Not quite nationalisation, but there’s something in it worth considering I’ve never understood why a Govt doesn’t have a commercial arm that looks to take on private businesses and undercut them but still make a profit? It’s not like they haven’t got the financial clout to cover set up costs. Businesses like gig ticket sales are almost impossible to lose money on long term (I know they supposedly lost money in their last accounts but mainly due to changing by ditching main offices) But if not that, then could certainly run other profitable businesses and pump it back into public coffers instead of shareholders profit
So many people on the tinternet moaning about tickets for oasis 25, we got 6 no problem, 2 for the Manchester gig and 4 for Wembley. Two things got me a little cross today, firstly some stupid people having a go at a bus company because the internet and phones crashed, they were not informed that they could just come to the office. I mean are you ****ing stupid, you’ve got to be kidding me, it’s the first thing we did and got 4 tickets. Come people use your common ****ing sense. Then I read how some older generation were moaning that young people were buying the tickets, it’s as if you can only be a certain age to appreciate oasis. I think it’s brilliant the younger generation are looking back in anger I heard you say….
Acklams are receiving a lot of complaints for stating their tickets would be on sale via phone only on Facebook (after their website crashed/having turned people away at their shop that morning) only to then sell face to face in the shop later in the day.
I think it is understandable that people are annoyed that a company advertises one thing and then without stating does another thing. It's a big event that a lot of people are emotionally attracted to. People are going to be upset at potential missing out.
That’s a fair point It wasn’t clear that many tickets would have been sold as ‘in demand’ and therefore more than twice listed price. Ticketmaster have been doing that for a couple of years though so wasn’t entirely surprising. It’s the Gallaghers people should be annoyed with. It’s them that chose for tickets to be sold that way and it’s them that get the higher income from the higher prices. (Ticketmaster will get higher admin fees too I think, but ultimately the ripping off of fans is a conscious choice made by Liam and Noel.)
Completely agree It’s just not a new thing, that’s all. Same as airlines etc Taylor Swift apparently chose not to use surge pricing on her recent tour. All the time that people buy surged tickets, any artists who are greedy and don’t really care about their fans will choose to use it. It’s up to us all whether it exists this time next year…
Normally, when a band goes on tour, they’d decide these things, but I doubt it’s the case on this occasion. To get this reunion on, three of the UK’s largest promoters have got together and allegedly guaranteed the Gallagher’s a minimum £50m to reform, it will be them determining the ticket pricing.
Respectfully that is complete bollocks Suggesting that the Gallaghers don’t understand surge pricing is like suggesting you don’t understand collars and sleeve lengths. If they wanted to they’d have told the promoters they wanted fixed price tickets. They made a conscious decision to screw over their fans.
It's illegal under EU market competition laws for the government to 'compete' against the private sector like that, but not sure if the UK is still covered under those (probably is)... As an aside, not sure if a nationalised/public business has ever been able to do anything cheaper, but willing to be corrected on this. The tickets are expensive, especially with the surge pricing - I'm surprised by the demand, they're more popular now than they were at their original peak, and they're not for me, but not to piss on anyone's chips, they will be great nights, good memories made and worth the expense long term.
Don’t know who old you are Den, but I remember Harold Wilson always fulminating against property speculators and the easy money they made. In the end the Labour Government set up their own company. No prizes for guessing what happened.
So you also think they did consciously choose to have it then, and could have very easily told the promoters not to use it. What point were you trying to make?
Interesting question. I assume they’re not now governed by EU competition laws, having left the EU, but I could be wrong. (EDIT - EU longer no longer applies but things like State Aid are effectively the same through new UK Acts) Either way I wasn’t suggesting they did it themselves. I was suggesting (not very well in hindsight) it could be done through an arms length company. There are arms length companies in this area which are set up with the sole aim of putting all surplus money back into public services, or local charitable services. (Ie no profits for directors and no shareholders) No reason why that couldn’t be done nationally (in fact one of them at least already operates nationally and internationally and is very successful)
