, and only started going to aways last season that would explain why he was shy of 381 LP...

 

[pb21]

I would change the allocations to:

Tier 1: The allocation
Tier 2: the higher number of points of either 25% of STHs or those with 2x the T1 allocation
Tier 3: 50% of STHs
Tier 4: All STHs

T1, T3 and T4 stay the same.

T2 probably stays the same for majority of games, only for those with small initial allocations less than ~3k does the points needed increase.

 

[Husty]

Let's be clear (@jackalbion too), it's not a 'loophole'. It's a benefit that has been in place for 12 years - and not taken away when many other benefits have been deliberately removed.

A benefit that, imo, should never have been put in place.

However, to the extent that the benefit is used, and I genuinely no no one who does - but I know no proper corporate 1901ers, only fan 1901ers - the users would be seriously pissed off.

I think it's become clear over the years that the initial roll-out of 1901 wasn't well thought through in a number of respects...

Besides, if its only being used by a small proportion of 1901ers, then there's no harm in getting rid of it right?