[Albion] Luton/Spurs/Sheff Utd away tickets

[hans kraay fan club]

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 think the thrust of your point is reasonable - though you are asking for a considered match-by-match manual process - more work for somebody - to fix something that they will consider not to be broken.

The example figures I used were for a match with 3,000 away tickets, rather than 1,000, but the principles are exactly the same. The system as it is offers the available seats to that exact number of fans with the very most points, then offers a CHANCE of the remaining ones to all the people with regular away attendance (our definitions of 'regular' might not align).

I support this current approach - it rightly rewards the absolute fanatics who devote ALL their free time and money to following the club, but also keeps a reasonably broad group of fans 'in the game' and thus part of the amazing journey we are currently on.

The argument to narrow the Tier 2 band is not one that can ever be 'won'. Whatever arbitrary cut offs you choose, somebody will always just miss out, and somebody will always just scrape in. Someone will always argue that the chosen tier values are unfair.

The ultimate end-game of the opposite stand-point (to my own) is a system whereby every fan who wants a ticket applies, and provides their card details, and the computer sells them (at the predetermined 'sale' time) to the exact applicants with the most loyalty points. If there are 1,250 seats, the 1,250 'most deserving' fans will get them, and so on. Nobody could argue that system was 'unfair', but it would disenfranchise 10,000 or so Albion fans who attend a handful of away games per season, and would absolutely not be in the club's long term best interests.

 

[Goldstone1976]

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... Abso-bloody-lutely

Besides, if its only being used by a small proportion of 1901ers, then there's no harm in getting rid of it right? Wouldn't impact me in any way. Would impact those who use the facility and they'd be pissed. No idea how many people use it, nor even any idea of the split in 1901 between 'fans' and 'true corporates'. I wouldn't have introduced it. Having been in place for 12 years, I'd need a shed load more data before I passed an opinion on whether it 'should' be removed at this point.

see above

 

[jackalbion]

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.

Loophole is the wrong word, I've just come across a lot of people who get tickets this way. I agree it shouldn't have been put in place. It is as you said people who often use corporate tickets.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Loophole is the wrong word, I've just come across a lot of people who get tickets this way. I agree it shouldn't have been put in place. It is as you said people who often use corporate tickets.

No edge to the question in any way, just curious: 'a lot' = how many people (roughly)? A lot of different people or the same people a lot of times? I'm trying to get to is this a big problem or a small problem which will (understandably) irritate a large swathe of our fan base...

 

[Bozza]

Do you know if the percentages are from all STs? Or those left after Tier 1 and so on?

Either way, this seems a fair balance between loyalty and opportunity.

Sorry, only just seem this.

My assumption is that the lines are drawn at the levels stated, so the T2 line has 25% of STHs above it, ie that 25% also includes T1s.

 

[Bozza]

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

Not sure of the exact question here, but my fag packet maths is pre-Stoke points:

1,150 fans were on 381+ points
3,000 fans were on 302+ points
6,000 fans were on 246+ points
12,000 fans were on 219+ points

 

[jackalbion]

No edge to the question in any way, just curious: 'a lot' = how many people (roughly)? A lot of different people or the same people a lot of times? I'm trying to get to is this a big problem or a small problem which will (understandably) irritate a large swathe of our fan base...

Just come across people more than a few times who support another team, who are along for the jolly with a mate who has corporate tickets. As well as some who mysteriously appear sometimes at Brentford that never seem to be up north.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I think the thrust of your point is reasonable - though you are asking for a considered match-by-match manual process - more work for somebody - to fix something that they will consider not to be broken.

The example figures I used were for a match with 3,000 away tickets, rather than 1,000, but the principles are exactly the same. The system as it is offers the available seats to that exact number of fans with the very most points, then offers a CHANCE of the remaining ones to all the people with regular away attendance (our definitions of 'regular' might not align).

I support this current approach - it rightly rewards the absolute fanatics who devote ALL their free time and money to following the club, but also keeps a reasonably broad group of fans 'in the game' and thus part of the amazing journey we are currently on.

The argument to narrow the Tier 2 band is not one that can ever be 'won'. Whatever arbitrary cut offs you choose, somebody will always just miss out, and somebody will always just scrape in. Someone will always argue that the chosen tier values are unfair.

The ultimate end-game of the opposite stand-point (to my own) is a system whereby every fan who wants a ticket applies, and provides their card details, and the computer sells them (at the predetermined 'sale' time) to the exact applicants with the most loyalty points. If there are 1,250 seats, the 1,250 'most deserving' fans will get them, and so on. Nobody could argue that system was 'unfair', but it would disenfranchise 10,000 or so Albion fans who attend a handful of away games per season, and would absolutely not be in the club's long term best interests.

Thanks. I totally get where you’re coming from, I think we just disagree on the breadth of cut off points between tiers (essentially only in the low allocation/high demand and desirability matches).

As it stands, anyone in tier 2 who wants a ticket for a London away game (pretty desirable and 3k allocation) gets one. Even some in tier 3 have a chance to get one. If they fail to get one - say Spurs for example - it’s not too hard to get from tier 3 to tier 2 with a couple less desirable games before the next London away game. Essentially what I’m saying is, there is no closed shop. Allocations and tiering for these games is not an issue. It works very well - I don’t think the tiers necessarily need to be narrowed for the 3k type allocations.

I disagree that the principle is the same for the desirable 1-2k allocation games, as what happens under the current system is you have thousands of people (with an extremely broad range of points) scrambling for around 100 tickets. I don’t think that is necessarily fair; two potential STH separated by 140 points don’t deserve the same chance of acquiring a ticket for a desirable match IMO. I’m not sure the STH on 140 fewer points would feel disenfranchised by this notion, as they’re still able to go to pretty much every other away game and can surely recognise that the other person is more deserving than they are.

I get that someone will always miss out/scrape in wherever the lines are drawn, but by having slightly narrower margins I think people are more likely to to understand that it’s an effort to reward ‘loyalty’ even if it means they miss out by a point. The smaller allocations are where the club just need to make some slight tweaks to reflect ‘loyalty’, IMO.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Sorry, only just seem this.

My assumption is that the lines are drawn at the levels stated, so the T2 line has 25% of STHs above it, ie that 25% also includes T1s.

Thank you.

This makes sense given the seemingly wider T2 for Luton.

 

[Bozza]

Thank you.

This makes sense given the seemingly wider T2 for Luton.

That's a good point actually - it has to be like that otherwise the T2 levels would have been different for Luton and Spurs/Sheff Utd.

Prior to this realisation, I was about to say that if Spurs T2 had contained c6,000 supporters, I think it would have easily sold out at T2.

 

[Beanstalk]

Not sure of the exact question here, but my fag packet maths is pre-Stoke points:

1,150 fans were on 381+ points
3,000 fans were on 302+ points
6,000 fans were on 246+ points
12,000 fans were on 219+ points

It's fascinating really. I have been a season-ticket holder since we moved to The Amex, have gone to at least 50% of away league games in each of the last three seasons (some years higher and am set for at least this again), rarely miss a cup game, and went to all six Europa League games so far. I squeeezed into tier one for Luton on 385 points.

It's a good system, but the maths shows that there are probably around 1,000 fans who are more committed to the Albion than me, and I have been at at least 80% of games since fans were allowed back into grounds. It's the golden age of the Albion and we are seeing more people commit to seeing the club home and away, week in, week out. I get people's frustrations at missing out on games that they want to go to but it is a remarkable show of loyalty for over 1,000 fans to be at over 80% of all Albion games, and they deserve to get dibs on tickets.

 

[drew]

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?

There's no need to get rid of it, just tweak it. 1901 STH can still give a ticket to a named individual but those individual accrue the points, not the ticket. Those named will be in the system so it shouldn't be impossible to do. This will mean those 1901 STH that have been using away tickets for themselves can continue to do so and keep the points their 'ticket' has accrued but that will now go against their name. Those corporate tickets will retain what they have already earned but going forward the points are allocated against an individual name and that that individual will need the necessary points for the relevant tier before being named on an away ticket. This will not affect genuine 1901 STHs but will mean that the corporate ones ability to pass on tickets will quickly be eroded.

I would add that I'm not a 1901 STH but I am in the top tier for every match.

 

[RM-Taylor]

Is the full allocation now on sale for Sheff Utd or is this still to be released yet

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

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 appreciate it is a benefit to 1901ers but it is an also a loophole in the LP system because it allows people without the required points total to jump the queue. It probably should have been addressed when rigorous enforcement of the scheme was introduced. I seem to remember there being much debate about 1901 buyers of Villa tickets at the end of last season. Can’t quite remember the details.

 

[Dave the hatosaurus]

Is the full allocation now on sale for Sheff Utd or is this still to be released yet

Still over half of block 3 and whole of block 4 yet to be released.
Currently 500 available out of the roughly 2000 released so far, looking like this is going a long way. Probably affected by the cup draw with some people (myself included) choosing to go to one of the two matches.

 

[RM-Taylor]

Still over half of block 3 and whole of block 4 yet to be released.
Currently 500 available out of the roughly 2000 released so far, looking like this is going a long way. Probably affected by the cup draw with some people (myself included) choosing to go to one of the two matches.

Will make it to A+ level then so my friend with his membership will be able to go.

 

[Skuller]

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 agree. I’m a 1901er that sees seats around me at the Amex that have different inhabitants at each home game (so presumably corporate) but I also see the vast majority that are just ordinary fans. I’d been a season ticket holder in West Upper from Championship days. In my late sixties I got fed up with being held up by wheezing 50 years-olds going up the 123 steps to heaven, wanted a bit more comfort, so migrated to 1901. I have got the maximum 200 base points now and have crept up to 280 through attending odd away games. My ability to accrue points and get tickets for myself at away games is identical to any other season ticket holder. I don’t assign away tickets to others and had forgotten I could until I read this thread.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I agree. I’m a 1901er that sees seats around me at the Amex that have different inhabitants at each home game (so presumably corporate) but I also see the vast majority that are just ordinary fans. I’d been a season ticket holder in West Upper from Championship days. In my late sixties I got fed up with being held up by wheezing 50 years-olds going up the 123 steps to heaven, wanted a bit more comfort, so migrated to 1901. I have got the maximum 200 base points now and have crept up to 280 through attending odd away games. My ability to accrue points and get tickets for myself at away games is identical to any other season ticket holder. I don’t assign away tickets to others and had forgotten I could until I read this thread.

Well, it is a loophole in that you CAN assign away tickets to randomers when non 1901ers cannot. The fact that you don’t personally do that does not mean the loophole does not exist.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I appreciate it is a benefit to 1901ers but it is an also a loophole in the LP system because it allows people without the required points total to jump the queue. It probably should have been addressed when rigorous enforcement of the scheme was introduced. I seem to remember there being much debate about 1901 buyers of Villa tickets at the end of last season. Can’t quite remember the details.

A ‘loophole’, I think, is an unintended event/consequence. By that definition, given it’s been in place 12 years and the club have removed getting on for 10 other benefits that were originally included, but not this one, I personally don’t believe it’s remotely close to a loophole. It’s quite deliberate.

I’d agree with ‘unfortunate’ and ‘unfair’ though.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

A ‘loophole’, I think, is an unintended event/consequence. By that definition, given it’s been in place 12 years and the club have removed getting on for 10 other benefits that were originally included, but not this one, I personally don’t believe it’s remotely close to a loophole. It’s quite deliberate.

I’d agree with ‘unfortunate’ and ‘unfair’ though.

According to Google;

A loophole is ‘an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.’
"they exploited tax loopholes"

That does seem to cover it quite nicely.