Claret Membership............is it a bit of a con?
In previous seasons I had taken out Academy Membership which practically guaranteed a ticket over general sale. For the new season at the Olympic Stadium I purchased Claret Membership for both my son and myself which cost £80. The OS was, and still is, urging everyone to purchase Claret Membership as your "best chance of securing match by match tickets." I now see that anyone holding Claret Membership wanting to go to a home game has to enter a ballot for a ticket, with no guarantee that you will get one. Surely this should have made clear before anyone purchased Claret Membership, it feels like a bit of a con to me. Anyone else in the same position?
Comments
However, leaving that aside, the fact remains that without Claret Membership (Academy as was) you have no chance of a ticket, really.
I guess some will think it worth it, others won't.
Supply is limited, demand (for now, anyway) is high.
Not sure what the alternative is ;hmm
I suppose they could have capped CM at the number of available tickets beyond ST sales up to stadium capacity.
But that would have pretty much doomed everybody else to never getting a ticket for the whole season. At least this way, people have a chance...
Bearing in mind whichever method they used, their income from ticket sales would be the same.
Let's ask Slizzy...
;run
;biggrin
However, I do go to a lot of concerts.
Ticket price [Seems reasonable, in some cases at least]
Administration fee [£2.50 - Really?]
Postage [£3.50 - Really?]
Or e-ticket [£2.50 - Really?]
Optional insurance [£1.50]
At some shows I've been looking at paying more than 30% over the ticket face value in order to attend.
I think it's called living in 2016 and I would expect it's just going to get worse, whether at concert halls or football stadiums..
I had already decided not to renew it this season shortly after the end of last season, because I though that paying £40.00 for the possibility of getting a ticket was a bit iffy. Why would I pay £40.00 for the privilege of being entered into a ballot to get said ticket, with only being able to put in for six or seven matches a season the odds of getting one are far too high?
So, do I think it is a rip off - yes, compared to the deals we used to get, which have been eroded season on season and to continue to push it, given the odds, as the only way to get a ticket is blatant profiteering. With 52,000 ST holders, 3,000 allocated to away fans, 3,000 unable to be sold due to the 57K capacity restrictions, means that after taking out the tickets for the local community allocation, there will be fewer than 2,000 tickets available for the ballot - anyone have any idea how many CM's there are that apply for the home games? 20K, 25K?
So the odds go as follows: Ticket 1 - 1/25,000, ticket 2 - 1/24,999 etc.
And every game all applicants go back in the ballot, so some people may get very lucky and are pulled out for 4 or 5 games whilst others will get none - so the ones getting 4 or 5 will think it was worth it, the others who got none will probably give it a miss next season feeling they have been taken for a ride.
So you might say profiteering, but others might say 'telling the truth'.
It's open to all to decline the opportunity to procure a ticket by this method, if they don't fancy the odds, or of it doesn't suit their personal circs, or their budget, or it doesn't work for them in terms of cost/benefit. As you have done.
Nobody's forcing them.
I always think of the idea of a 'con' as someone taking advantage of a gullible 'mark', or lying about the benefits of the scheme, or cheating.
Personally, I can't see that is the case here.
If others have different views of what it is to be 'conned' they may see it differently.
"We already have 30,000 CM's who are in the ballot for less than 2,000 tickets a game, why not join them for £40.00 and you can then be part of a community of up to 50,000 vying for less than 2,000 tickets".
Doesn't have the same sort of ring to it and I doubt those who took out early membership in the belief they would be able to get tickets as they used to (which was the early claim by the club, as I have the emails urging me to renew mine from last season and the initial ones do not mention ballots except a possibility for only 'bigger' games, not every game), will be less than impress that the club are reducing the odds of them getting a ticket by increasing the CM population in the way they are.
What I'd be interested in knowing would be how many of the season tickets were bought by businesses or ticket agents who use them as treats for clients as sweeteners to obtain business etc.
One of my son's clients who is a Chelsea directors box ticket holder has two Hammers season tickets for use by his business colleagues when they visit London once a month as they're hammers fans. I don't know if the tickets are used when they're not attending.
Goes back to the problem of allowing someone to buy a season ticket +2 which of course automatically reduces the total number of different supporters eligible to see their beloved West Ham.
The +2 could've been seen as a good intentioned misjudgement. But to add to that the charge for what is almost buying a lottery ticket, which is a result of the original misjudgement, is taking the mick a bit.
Disclaimer: I understand that many fans have benefitted from the +2 offer and it has been a great way to get other family members who are Hammers or neutrals to enjoy a Saturday out at the football.
I can't see it has anything to do with +2 - it is simply a product of what % of seats the club decided to sell as STs. There is a waiting list of 50, 000, so +2 or not, the club was always going to sell that percentage.
As a business, why would you not take a guaranteed income up front?
Luke
What 'misjudgement'? If the club hadn't done +2, all it would mean was that the ST waiting list would probably be smaller.
I think right at the start the board didn't think they would sell out the stadium so introduced the +2 scheme.I personally think that +1 would have been better.
It's the figure I've seen bandied about.
For an actual quotation, KB had it at 30 000 in May:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3579850/West-Ham-confirm-52-000-season-tickets-sold-Olympic-Stadium-Karren-Brady-reveals-ambition-one-10-successful-clubs-Europe.html
(Ninja edit to remove reference to Claret&Clueless)
Overall, it seems the new stadium has actually made it harder for people to go to watch West Ham live unless you're willing to join the lottery. Which I don't think is healthy for the club in terms of building the support base.
OK. I took it to meant non STs. Otherwise, I don't see how it affects the number of different supporters, mainly as I'm not sure how 'different' is different to 'other'.
They've increased the capacity by 22 000, so that's already a lot more going.
I do know what you mean, but don't really see what the club could have done differently.
There were what, around 6-7000 non STs available for home fans at The Boleyn, and that number is around the same at the OS.
It seems to me an inevitable result of success - more people want to go and watch a game, so more people are going to miss out on tickets.
If we haven't currently got the full 60k, that isn't the club's fault.
And regarding the disclaimer yep spot on, but hearing more and more stories of non hammers sitting next to our faithful
Directly or indirectly they have helped cause standing fans in wrong areas, even allowing for people's general rudeness and lack of respect for fellow fans. As well as seated fans in areas formerly known to stand (yep before anyone says it it's an all seater stadia) as well as no family area.
Also I'm not convinced the refusal by Newham (SAG) to license up to 60k and give us another 3k is all about the standing issue, I believe there are other factors involved and they could be revealed soon as a FOI has been submitted.
;ok