Olympic tickets anyone

We were lucky & got a pair; not sure yet what event they're for but as we only applied for athletics & the closing ceremony we've done pretty well I think. Bad luck to those who didn't manage to get tickets but it's a lottery after all (says he, smugly...)

I seem to have been lucky, though not sure what events I have tickets for.

The process was a fiasco and I doubt Coe and his mates could have done a worse job if they'd tried. As I say I don't even know what I've got tickets for.

The site was appalling and despite what Coe said there are still corporate tickets available - so there'll be empty seats while they are all drinking at the bar.     

All major sport is overwhelmingly "corporatised". The UK is the worst example I've seen, but Canada where I am now is also pretty bad. I can't complain too much as I have been on the receiving end of a few corporate tickets, including game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals last night - Go 'nucks!. But yes, it sucks for most. I won't go into the fiasco that was the Sydney Olympic ticketing process. Sounds like London has done even worse (unbelievably).

You might criticise the Olympics organisers for some of the application process (like having to use Visa and the bizarre charging to the account before knowing what you have won etc) but basically it seems a sound process to me. The site was a bit fiddly but essentially a very large majority of tickets have been available at a range of prices that were not completely ridiculous to everyone who wished to apply and they were allocated on a lottery basis. One year out people can now plan around the tickets they have, and also those with none in the first tranche get priority if they re-apply for undersubscribed events.

Corporate sponsors help to reduce the costs of the Olympics to all, the ratio of coroparte to 'normal' tickets at these Olympics is said to be lower than at many other recent games (I don't have the stats). People would moan if the prices were greater or the Olympics total cost was higher without them.

Some people are never happy, but apart from some tweaking can anyone suggest how they could have been distributed more fairly? 22 million into 6 million does not go after all.

Bruce

It was discussed on Radio 2 yesterday. There were people who applied for many more than they actually wanted and got them all while others only applied for the required number and got none. Apparently they were available from a site(s) in Germany and they were easily available from there.

It looked like there was no consistency whatsoever in the allocation of tickets.

It is amazing the number of people who think the National Lottery is a fine institution and duly flush their cash down the lavvy week after week, yet think that the method of selecting Olympic ticket recipients - by essentially the same lottery type system, and with a better chance of winning - to be a farce and grossly unfair.

Will people twig about the National Lottery, or remain blinded by greed?

I can't see any alternative to giving Card details up front - a bit like running a tab at the pub - so that people couldn't renege when they found that the tickets they had got weren't really for an event they wanted to go to afterall, which would have resulted in even worse 'chaos' to clear up.

Me?  I'd already decided to watch the Rowing at home on the telly.

Corporate sponsorship doesn't reduce the cost of anything (other than to those who get the free tickets). The resulting scarcity of public tickets dives up both their face and market value. I disagree with corporate sponsorship in its entirety. The costs are simply added to the products and services those corporation sell and the consumer pays in the end and/or reduces the returns to investors. The executives and guests thus get freebies at the pleasure of consumers and investors.

Another area where sponsorship takes money from the consumer and gives it to others is when the existence of the corporate sponsorship inflates the salaries of those who are paid to play and administer the sport. Do the ludicrous player salaries in Premier League result in better entertainment on the pitch, or just in the tabloids? If the income of clubs was limited to how much people were prepared to pay to see games, then the salaries would realistically reflect the market price of the players' services.

Instead, you have corporate branding executives giving away my (as a shareholder) money (to stupid, mysoginistic thugs, on the whole) and inflating the prices I pay for goods and services. All so they and their buddies can get freebies to the games.

My view is that if you want to watch something, pay the full price. Ban corporate sponsoship and let the market decide the value and price of these things. Sport is sports. Art is art. And business is business. Keep them apart.

Rant over for now.

and there are scalpers who'll be charging higher prices for their tickets just before the games.

I went to a wrestling event and the scalpers were wrestlers who had bought blocks of tickets in LA.  Didn't mind them making money and it wasn't a huge amount. Word got out on TV that there were still tickets open for unusual events like handball but I showed up at a couple venues and so did others before me....  Ah well one event was great.