andrew_2010 0 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 The whole point of a boycott would be to hurt Utd financially right? well how would that work when tickets are handed out and charged based on who signed up to what at the start of the year? I assume supporters clubs must have an account type thing that gets charged like the DD scheme in place for the SPL away tickets on a season ticket? Its a good idea, but if the tickets are already paid for, there is no point in leaving the team to fend for themselves without the bears support from the stands! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyk 158 Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 The whole point of a boycott would be to hurt Utd financially right? well how would that work when tickets are handed out and charged based on who signed up to what at the start of the year? I assume supporters clubs must have an account type thing that gets charged like the DD scheme in place for the SPL away tickets on a season ticket? Its a good idea, but if the tickets are already paid for, there is no point in leaving the team to fend for themselves without the bears support from the stands! But surely they have some say if they want the tickets or not as this not the usual straight forward fixture? It would hurt them financially (but they are getting SKY TV money and also the money from the first game) but would also say don't take the piss. You can't say one thing at the game and also on their website not so long ago and then change their minds. They can't get away with this, as usual the fans are being taken for granted big style. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 The whole point of a boycott would be to hurt Utd financially right? well how would that work when tickets are handed out and charged based on who signed up to what at the start of the year? I assume supporters clubs must have an account type thing that gets charged like the DD scheme in place for the SPL away tickets on a season ticket? Its a good idea, but if the tickets are already paid for, there is no point in leaving the team to fend for themselves without the bears support from the stands! Are Dundee Utd one of the teams that have agreed to our surcharge? I've lost track. If so, then you make a valid point, and it would take the club to buy into the idea of a boycott and be willing to hand back tickets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 i mind tannadice went minorly on fire when i was there. disconcerting to see firemen with an axe and bag of sand on hand, as though it were a regular occurence. boycott. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_2010 0 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I think its completely wrong for DU to act like this, and the moving of the goal posts is completely unjustified! But I was just wondering about the practicality of them. I remember when I got SPL away tickets, you had to tick the box to say you agree to all the terms to get a shot at the tickets... so thought I'd raise the issue! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norris Cole 0 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Totally unacceptable. I never enjoy criticising Rangers fans, but anyone buying a ticket again is a mug. A real opportunity to make a statement here. I can still barely believe this decision to be honest, even by the standards of today's game. Same old Rangers, letting others get away with trampling all over them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,415 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Totally unacceptable. I never enjoy criticising Rangers fans, but anyone buying a ticket again is a mug. A real opportunity to make a statement here. I can still barely believe this decision to be honest, even by the standards of today's game. Same old Rangers, letting others get away with trampling all over them. Agreed, I would not be going to that game,however I would boycott it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I've thought about this a lot & I can understand their decision tbh. If they didn't charge half price again, then they would be losing a serious amount of money on the stadium operating costs & staffing for the game that was called off at half time. Obviously it's a pisser for anyone who went & the game was called off, but they did at least get to watch 45 mins of football, so there isn't a massive amount of ground for complaint. The main complaint for anyone who's having to stump up another �£12 should be that the fixture in total for 135 mins of football will be costing them �£36 while someone who wasn't at the first match who now decides to go is only paying �£12 for 90 mins of football. It's all a bit weird, but at least there's a chance for extra Rangers fans to go and support the team for only �£12 assuming there's tickets available. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "but they did at least get to watch 45 mins of football" Eh? How much would you pay to see half a game of football that didn't count for anything? Would you seriously say, "I'd pay half price for that"? Not only that, you've paid full travel expenses and if you can't make the replay then you've paid a lot of money for a meaningless half game. Can you imagine going to the cinema and the projector breaks down half way through and so they "generously" keep your money but give you half price of the ticket to next week's showing? It scandalous and I don't know how anyone with any sense of fairness can see it otherwise. Yes they lost money but you can hardly charge the fans for it - they did not receive what they paid for and so are entitled to a refund. The business just has to absorb such losses and at worst, should seek recompense from the SPL. Ripping people off when you don't provide the goods is never the answer except to charlatans. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_2010 0 Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 "but they did at least get to watch 45 mins of football" Eh? How much would you pay to see half a game of football that didn't count for anything? Would you seriously say, "I'd pay half price for that"? Not only that, you've paid full travel expenses and if you can't make the replay then you've paid a lot of money for a meaningless half game. Can you imagine going to the cinema and the projector breaks down half way through and so they "generously" keep your money but give you half price of the ticket to next week's showing? It scandalous and I don't know how anyone with any sense of fairness can see it otherwise. Yes they lost money but you can hardly charge the fans for it - they did not receive what they paid for and so are entitled to a refund. The business just has to absorb such losses and at worst, should seek recompense from the SPL. Ripping people off when you don't provide the goods is never the answer except to charlatans. Surely they have some form of insurance policy for match abandonment? Or are they afraid a claim will put their premium up?! DAFT. those who were at the game before should get to watch all 3 points worth. (or 0 or 1 if we get screwed over by external circumstances again!) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.