Madrid away

[Blue Mist]

Did anyone recieve an answer yet as to why we only got 3030 tickets? 1000 Short of the 5% figure. Got 11k points and think i’ll just miss out now which is pretty frustrating.

Madrid are redeveloping their ground and have started at the away end which is bad for us but sensible, sadly.

 

[liamctid]

I can't believe they did that either. That's great to hear as the fewer who have it, the less of an excuse the club has to hang on to it. It's one of the worst things we ever did in my view and we're unanimous at City Matters that we want rid of it. If we do implement a rolling points system then it'll have to go anyway.

Glad to agree with you on something!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

How much does the club gain from Platinum? I'd have thought it was a significant amount.

(BTW was there a CM meeting in December? I couldn't find the notes on the official website.)

About half a million I think. There wasn't a formal meeting in December but we had an informal one over a few drinks. We talked about things like finances and UEFA and none of that would have been minuted even if it had been a formal meeting! But let's just say that I wouldn't like to be in Aleksandr Ceferin's shoes at the moment.

 

[cptaidan88]

City don't pay Sport Options anything or vice versa. It's a commercial business. He doesn't get any tickets although he'd love to. If he did, it's pretty obvious to all but the hard of thinking that he'd offer those tickets on a first-come, first-served basis because he'd want to fill the plane. You probably wouldn't even need to be a season card holder, let alone be on the CL scheme. He wouldn't care as long as he sold all the seats. You know that's true.

The situation was that TC gave us money to become our 'Official Travel Partner". In return, they got the right to put on flights to CL away games and packages for home games in the PL. However I know that TC insisted as part of the contract that they would only fly these CL trips for people with tickets, as otherwise people could just use the flights as normal customers. That was part of the contract. We looked at various ways of getting round that but there weren't any. We also had access to data that showed relatively few people got bumped from TC flights because they didn't qualify for a ticket.

The flights are open to season card holders, branch members, club staff and seasonal hospitality members. Most will know when booking the flights that they'll likely get a ticket. Other clubs also had the same problem and most went down the same route of offering a ticket plus flight package. As I said, we talked about this in depth in two occasions and we felt that price was possibly a factor of people using Sport Options over Thomas Cook so we asked the club to go back to TC and see what they could do on price. We also insisted that if the flight + ticket solution went ahead, it was restricted to SC holders on the CL scheme and would only ever apply to one plane. We also recognised the risk of someone missing out but the majority of games simply weren't sell-outs, at least at CL scheme level, so the risk was minimal to zero. The biggest risk was getting a knock-out game at somewhere like Plzen, with a small capacity, but we'd crosscut at bridge if we ever same to it.

Of course it's all moot now anyway so I'm not sure why you even brought it up but your post was typical of the type of posts which suggest there was an easy alternative, we took the path of least resistance or we took a decision without thinking about the impact on fans.

Thank you for your response.

will those who are booked on official travel jump the queue with regard to loyalty points to ensure the plane is full.

I was responding to this this question, so it was relevant, but even then it wasn't the focus of my response. My view is that it was a ridiculous agreement, and if it is still in place with the replacements then it remains a ridiculous agreement. I understand you hold a different view, but as you have explained - you dont believe it is a good agreement either, just the least worst you felt was available to City Matters. I believe you that it was discussed at length but I am disappointed that was the conclusion reached collectively.

My opinion would be not to give them any guarantees, in the same way we don't give any guarantees to Spikes. They are external businesses and it is their prerogative whether or not to run a trip. They don't guarantee us that they'll operate one so City (and ultimately city supporters) should not be subsidising them, or favouring them to help them profiteer from supporters.

As you say, thankfully it isn't an issue very often which makes it even more surprising that we've paid hundreds of thousands to subsidise them thus far. I will take issue about it being moot though - its only moot if the agreement has not transferred, and you have said you do not know whether it has. Until you find out you'll be pleased to know I don't intend to continue with the debate. I've raised my point.

 

[GortonBlue62]

About half a million I think. There wasn't a formal meeting in December but we had an informal one over a few drinks. We talked about things like finances and UEFA and none of that would have been minuted even if it had been a formal meeting! But let's just say that I wouldn't like to be in Aleksandr Ceferin's shoes at the moment.

Obviously I'm not asking you for details or to betray any confidences, but how optimistic are you that we will emerge unscathed from the current UEFA investigation?

I presume that formal minuted meetings will resume, otherwise City Matters opens itself up to accusations of being too close to the club and therefore less able to represent the fans.

 

[Blue Mist]

About half a million I think. There wasn't a formal meeting in December but we had an informal one over a few drinks. We talked about things like finances and UEFA and none of that would have been minuted even if it had been a formal meeting! But let's just say that I wouldn't like to be in Aleksandr Ceferin's shoes at the moment.

Wow, re your last comment on Ceferin if I can take you for a drink any time (half a mild ?) can I as I would love to know what was said !!!!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thank you for your response.


I was responding to this this question, so it was relevant, but even then it wasn't the focus of my response. My view is that it was a ridiculous agreement, and if it is still in place with the replacements then it remains a ridiculous agreement. I understand you hold a different view, but as you have explained - you dont believe it is a good agreement either, just the least worst you felt was available to City Matters. I believe you that it was discussed at length but I am disappointed that was the conclusion reached collectively.

My opinion would be not to give them any guarantees, in the same way we don't give any guarantees to Spikes. They are external businesses and it is their prerogative whether or not to run a trip. They don't guarantee us that they'll operate one so City (and ultimately city supporters) should not be subsidising them, or favouring them to help them profiteer from supporters.

As you say, thankfully it isn't an issue very often which makes it even more surprising that we've paid hundreds of thousands to subsidise them thus far. I will take issue about it being moot though - its only moot if the agreement has not transferred, and you have said you do not know whether it has. Until you find out you'll be pleased to know I don't intend to continue with the debate. I've raised my point.

But you're not thinking about this commercially. TC gave us money to be an official partner. In return, they got access to home tickets and the chance to put on official flights to CL aways (but not tickets). It costs money to lease a plane, pay the crew and pay for landing spots and fuel and most of that is a fixed cost. Fuel might be variable depending on the distance and loading. So what you've suggested means that TC would be paying us for the contract to run these flights in the first place and then subsidise all losses from running them. It's not like a situation where you'd expect to lose money in the winter but recoup it in the summer. It's a finite number of flights for a limited group of people. No company in its right mind would agree pay money for the right to be the official travel partner then also agree to subsidise any losses from running those flights. At the very lead t, they'd build that risk into the price, making the flights too expensive for most.

So the alternative is not to have an official travel partner and let people make their own arrangements. But many people liked the TC flights as they were day trips and provided transport between airport and stadium, particularly older people or others who didn't want the hassle of doing all that themselves. So on the one hand you're complaint is that 20 or 30 people might miss out on tickets (although we did everything we could to minimise the risk of that) yet you're quite happy to see maybe 100 or more people who are entitled to buy tickets denied the opportunity to travel, via a trip they found most convenient and may not travel if it's not available. They're people I represent as well.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Thank you for your response.


I was responding to this this question, so it was relevant, but even then it wasn't the focus of my response. My view is that it was a ridiculous agreement, and if it is still in place with the replacements then it remains a ridiculous agreement. I understand you hold a different view, but as you have explained - you dont believe it is a good agreement either, just the least worst you felt was available to City Matters. I believe you that it was discussed at length but I am disappointed that was the conclusion reached collectively.

My opinion would be not to give them any guarantees, in the same way we don't give any guarantees to Spikes. They are external businesses and it is their prerogative whether or not to run a trip. They don't guarantee us that they'll operate one so City (and ultimately city supporters) should not be subsidising them, or favouring them to help them profiteer from supporters.

As you say, thankfully it isn't an issue very often which makes it even more surprising that we've paid hundreds of thousands to subsidise them thus far. I will take issue about it being moot though - its only moot if the agreement has not transferred, and you have said you do not know whether it has. Until you find out you'll be pleased to know I don't intend to continue with the debate. I've raised my point.

I like travelling on Spike’s. They are top trips but were you on the last trip to Madrid when the plane was cancelled? Blues were just asking politely for information but Mick through a tantrum shouting it’s not his fooking fault. Thankfully we boarded a replacement flight an hour later. I wish I had a video of this incident because it sums up some of the City Matters discussions in a nutshell.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

The TC stuff is just ANOTHER corporate type deal the club have made use of whether these sorts of agreements are right or wrong in our eyes but the big difference with this one is this one is visible.

 

[Blue Mist]

Hows this for stupid; My mate qualified at 12 for a ticket, I don't qualify until 3. He is on my friends and family so I went online and guess what, it wont let me buy one (confirmed by a nice lady on the phone..... so I phoned up, pretended I was him and got one. So why couldn't I do it online ?

Anyway the lady confirmed there is still a few hundred left.

 

[mayo31]

I think the fact that the league is a dead rubber is the reason games are dropping lower this year than last

Yes just the loyal lads (and lasses) going now - hang on though we still have Utd away to come

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Yes just the loyal lads (and lasses) going now - hang on though we still have Utd away to come

The rags away will be high demand but I reckon you could have got a ticket (on points) for the League cup semi at the swamp if you’d never been to an Away game before.

 

[mayo31]

Hows this for stupid; My mate qualified at 12 for a ticket, I don't qualify until 3. He is on my friends and family so I went online and guess what, it wont let me buy one (confirmed by a nice lady on the phone..... so I phoned up, pretended I was him and got one. So why couldn't I do it online ?

Anyway the lady confirmed there is still a few hundred left.

They started this a few seasons ago.

You used to be able to buy all of your friends and family via your account regardless if you yourself had enough points. Then 2 seasons ago they simply stopped the system from allowing such. I rang and had a conversation and asked why they have now done this, they lied and said it had always been the case. I know this was a lie as I have been using F&F to buy tickets for years, a lot of my mates work on building sites or shifts etc so cannot use a phone or laptop so I was the designated purchaser for them.

The reason they give is simply, if you do not have enough points then you cannot buy any tickets until you your self qualify. No matter if one of your F&F has over 25k points, you cannot buy their ticket from your account.

So why have F&F??

 

[pyeman]

They started this a few seasons ago.

You used to be able to buy all of your friends and family via your account regardless if you yourself had enough points. Then 2 seasons ago they simply stopped the system from allowing such. I rang and had a conversation and asked why they have now done this, they lied and said it had always been the case. I know this was a lie as I have been using F&F to buy tickets for years, a lot of my mates work on building sites or shifts etc so cannot use a phone or laptop so I was the designated purchaser for them.

The reason they give is simply, if you do not have enough points then you cannot buy any tickets until you your self qualify. No matter if one of your F&F has over 25k points, you cannot buy their ticket from your account.

So why have F&F??

Or just join a branch no need to have the criteria
Or a season card

 

[Blue Mist]

Or just join a branch no need to have the criteria
Or a season card

I am a bit fed up of snide digs at supporters clubs which has been shown to be no guarantee of a ticket as mentioned many times but what has a season card got to do with it ?

 

[UUJblue]

Or just join a branch no need to have the criteria
Or a season card

branches can apply but usually only limited to 2ish per branch isn’t it?

as someone said corporate was oversubscribed for this? Is that tunnel club? Do they get 2 each membership?

that pisses me off as this isn’t about money or class system. Should be points and loyalty to the schemes first.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Or just join a branch no need to have the criteria
Or a season card

You are doing a lot of bellyaching about a game that hasn’t even sold out yet.

Get on the official flight, upgrade to corporate or join a Supporters Club Branch if you think they are great. Btw we received 2 tickets for a membership of over 120 members and sales will probably reach their points anyway

 

[pyeman]

You are doing a lot of bellyaching about a game that hasn’t even sold out yet.

Get on the official flight, upgrade to corporate or join a Supporters Club Branch if you think they are great. Btw we received 2 tickets for a membership of over 120 members and sales will probably reach their points anyway

I am not knocking sc branches if someone gets a ticket cos they have the criteria brilliant but to get one just cos they are corporate or on a flight or in a sc without being on the cup scheme or having the correct points can’t be fare

 

[cptaidan88]

But you're not thinking about this commercially. TC gave us money to be an official partner. In return, they got access to home tickets and the chance to put on official flights to CL aways (but not tickets). It costs money to lease a plane, pay the crew and pay for landing spots and fuel and most of that is a fixed cost. Fuel might be variable depending on the distance and loading. So what you've suggested means that TC would be paying us for the contract to run these flights in the first place and then subsidise all losses from running them. It's not like a situation where you'd expect to lose money in the winter but recoup it in the summer. It's a finite number of flights for a limited group of people. No company in its right mind would agree pay money for the right to be the official travel partner then also agree to subsidise any losses from running those flights. At the very lead t, they'd build that risk into the price, making the flights too expensive for most.

These are all costs Spike incurs, and these are all costs TC had previously incurred without ticket guarantees. They shouldn't put on the flight if it isn't viable, and they didn't for Shakhtar this year, so its not an obligation on their part.

So the alternative is not to have an official travel partner and let people make their own arrangements. But many people liked the TC flights as they were day trips and provided transport between airport and stadium, particularly older people or others who didn't want the hassle of doing all that themselves. So on the one hand you're complaint is that 20 or 30 people might miss out on tickets (although we did everything we could to minimise the risk of that) yet you're quite happy to see maybe 100 or more people who are entitled to buy tickets denied the opportunity to travel, via a trip they found most convenient and may not travel if it's not available. They're people I represent as well.

I don't mind if there is an official travel partner, I just don't think anyone choosing to travel with them should be given preferential treatment over another supporter who has opted not to. This is how it worked prior to 18/19 and City Matters involvement, and it seemed to be ok for 6 or 7 years. In that time TC lost the contract to Thomson, and then won it back again, so clearly they thought it was worth their while.

Thomas Cook, Spike, and other charter companies have the option to put on a trip if they think it is commercially viable (ie can fill a plane). If it is not commercially viable, it shouldn't run. If they only have a half full plane, then the people that have booked at that point will need to be told it is going to be twice as expensive. One way or another, it definitely shouldn't be subsidised by City, and especially if that cost is then going to be passed on to Season Card holders at renewal time.

Everyone has different circumstances and will travel according to their budget, their holiday allowance, fitting it in around other plans. Manchester airport might not be the most convenient airport for a lot of people. None of those things affect their place in the queue and their right to a ticket. Who you travel with, and how you get there should not matter either.

 

[Blue Mist]

Approx 430 left. I hope any that want one get one.