The priority system and members ballot. It's not fair!

[CosbehFox]

 

The level of transparency Man U provide their supporters. It’s then followed up with a fuller breakdown before the game 

[grobyfox1990]

23 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

 

The level of transparency Man U provide their supporters. It’s then followed up with a fuller breakdown before the game 

That's quality. I've seen from a friend of a friend how they deal with European away tickets as well. They detail the price, allocation, number of qualifying supporters per band and number of tickets they are reserving for box holders, players, former players, broadcast and commercial. They interestingly detailed the discussions they had with the host club about the high ticket prices, and said as a tit-for-tat they would charge that clubs fans (can't remember the team) the same price for the home leg. Finally total transparency about the ticket collection process in the host city, and why they are doing this.

It's stupid and unrealistic to expect players' families and commercial interests not to get tickets in our away ends, but tell us how and why

[phoneticerror]

I was actually quite grateful that I didn’t get tickets to Notts County due to my priority band 😂

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

Let AI sort it. A barrier to any new approach is ensuring previous purchasing records don’t carry on existing issues…

 

That is the hardest part of the problem, because if you simply introduce a points system tomorrow, you risk creating a new unfairness: the people who have benefited from the old system will already have accumulated a huge advantage.

So I think you need to distinguish between rewarding historical loyalty and inheriting privilege from the old allocation system.

I would use a “reset with recognition” approach

Imagine the old system has meant that 2,000 season-ticket holders have regularly been able to buy away tickets, while another 10,000 haven’t realistically had the opportunity.

If you simply say:

“Your previous away-ticket purchases determine your new priority”

you’ve essentially institutionalised the old inequality.

Instead:

1. Freeze the old loyalty record

Recognise previous away attendance, but don’t allow it to dominate the new system.

For example, someone might receive a starting loyalty score based on their previous away attendance, but with a maximum cap.

So:

• 30 previous away games → 30 points
• 100 previous away games → perhaps still only 40 points
• 200 previous away games → perhaps still only 40 points

That recognises genuine loyalty without making someone permanently untouchable.

2. Give every eligible supporter a baseline

For example, every season-ticket holder gets 10 points and every member gets 5.

This means someone who has never had access to away tickets isn’t starting at zero against people who have had preferential access for years.

3. Then move to a genuinely earned system

From that point onwards, the overwhelming majority of points come from actual away attendance.

After, say, two seasons, the historical advantage could disappear almost completely.

 

An even fairer approach would be a transition period

I’d probably do this over three seasons.

 

 

That means the existing core of away supporters aren’t suddenly punished, but nor are they guaranteed priority forever.

And crucially, everyone gets an opportunity to move up the rankings.

Someone currently sitting outside the traditional away-ticket group could start attending the less desirable away games and gradually build their priority.

 

I’d also introduce a “fair access” component

This is where I think a lot of football clubs miss something.

Suppose Leicester gets 3,000 tickets for an away game.

There are 15,000 people who would like to go.

If the same 3,000 people get first refusal every time, you haven’t really created a loyalty scheme. You’ve created a closed club.

So I’d reserve perhaps 10–20% of the allocation for a ballot among people who don’t qualify for the highest priority bands.

For example:

2,500 tickets

• 2,000 → loyalty/priority system
• 500 → wider-supporter ballot

That gives somebody who has never been able to get an away ticket a genuine chance of attending.

It also prevents the system becoming self-perpetuating.

 

And there’s a particularly important rule I’d introduce

You shouldn’t need to have previously obtained an away ticket to establish away loyalty.

Instead, give additional points for attending less popular matches.

For example:

• Leicester v Liverpool away: 1 point
• Leicester v Birmingham away: 1 point
• Tuesday night at an inconvenient location: 2 points
• League Cup away at a lower-league club: 2 points
• FA Cup away on a cold January Tuesday: 2 points

Perhaps that’s slightly artificial, but the principle is excellent.

You’re rewarding people for taking opportunities when they’re available, rather than rewarding people simply because they have historically been inside the privileged group.

The principle I’d use

I’d formulate the policy around this:

No supporter should be permanently disadvantaged because they previously lacked access to away tickets, and no supporter should permanently retain priority simply because they previously had access.

That is, in my view, the fundamental fairness test.

The existing regular away supporters do deserve recognition. They’ve travelled with the club and shouldn’t suddenly be told that their loyalty counts for nothing.

But equally, a supporter who has been excluded from away tickets for years can’t fairly be told that their lack of away attendance proves they aren’t loyal enough to deserve tickets. That’s circular: they couldn’t demonstrate away loyalty because they couldn’t get the tickets.

That’s why I’d favour a capped historical score + universal baseline + rapidly increasing new loyalty points + a small wider ballot.

[CosbehFox]

Another club being transparent with their away ticketing 

 

Btw there’s a number of ticketing issues that the FT rep will bring up in the FAB meeting 

[AjcW]

Having entered what feels like 100 member ballots I’m not even sure they’re something for ST Holders to get annoyed about. Never been successful yet  even MK and Barnsley with the big allocation! 
 

Hopefully Barnsley makes members like MK did.