Paul B
Well-known member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 1,251
@Paul B thanks for another good read and compliments of the season to you and your family.
As an 1893 club member, along with Mrs Lounger, we have had to suffer the consequences of being given tickets for all the limited attendance games (not the trial versus Hull nor the FGR game for which we had to apply like anyone else.) We did not receive any kind of promise of preferential treatment when paying for our season tickets. We were given a discount on the normal renewal as it was clear that access to the lounge, bar and other corporate areas would not be available. The price we paid was £575.00 each. Last season we renewed at a cost of £675.50 each. Like you, we also donated the offered refund and the cost of two tickets to the Wycombe game. Like you, and everyone else, we renewed not knowing if we would see a single game at the ground.
I have said this before and will keep repeating, we did not ask for preferential treatment, we did not expect it and were surprised that we were the recipients of this "favouritism".
What we did get was a flow of stupid and inane remarks on this forum. We also had Jerome Sale insinuating that we were not "dyed in the wool supporters" live, on air. Comments from Steve Kinniburgh also displayed a poor grasp of matters relating to the general corporate side of the club when discussing the decision to allocate tickets. (He actually thinks the club makes a profit from catering and the bars)
On attending the Northampton game other 1893 seat holders who read this forum told me how much they appreciated my comments on here in attempting to put things straight, like myself and Mrs Lounger they were horrified at the perception displayed by other supporters.
What I also noted at the Northampton game were the empty seats among the 1893 club seats, if there were 146 1893 club season ticket holders present then they were not sitting in their seats. (146 is the actual total of renewals as quoted by Niall McWilliams.) We are fairly sure that quite a few sitting in that area were not 1893 holders. I believe it could be taken that some of those allocated benefitted from returned tickets. As I have mentioned elsewhere, quite a few 1893 members would have been prevented from attending through health, age and disability. - the very reasons why they prefer to opt for the more expensive seats not, as some have suggested, because they are toffs with more money than sense.
We, Mrs Lounger and myself, also thought it a telling factor that the club could not sell tickets for the Pizza pot trophy game despite the outcry from many about not getting to a game. We paid up our £10.00 each and went, the opportunity to see live football and to watch OUFC being the attraction regardless of the competition. And, why did only 60% of season ticket holders apply for tickets in the ballot? Happy to accept that not everyone would be able to attend but 60% still seems a figure on the low side.
As an OxVox life member (along with Mrs Lounger) we assisted with comments to the report presented to the club regarding this matter and were pleased that the club made some clarification later with an article on the club website. It has not completely mitigated the decision nor did it explain fully but we had hoped that it had drawn a line under the situation. And now, none of us get to attend and it becomes academic.
Thanks for these comments and some hitherto missing information. Just like to reiterate that "I don’t blame the men and women who pay a couple of hundred quid (my guess) extra."@Paul B thanks for another good read and compliments of the season to you and your family.
As an 1893 club member, along with Mrs Lounger, we have had to suffer the consequences of being given tickets for all the limited attendance games (not the trial versus Hull nor the FGR game for which we had to apply like anyone else.) We did not receive any kind of promise of preferential treatment when paying for our season tickets. We were given a discount on the normal renewal as it was clear that access to the lounge, bar and other corporate areas would not be available. The price we paid was £575.00 each. Last season we renewed at a cost of £675.50 each. Like you, we also donated the offered refund and the cost of two tickets to the Wycombe game. Like you, and everyone else, we renewed not knowing if we would see a single game at the ground.
I have said this before and will keep repeating, we did not ask for preferential treatment, we did not expect it and were surprised that we were the recipients of this "favouritism".
What we did get was a flow of stupid and inane remarks on this forum. We also had Jerome Sale insinuating that we were not "dyed in the wool supporters" live, on air. Comments from Steve Kinniburgh also displayed a poor grasp of matters relating to the general corporate side of the club when discussing the decision to allocate tickets. (He actually thinks the club makes a profit from catering and the bars)
On attending the Northampton game other 1893 seat holders who read this forum told me how much they appreciated my comments on here in attempting to put things straight, like myself and Mrs Lounger they were horrified at the perception displayed by other supporters.
What I also noted at the Northampton game were the empty seats among the 1893 club seats, if there were 146 1893 club season ticket holders present then they were not sitting in their seats. (146 is the actual total of renewals as quoted by Niall McWilliams.) We are fairly sure that quite a few sitting in that area were not 1893 holders. I believe it could be taken that some of those allocated benefitted from returned tickets. As I have mentioned elsewhere, quite a few 1893 members would have been prevented from attending through health, age and disability. - the very reasons why they prefer to opt for the more expensive seats not, as some have suggested, because they are toffs with more money than sense.
We, Mrs Lounger and myself, also thought it a telling factor that the club could not sell tickets for the Pizza pot trophy game despite the outcry from many about not getting to a game. We paid up our £10.00 each and went, the opportunity to see live football and to watch OUFC being the attraction regardless of the competition. And, why did only 60% of season ticket holders apply for tickets in the ballot? Happy to accept that not everyone would be able to attend but 60% still seems a figure on the low side.
As an OxVox life member (along with Mrs Lounger) we assisted with comments to the report presented to the club regarding this matter and were pleased that the club made some clarification later with an article on the club website. It has not completely mitigated the decision nor did it explain fully but we had hoped that it had drawn a line under the situation. And now, none of us get to attend and it becomes academic.
I hold a theory that because the 1893 club is considered a part of the "Corporate" attendance we get dealt with as such. I believe ( I have no proof of this) that to facilitate the catering and staffing of the corporate clientele and to get the best return for the small fortune paid to Stadco (AKA Kassam) the tea/coffee provision for the 1893 club is "lumped" in with the general catering bill. Putting us in with all the others who frequent the bar and lounge area also makes it easier to manage numbers. Looking after the sponsors, boxes, guests of the club and the officials entourage along with visiting Directors etc. is something of a headache for the club. Certainly on match days it is not uncommon to see Rosie scurrying from one end of the club to another ably assisted by Adam Harris. Both lovely people ( watch out for Rosie's barbed comments if you upset him) and both always trying to please everyone. I can well envisage the ticketing folk being asked to assign a number of tickets to "Corporate" to look after those who financially support the club throughout the season and rightly or wrongly, the 1893 tickets fell into that number. Thereafter, it seems that nobody thought about the repercussion of that decision until it became public knowledge and too late to mitigate the reaction from other season ticket holders.Thanks for these comments and some hitherto missing information. Just like to reiterate that "I don’t blame the men and women who pay a couple of hundred quid (my guess) extra."
What I don't get is the logic when it has pissed off many people. That's down to the club to answer if they want to.
Anyway at the moment we'd all settle for 1 in 3 wouldn't we.
Exactly that, which screams lack of professionalism and I think long term damage may have been done here. Hope not though, obviously. But for now there's a bit of a wedge in the eyes of some between 1893 and the rest of us. Totally unfair in my view when you never asked for any favours. For me the wedge is more between fans and club. Whatever way you look at this it is hard not to conclude a bit of a feeling of being second class citizens. Such a shame.I hold a theory that because the 1893 club is considered a part of the "Corporate" attendance we get dealt with as such. I believe ( I have no proof of this) that to facilitate the catering and staffing of the corporate clientele and to get the best return for the small fortune paid to Stadco (AKA Kassam) the tea/coffee provision for the 1893 club is "lumped" in with the general catering bill. Putting us in with all the others who frequent the bar and lounge area also makes it easier to manage numbers. Looking after the sponsors, boxes, guests of the club and the officials entourage along with visiting Directors etc. is something of a headache for the club. Certainly on match days it is not uncommon to see Rosie scurrying from one end of the club to another ably assisted by Adam Harris. Both lovely people ( watch out for Rosie's barbed comments if you upset him) and both always trying to please everyone. I can well envisage the ticketing folk being asked to assign a number of tickets to "Corporate" to look after those who financially support the club throughout the season and rightly or wrongly, the 1893 tickets fell into that number. Thereafter, it seems that nobody thought about the repercussion of that decision until it became public knowledge and too late to mitigate the reaction from other season ticket holders.
No. Personally I think the club have messed up the ticket allocation process, partly because of the lack of communication and partly because of a lack off planning. Unfortunately the 1893 club are an easy target.1893 and priority for tickets - am I alone in the "I really couldn't care less" category....
Not alone but it has pissed many off. Well that's the vibe I've picked up. OxVox have taken views from members and have or will be feeding it back to the club. All about loyalty and being treated as equals. Whether you personally think it is an issue or not if it does put lots of current season ticket holders off renewing next time around then that is a big issue for OUFC finances.1893 and priority for tickets - am I alone in the "I really couldn't care less" category....
I know that so why the **** I've written what I did I have not idea nor why my proof readers missed it. Correction will be forthcoming once the Liverpool game is over. Thank you again sir.Not alone. Still there's been some fine forum flouncing.
May I say it's 'reined in' (like a horse) not 'reigned in' (like Louis XIV and the eighteenth century).
Everyone loves a pedant. Like they love an auditor
Agreed, more to worry about the Club tried there best.1893 and priority for tickets - am I alone in the "I really couldn't care less" category....