Ticket Trout

Elemonator

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Yeah forget about the people in ambulances outside overcrowded hospitals. This really is a major priority. !

More to running a country than overcrowded hospitals.

I've never touted myself. I had ticket for Arctic Monkeys (I think) going spare so I told it on Adverts.ie. I put an extra 5e as per my agreement with the buyer to cover my cost of meet up in town. Other times I've just let it go for cheap, my friend and I got tickets to the Foo Fighters for 50e from his relative to join a bigger group already going. Figured that I might as well pass on the goodwill!

Skylinehead

kfallon wrote: »

Did a Mod change the thread title or was it always a typo?

Somethings fishy alright

pickarooney

It shouldn't really be possible to buy a ticket you can't use. One person buying multiple tickets is a clear breach of the unwritten code of conduct.

Raisins

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Can someone please tell me what is apparently so unique about an event ticket, that they believe should forbid it's legitimate owner from selling it to someone who wants it at a profit? I haven't seen anything in this thread that even resembles a logical explanation.

You've seen plenty of explanations but you keep repeating the same trash in your own echo chamber.

What's so unique about a can of coke which which is sold in a multi pack in a supermarket and marked not for re-sale? Why can't you sell them on done deal for €1.50 each? Why can't you buy 10,000 litres of petrol tomorrow and re-sell it in 12 months time from your front garden if petrol prices increase? Why can't we all buy green diesel and use it any way we like? Don't we own it, once we buy it and can't we do as we please? I know in about 10 posts time you'll have avoiding those questions and you're going to say it's all commerce!

TheChizler

Raisins wrote: »

What's so unique about a can of coke which which is sold in a multi pack in a supermarket and marked not for re-sale? Why can't you sell them on done deal for €1.50 each?

I don't think there's anything preventing this? Petrol maybe as there are certain taxes due and restrictions on sale.

dotsman

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're wrong there on two counts.

1. They bought it, they should own it and as such be free to do what they want with it.

That's a pretty crazy idea. So if someone buys something they can do whatever they want with it?

• If a person buys a video, you believe they can copy it and sell those copies?
• If a person buys a bottle of vodka, you believe they can give it to a 10 year old to consume?
• If someone buys powerful prescription drugs, you believe they can sell them on to a drug addict?
• If someone buys a gun, you believe they can go around shooting anyone they like?

After all, in all the above examples, the person bought something, and you feel "they can do what they want with it". The idea that, just because someone buys something they are free to do whatever they want with is is absolutely ludicrous.

But more than that, you are missing the point (by a country mile). It is the tout purchasing the ticket in the first place that is the distortion of the free market. I'm not sure if it is the word "free" in "free markets" that is confusing you. The "free" does not refer to some anarchistic or destructive force. The term "free" refers to the the market being free of distortions and corruption; i.e. that the market is free from monopolies, manipulation, unequal bargaining power, information asymmetry, high barriers to entry etc.

In the case of a ticket to an event (which typically implies a limited supply), a free market would see those tickets distributed to the people who want them most where the price is a greed by those organizing the event and those attending. In a free market, any middle-man involved should be one that improves the efficiency of the distribution and or/reduces the cost of distribution.

The example of a valid middle man is a shop. We could, in theory, all buy our cornflakes direct from Kelloggs; ring them up, say you want a box of cornflakes and they deliver the box to your door. However, that would be an insanely expensive and inefficient way to operate (for both the seller and the buyer). Likewise, we would have to separately purchase our sausages directly from clonakilty, our bags of tea directly from lyons/barrys etc. Instead, a valid middle man (ie a shop) offers a way to cheaply and easily distribute the products to those who want them. It buys in bulk, stores and displays the products and lets the buyer make all their purchases in a far easier and cheaper manner. Because there are many sellers, many shops, and many buyers, with little interference and distortion (there is a little), this is an example of a free market.

However, taking this concert as an example of anti-free market practices, Bono, Adam, Larry and The Edge want to play a concert. They are the ones providing the service. They are the seller. The buyers are those who wish to attend this concert. Now, U2 are musicians. They could, in theory stand on grafton street and sell the tickets themselves to fans and charge whatever price they feel the fan is willing to pay. But they are musicians, and there's only 4 of them, and want to concentrate on the music so they employ the services of a middle man to manage the selling/distribution of tickets on the huge scale that is required. This ticket distributor is of course entitle to charge for their service, based on the quality of their service and on competitive factors. However, in this case, the distributor is ticketmaster, which has an effective monopoly on the ticket distribution market. And, as a result, their service is terrible and their fees extortionate. Instead of doing their best to ensure that the tickets are distributed to the buyers as efficiently and cheaply as possible, we have the case that is being discussed by this thread - where huge amounts of buyers have to pay additional (often huge) amounts, and that this money is going to fund the inefficiencies (i.e. the touts). The touts add nothing. In fact, they greatly decrease the efficiency. In a free market, they would simply not exist.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

2. Nobody is "forced" to buy a ticket from anyone, if they do buy it, they choose to buy it.

Of course. So what? Regardless of the touts, 78,000 people will attend the concert. All the touts have done is, for a significant percentage of buyers, simply increased the cost of attending. The seller (U2) does not benefit, nor does the buyer (the attendee). Neither party wants the "services" of the tout to be involved in the transaction. It is the tout who is corrupting the transaction between the seller and the buyer. Therefore, it is not a free market.

dotsman

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Can someone please tell me what is apparently so unique about an event ticket, that they believe should forbid it's legitimate owner from selling it to someone who wants it at a profit? I haven't seen anything in this thread that even resembles a logical explanation.

Because the ticket itself is not the product/service. It is the right to avail of the service. The buyer is the person who ultimately owns the ticket on the day of the even t and attends the event. As per my last post, everybody else between the seller (U2) and the (ultimate) buyer is a middle man. If they are valid (adding value to the product/service, engaging in a clear and fair manner, and to the advantage of the buyer and/or seller), then brilliant. If not, they should fcuk right off. And if the government (or ticketmaster, seeing as they have an effective monopoly and, thus immense power) ever wanted to introduce free markets to ticket distribution in Ireland, clear and punitive regulations would take care of these touting scum.

I simply do not know how to make it clearer than this and my last post (as well as countless posts from others on this thread). Young children are able to understand this, I'm really not sure why you cannot.

bucketybuck

dotsman wrote: »

That's a pretty crazy idea. So if someone buys something they can do whatever they want with it?

I wonder what such people would think of black market profiteering in times of war or famine?

"So a hurricane has just destroyed Dublin and your children are starving? Well luckily I have some bread here for €1500 per loaf!!! Hurrah for the free market!!!" :rolleyes:

TheChizler

bucketybuck wrote: »

I wonder what such people would think of black market profiteering in times of war or famine?

"So a hurricane has just destroyed Dublin and your children are starving? Well luckily I have some bread here for €1500 per loaf!!! Hurrah for the free market!!!" :rolleyes:

Hardly comparable to an entertainment service.

sbsquarepants

dotsman wrote: »

That's a pretty crazy idea. So if someone buys something they can do whatever they want with it?

• If a person buys a video, you believe they can copy it and sell those copies?
• If a person buys a bottle of vodka, you believe they can give it to a 10 year old to consume?
• If someone buys powerful prescription drugs, you believe they can sell them on to a drug addict?
• If someone buys a gun, you believe they can go around shooting anyone they like?
  .

Jesus Christ, this is just hysterical nonsense.

dotsman wrote: »

Because the ticket itself is not the product/service. It is the right to avail of the service. The buyer is the person who ultimately owns the ticket on the day of the even t and attends the event. As per my last post, everybody else between the seller (U2) and the (ultimate) buyer is a middle man. If they are valid (adding value to the product/service, engaging in a clear and fair manner, and to the advantage of the buyer and/or seller), then brilliant. If not, they should fcuk right off. And if the government (or ticketmaster, seeing as they have an effective monopoly and, thus immense power) ever wanted to introduce free markets to ticket distribution in Ireland, clear and punitive regulations would take care of these touting scum.

I simply do not know how to make it clearer than this and my last post (as well as countless posts from others on this thread). Young children are able to understand this, I'm really not sure why you cannot.

I'll tell you why I can't understand it - because it doesn't make any sense.

Mr Tout has a ticket, Mr Fan wants a ticket. Mr Fan AGREES to buy the ticket off Mr Tout.
Mr Tout provides Mr Fan with a ticket he would not have otherwise. Mr Fan provides Mr Tout with money.
How can you possibly argue that Mr Tout has not provided a service to Mr Fan?
Nobody forced Mr Fan to buy anything - he made that decision all by his big grown ass self, based on how much he wants the ticket versus how much he's willing to spend.
Mr Fan should then just shut the fúck up and go to the show - no one likes a whinger!

Whole layers of middle men exist in all manner of transactions - what makes tickets different? I maintain nothing does - I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Bullshít about selling vodka to kids or going on shooting sprees is hardly helping make your point.

As far as I can see your argument basically comes down to "I really want to go, but I really don't want to pay over the odds" And when there is more demand than supply, as in the case of certain events, that just isn't realistic. It's tough, but that's life for you.

I agree with you that rigging the system is wrong - but if by fair means, you happen to get your hands on tickets and someone is willing to pay you over the odds, there is no valid reason in the world why you shouldn't be able to take advantage of that. No valid reason whatsoever.

dotsman

Ok, I'm going to try one last time...

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Mr Tout has a ticket, Mr Fan wants a ticket. Mr Fan AGREES to buy the ticket off Mr Tout.

Mr U2 has a ticket. Mr Fan wants the ticket. Mr U2 wants to sell the ticket to Mr Fan and at an agreed (advertised) price. Mr tout impersonates Mr fan and buys the ticket from Mr U2 at the advertised price and then tries to sell the ticket to Mr Fan at a huge markup. As a ticket is a limited product/service and Mr Fan has no alternative way of attending Mr U2's concert, Mr Fan either has to give in to Mr Touts demands or not attend.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Mr Tout provides Mr Fan with a ticket he would not have otherwise. Mr Fan provides Mr Tout with money.

If Mr tout hadn't bought the ticket in the first place, Mr fan would have been able to buy the ticket. Mr Tout is not creating extra tickets. He is just acting the cúnt. 78,000 people will still be attending the concert regardless of the level of touting. All touting does is increase the cost to attend.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How can you possibly argue that Mr Tout has not provided a service to Mr Fan?

Mr Tout has provided a disservice to Mr Fan (and Mr U2). He has made the process of Mr Fan attending Mr U2's concert more expensive and frustrating. The market would perform a lot better if Mr Tout just fcuked off and died.

wil

Don't know why the ticket isn't attached to name or other ID, printed on the ticket. If the ticket is to change hands then the seller would have to go through a change of ownership by post. A limit could be applied to this.
It might go some way towards dealing with these " trouts".
It really should be illegal.
However it seems as if the sellers actually facilitate touting.

degsie

Never thought I'd come across a person on here who would approve the activities of a ticket tout. What a crazy Trumped up world we live in today :mad::mad:

bucketybuck

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Mr Tout provides Mr Fan with a ticket he would not have otherwise.

JFC, do you struggle with all simple concepts or just this one?

For the nth time, just ask yourself this simple question regarding the line quoted above: Why could Mr Fan not easily get a ticket?

scudzilla

i use touts....A LOT, but before i get lynched let me state that i have never EVER paid over face value for a ticket from a tout.

My usual way is turn up at The Point, touts ask if i want a ticket, lets say for example face value is 70euro, i say i can pay 30 as not bothered if i go into gig, just here driving mates to the gig. Tout will probably try to haggle, i just walk away.

The closer to stage time for main band the cheaper the tickets become, a tout would rather have 30quid in his pocket than a useless ticket.

Here's some examples of bands i've seen and prices i've paid

Slash @The Point 50euro for 2 standing
Kiss @The Point 40Euro for 2 standing
Foo Fighters@Marlay 60Euro for 2 standing
There's been a lot more but i can't remember all the prices

Sure it's harder when it's a band like U2 who sold out in seconds but i gaurantee you, 5 mins before they hit the stage at Croke there will be big bargains to be had.

Also, EVERY ticket i've got from a tout has been a 'Complimentary' ticket, read into that what you will

The Rape of Lucretia

bucketybuck wrote: »

just ask yourself this simple question regarding the line quoted above: Why could Mr Fan not easily get a ticket?

Because the tickets were ostensibly sold at a price lower than their true market value. A price distortion introduced by the seller, but one which cannot buck the reality of economics.
Acute frustration by those who think the ticket is within their range of obtaining due to this falsely low price, which disrupts the law of supply and demand, is a common experience, and side effect.
The tout redresses, albeit imperfectly, this initial distortion. And so is a natural corrective mechanism in the market, and provides an overall good.

pickarooney

If all the tickets were sold at 300 quid it would just be poshos in top hats at the gig. ****e ambiance there.

sbsquarepants

bucketybuck wrote: »

JFC, do you struggle with all simple concepts or just this one?

For the nth time, just ask yourself this simple question regarding the line quoted above: Why could Mr Fan not easily get a ticket?

At it's most blindingly obvious - because there are more fans than tickets.

Added to that we have some fiddling going on, which I don't approve of, but that is a separate argument entirely.

Corruption = Bad.
Commerce = Not bad.

I really can't make this any clearer.

Now, for what feels like the millionth time - What is your reason for saying Mr Tout should not be allowed sell his fairly and squarely obtained ticket, which he bought legally on the open market without any underhand dealing or corruption, at a profit if he so desires? You've no doubt noticed those guys outside the venue are asking "anybody buying or selling tickets" They aren't all members of some mafia style ticket scam designed to lighten the wallets of hard pressed music fans! What makes that deal, between two consenting adults, immoral or wrong or sleazy. Why exactly, in your opinion,should Mr Tout "fúck off and die"?



This is the question I keep asking, and still no one has offered an answer. I'm not asking is fiddling wrong, I'm not asking is corruption wrong, I'm not asking is ticketmaster the devils organisation.
The question I'd like answered is the one I've asked!

Yourself isit

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I am not talking about some mafia style organisation buying up tickets by the thousands. I'm talking Joe Soap who bought his tickets fair and square, with an eye to going but shít happened and he now can't, or maybe he only bought with an eye to re-selling for a few quid.
If he can get 2, 5, 10 whatever times face value - why shouldn't he?

Corruption is corruption, a fiddle is a fiddle, these are separate issues.

Can someone please tell me what is apparently so unique about an event ticket, that they believe should forbid it's legitimate owner from selling it to someone who wants it at a profit? I haven't seen anything in this thread that even resembles a logical explanation.

People don't think.

A tout is buying something that he hopes will rise in value later. If it doesn't he makes a loss.

That's 90% of speculative capitalism right there. Either oppose the stock market and touts or neither.

Yourself isit

dotsman wrote: »

That's a pretty crazy idea. So if someone buys something they can do whatever they want with it?

• If a person buys a video, you believe they can copy it and sell those copies?
• If a person buys a bottle of vodka, you believe they can give it to a 10 year old to consume?
• If someone buys powerful prescription drugs, you believe they can sell them on to a drug addict?
• If someone buys a gun, you believe they can go around shooting anyone they like?

After all, in all the above examples, the person bought something, and you feel "they can do what they want with it". The idea that, just because someone buys something they are free to do whatever they want with is is absolutely ludicrous.

But more than that, you are missing the point (by a country mile). It is the tout purchasing the ticket in the first place that is the distortion of the free market. I'm not sure if it is the word "free" in "free markets" that is confusing you. The "free" does not refer to some anarchistic or destructive force. The term "free" refers to the the market being free of distortions and corruption; i.e. that the market is free from monopolies, manipulation, unequal bargaining power, information asymmetry, high barriers to entry etc.

In the case of a ticket to an event (which typically implies a limited supply), a free market would see those tickets distributed to the people who want them most where the price is a greed by those organizing the event and those attending. In a free market, any middle-man involved should be one that improves the efficiency of the distribution and or/reduces the cost of distribution.

The example of a valid middle man is a shop. We could, in theory, all buy our cornflakes direct from Kelloggs; ring them up, say you want a box of cornflakes and they deliver the box to your door. However, that would be an insanely expensive and inefficient way to operate (for both the seller and the buyer). Likewise, we would have to separately purchase our sausages directly from clonakilty, our bags of tea directly from lyons/barrys etc. Instead, a valid middle man (ie a shop) offers a way to cheaply and easily distribute the products to those who want them. It buys in bulk, stores and displays the products and lets the buyer make all their purchases in a far easier and cheaper manner. Because there are many sellers, many shops, and many buyers, with little interference and distortion (there is a little), this is an example of a free market.

However, taking this concert as an example of anti-free market practices, Bono, Adam, Larry and The Edge want to play a concert. They are the ones providing the service. They are the seller. The buyers are those who wish to attend this concert. Now, U2 are musicians. They could, in theory stand on grafton street and sell the tickets themselves to fans and charge whatever price they feel the fan is willing to pay. But they are musicians, and there's only 4 of them, and want to concentrate on the music so they employ the services of a middle man to manage the selling/distribution of tickets on the huge scale that is required. This ticket distributor is of course entitle to charge for their service, based on the quality of their service and on competitive factors. However, in this case, the distributor is ticketmaster, which has an effective monopoly on the ticket distribution market. And, as a result, their service is terrible and their fees extortionate. Instead of doing their best to ensure that the tickets are distributed to the buyers as efficiently and cheaply as possible, we have the case that is being discussed by this thread - where huge amounts of buyers have to pay additional (often huge) amounts, and that this money is going to fund the inefficiencies (i.e. the touts). The touts add nothing. In fact, they greatly decrease the efficiency. In a free market, they would simply not exist.




Of course. So what? Regardless of the touts, 78,000 people will attend the concert. All the touts have done is, for a significant percentage of buyers, simply increased the cost of attending. The seller (U2) does not benefit, nor does the buyer (the attendee). Neither party wants the "services" of the tout to be involved in the transaction. It is the tout who is corrupting the transaction between the seller and the buyer. Therefore, it is not a free market.

That's a ludicrous redefinition of a free market. Touts have no more advantage than anyone else in the initial buying - they just hope to make a profit. In fact in pretty much the rest of the "free market" there is far more bias to insiders

sbsquarepants

Yourself isit wrote: »

People don't think.

Seems to sum it up alright:D

Robineen

To the people saying it is just capitalism and the market finding its ceiling - are all the tout tickets always sold? They might not always sell all of them or even many of them. Selling a small amount at a ridiculously inflated price might make it worth their time, break even anyway. The concert shows as sold out, so a small number of people might pay the hugely inflated price because they think that's what the tickets are worth. But other might not touch them at that price, even if they really want to go. If this is the case, the price is being artificially inflated. It's more than what many people would be willing to be pay for the tickets.

This is just me pondering the subject, I don't know if the above is the case ever. But if not all tickets are sold for an event because touts have them, that's really maddening.

TheChizler

Robineen wrote: »

This is just me pondering the subject, I don't know if the above is the case ever. But if not all tickets are sold for an event because touts have them, that's really maddening.

As mentioned somewhere above, someone has a ticket but no intention of going to the event, as they get closer and closer to the event the price will drop in an effort to sell. The price reflects demand.

degsie

It touting is so-called 'acceptable' by some, how come some jurisdictions are bringing in legislation to halt it?

sbsquarepants

Should we also enforce wearing of the hijab?
Some jurisdictions do.

If some are, that means by definition some aren't. Why follow the ones who are, if there's no need to follow the ones who aren't? You have no real point there I'm afraid.

degsie

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Should we also enforce wearing of the hijab?
Some jurisdictions do.

If some are, that means by definition some aren't. Why follow the ones who are, if there's no need to follow the ones who aren't? You have no real point there I'm afraid.

And all your points bear merit? Rambling posts about 'free market' & commerce does not preclude the fact that MANY people find ticket touting as valid a commercial enterprise as drug peddling.

dotsman

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's a ludicrous redefinition of a free market. Touts have no more advantage than anyone else in the initial buying - they just hope to make a profit. In fact in pretty much the rest of the "free market" there is far more bias to insiders

Apologies if it doesn't fit in with your anarchist/socialist/anti-establishment idealogy and its definition of free markets, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread as it just seems to be going around in circles with just a few people with fingers in their ears refusing to accept logic while trying to justify their antisocial views.

nice_guy80

Had two all Ireland football final tickets back in 2003

I was offered four times the face value by a lad I know from tyrone.
I took it. I was a student

I never actually put them up for sale

Car99

This thread seems a little fishy to me.

bodhrandude

There is a pub in Kinlough County Leitrim called the Tickled Trout.

Sam Kade

awec wrote: »

Touts are scum.

The op reckons they are trouts

Yamanoto

Made a killing on England vs Ireland tickets in Twickenham a few years ago.

Had intended going to the game but was offered stupid money for them & it went a long way toward a family break in Umbria.

Sam Kade

Yamanoto wrote: »

Made a killing on England vs Ireland tickets in Twickenham a few years ago.

Had intended going to the game but was offered stupid money for them & it went a long way toward a family break in Umbria.

You meet eejits in all walks of life

prinzeugen

The lowest form of ticket seller/tout is the ones that knowingly sell blocked/useless tickets to people.

Usually its some tourists that end up getting stung thinking that they are getting a bargain ticket at double the price.

degsie

prinzeugen wrote: »

The lowest form of ticket seller/tout is the ones that knowingly sell blocked/useless tickets to people.

Usually its some tourists that end up getting stung thinking that they are getting a bargain ticket at double the price.

Some folks on here will tell you that's just a supply and demand thing, a bit of enterprise if you will...:rolleyes:

ceegee

To those opposed to selling tickets above face value: If you owned a rare copy of an album (eg an early demo or EP by a band that became famous) would you sell it for more than its original face value?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

prinzeugen

degsie wrote: »

Some folks on here will tell you that's just a supply and demand thing, a bit of enterprise if you will...:rolleyes:

Well that little bit "enterprise" has got more than one person in trouble with the Garda at the Aviva.

I know buyer beware and all that, but what some people do is fraud at the end of the day.

degsie

ceegee wrote: »

To those opposed to selling tickets above face value: If you owned a rare copy of an album (eg an early demo or EP by a band that became famous) would you sell it for more than its original face value?

Comparing a collectible item to a one-off live event is nonsense.

The Rape of Lucretia

degsie wrote: »

It touting is so-called 'acceptable' by some, how come some jurisdictions are bringing in legislation to halt it?

Some jurisdictions are making the mistake of thinking that two wrongs make a right.

ceegee

degsie wrote: »

Comparing a collectible item to a one-off live event is nonsense.

Why?
People have argued touting is wrong because people are being charged more than what the band intended fans to pay for the experience and because this money goes to the person re-selling and not the artist. That's exactly what happens when people sell limited edition albums/comics etc for inflated prices.

The only difference is society has decided that its ok to profit from fan demand for physical items but not ok to profit from fan demand for concerts. There's no logical difference.

ceegee

bucketybuck wrote: »

Tell that to ex-Ticketmaster CEO Nathan Hubbard, thats his figure by all accounts.

In fairness, saying 90% of tickets end up with touts is ridiculous. That would mean 70 odd thousand tickets being re-sold for croke park gigs. And thats not to mention all the gigs which are unlikely to sell out where touts wont be buying up many tickets.
Think of any show you've went to where you knew a good few people going, how many bought tickets from touts? I've never been to a gig where even a quarter of the people i know there had to pay touts, much less 90% of them. so either everyone I know is in the lucky 10% of people who get tickets on general sale or that 90% figure is rubbish

degsie

True music fans want to see their favourite artists perform live for a reasonable price, touts want to circumvent that. That's what makes them scummy.

howiya

degsie wrote: »

True music fans want to see their favourite artists perform live for a reasonable price, touts want to circumvent that. That's what makes them scummy.

Touts also facilitate your first sentence. All depends on your definition of a reasonable price I guess

sbsquarepants

howiya wrote: »

Touts also facilitate your first sentence. All depends on your definition of a reasonable price I guess

"True music fans" become so consumed by their fandom that they loose the ability to think for themselves, so obviously they need protection from their inability to say no to a bad deal!

degsie wrote: »

And all your points bear merit? Rambling posts about 'free market' & commerce does not preclude the fact that MANY people find ticket touting as valid a commercial enterprise as drug peddling.

You're confusing emotion with logic, want with need, and enterprise with theft, - as are your MANY cohorts.
In short that's why neither you, nor anyone else has been able to answer my simple logical question, with a simple logical answer - there simply isn't one. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to profit from selling a ticket other than you don't like it happening.
We've had everything from selling gargle to kids, to going on killing sprees and now "drugs are bad m'kay".

I think it's fairly obvious that if you (or anyone else for that matter) actually had a point, you would have made it by now.

You don't like tout's, and that's fine (they probably wouldn't like you either:D)

But you not liking something, or not wanting to pay for it, is just not the same as that thing being wrong.

bucketybuck

howiya wrote: »

Touts also facilitate your first sentence.

Oh? They create more tickets than were originally on sale do they? They provide a more efficient platform for allocating tickets from promoter to customer do they?

Facilitate is not the word you are looking for.

bucketybuck

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious that if you (or anyone else for that matter) actually had a point, you would have made it by now.

You have already made it quite clear that you struggle with obvious points.

sbsquarepants

bucketybuck wrote: »

You have already made it quite clear that you struggle with obvious points.

The only obvious thing I get from this thread, is that there are obviously a lot of people out there who are simultaneously quite frugal but yet feel quite entitled, and who get very cranky when their little whinge fest gets called for the self pitying crock of shít that it is.

We're going around in circles, so I think I'll just leave it at this.

If you think the ticket is worth the money - buy it.
If you think it's not worth it - don't buy it.
Whatever you do - don't whinge about it. Decide, then live with your decision - you alone control the decisions you make!

Actually, come to think of it, I have better advice than that..... just save your money, they're shíte anyway:D

evolving_doors

U2 are just a wannabe Coldplay anyhow.

degsie

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If you think the ticket is worth the money - buy it.

Talk about missing the point :rolleyes:

You can't buy it at source 'cause the touts hoard them.