Post by profquatermass on Jan 18, 2017 18:19:07 GMT
I don't know anything about the management of the RAH except that it seems an odd scheme that they positively encourage touting. What do more knowledgable people think?
www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/18/royal-albert-hall-called-national-disgrace-members-ticket-resales
"Royal Albert Hall members have exchanged detailed advice on how to sell their seats on ticket touting sites, prompting the venue’s former president to label its stewardship a “national disgrace”.
The members, about 330 individuals who own 1,276 permanent seats in the 5,272 capacity venue, were sent a document offering tips on how to use online resale sites. The pamphlet tells members they can eschew the RAH’s official ticket return system and use controversial “secondary” ticketing sites such as Viagogo and StubHub to make more money.
The hall has come under the spotlight in recent months after tickets for in-demand acts such as Phil Collins and Dave Gilmour appeared on resale sites at huge markups. Tickets to this year’s Last Night of the Proms are listed on Viagogo for more than £1,500, even though tickets for the event have yet to go on sale.
The advice to owners of permanent seats, seen by the Guardian, is that they can “significantly improve income from unwanted tickets” by using secondary sites, which have become a haven for touts exploiting the most in-demand events. The author of the document, a seat owner who asked to remain anonymous, said: “Seat owners are entitled to optimise their returns.
“The [official] ticket return scheme is good, but what I do is sell some of my tickets online and get a slightly better return. It’s simply a question of arithmetic.”
He added that the vast majority of members donate their time and money to the hall and do not exploit their position for personal gain.
The document brands concert promoters as “greedy” and says the hall’s ticket return scheme results in a “direct, unfair and unnecessary cost to members by paying significantly less than can be achieved in the open
market”.
But the former Royal Albert Hall president Richard Lyttelton said members who spurn the ticket return scheme in search of higher profits risk tarnishing the venue’s reputation by turning seats into investment assets.
He added that trustees in charge of the hall’s policy, some of whom own multiple seats, should also disclose the financial benefit they can get from them.
“Members of the hall’s council [trustees] own 145 seats worth conservatively £14.5m,” he said. "This interest is largely undeclared and as trustees of the charity, their position of privilege and the advantages afforded by the hall’s charitable status puts them in a position to profit personally.
“For this to have been unregulated, despite being in the public domain for so long, is a national disgrace.”
He urged the Charity Commission to apply more pressure on the hall to reform its governance.
“It’s time for the commission to show that that it is not a toothless tiger and ensure that the the hall is run to the high standards of governance expected both of a national charity and a royal charter corporation.” Regulations governing charity accounting demand that trustees detail any financial benefit they might receive from their position.
While the RAH’s annual report revealed for the first time this year that trustees own 145 seats, no information was given about their value or the potential income from selling access to them.
A source close to the hall said trustees typically do not sell their seats but the Charity Commission is understood to be considering whether they have made proper financial disclosures about their value.
A spokesperson for the Royal Albert Hall said trustees were “satisfied” that the charity had met disclosure requirements.
The charities regulator has also raised concerns about the potential for a conflict of interest affecting the way policy at the hall is set. It has warned the Royal Albert Hall to examine its leadership structure as part of an ongoing governance review, highlighting that 19 of 25 members of the governing council are also seat owners with something to gain from permitting seat sales.
“The commission has made clear that the issue of conflicts of interest and the independence of the council from the seat owners should be dealt with as part of this review,” said a spokesperson.
Most trustees are elected by members, the owners of permanent seats at the venue, some of which have been valued at £200,000.
These permanent seats were initially sold in 1867 to raise funds to build the hall and are considered private property. Some have since changed hands for far less than their modern-day value or were simply passed down through families.
If members do not want use the allocation of tickets that seat ownership confers, they can send them back to the hall and receive a payment in exchange.
But while the ticket return system ensures tickets go back to the box office for sale at face value, using secondary sites means they can be sold for much more.
Lyttelton estimates that members, including trustees, can make £5,000 a year from selling seats via the RAH’s official ticket returns scheme but that returns from using secondary sites could be thousands of pounds higher. Viagogo is already advertising tickets for the 2017 Last Night of the Proms for more than £1,500. Tickets for the popular annual concert are not yet on official sale, suggesting some are being advertised by members. The group of members includes private individuals but also professional ticket agencies.
Viagogo does not list any information about who is selling the tickets or their contact details, even though under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that is information which anyone selling a ticket must publish.
The Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, who has campaigned for reform of secondary ticketing, said: “Members of the Royal Albert Hall are in a position of privilege when they have access to the best tickets in the hall and they shouldn’t forget that.
“Sadly, the abuse that has been uncovered shows that this privilege is being abused for the sake of greed.
“This is an ongoing issue which must be addressed. The Charity Commission needs to get to the bottom of this and ensure that fans are not ripped off and members do not abuse their position to profiteer.”
www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/18/royal-albert-hall-called-national-disgrace-members-ticket-resales
"Royal Albert Hall members have exchanged detailed advice on how to sell their seats on ticket touting sites, prompting the venue’s former president to label its stewardship a “national disgrace”.
The members, about 330 individuals who own 1,276 permanent seats in the 5,272 capacity venue, were sent a document offering tips on how to use online resale sites. The pamphlet tells members they can eschew the RAH’s official ticket return system and use controversial “secondary” ticketing sites such as Viagogo and StubHub to make more money.
The hall has come under the spotlight in recent months after tickets for in-demand acts such as Phil Collins and Dave Gilmour appeared on resale sites at huge markups. Tickets to this year’s Last Night of the Proms are listed on Viagogo for more than £1,500, even though tickets for the event have yet to go on sale.
The advice to owners of permanent seats, seen by the Guardian, is that they can “significantly improve income from unwanted tickets” by using secondary sites, which have become a haven for touts exploiting the most in-demand events. The author of the document, a seat owner who asked to remain anonymous, said: “Seat owners are entitled to optimise their returns.
“The [official] ticket return scheme is good, but what I do is sell some of my tickets online and get a slightly better return. It’s simply a question of arithmetic.”
He added that the vast majority of members donate their time and money to the hall and do not exploit their position for personal gain.
The document brands concert promoters as “greedy” and says the hall’s ticket return scheme results in a “direct, unfair and unnecessary cost to members by paying significantly less than can be achieved in the open
market”.
But the former Royal Albert Hall president Richard Lyttelton said members who spurn the ticket return scheme in search of higher profits risk tarnishing the venue’s reputation by turning seats into investment assets.
He added that trustees in charge of the hall’s policy, some of whom own multiple seats, should also disclose the financial benefit they can get from them.
“Members of the hall’s council [trustees] own 145 seats worth conservatively £14.5m,” he said. "This interest is largely undeclared and as trustees of the charity, their position of privilege and the advantages afforded by the hall’s charitable status puts them in a position to profit personally.
“For this to have been unregulated, despite being in the public domain for so long, is a national disgrace.”
He urged the Charity Commission to apply more pressure on the hall to reform its governance.
“It’s time for the commission to show that that it is not a toothless tiger and ensure that the the hall is run to the high standards of governance expected both of a national charity and a royal charter corporation.” Regulations governing charity accounting demand that trustees detail any financial benefit they might receive from their position.
While the RAH’s annual report revealed for the first time this year that trustees own 145 seats, no information was given about their value or the potential income from selling access to them.
A source close to the hall said trustees typically do not sell their seats but the Charity Commission is understood to be considering whether they have made proper financial disclosures about their value.
A spokesperson for the Royal Albert Hall said trustees were “satisfied” that the charity had met disclosure requirements.
The charities regulator has also raised concerns about the potential for a conflict of interest affecting the way policy at the hall is set. It has warned the Royal Albert Hall to examine its leadership structure as part of an ongoing governance review, highlighting that 19 of 25 members of the governing council are also seat owners with something to gain from permitting seat sales.
“The commission has made clear that the issue of conflicts of interest and the independence of the council from the seat owners should be dealt with as part of this review,” said a spokesperson.
Most trustees are elected by members, the owners of permanent seats at the venue, some of which have been valued at £200,000.
These permanent seats were initially sold in 1867 to raise funds to build the hall and are considered private property. Some have since changed hands for far less than their modern-day value or were simply passed down through families.
If members do not want use the allocation of tickets that seat ownership confers, they can send them back to the hall and receive a payment in exchange.
But while the ticket return system ensures tickets go back to the box office for sale at face value, using secondary sites means they can be sold for much more.
Lyttelton estimates that members, including trustees, can make £5,000 a year from selling seats via the RAH’s official ticket returns scheme but that returns from using secondary sites could be thousands of pounds higher. Viagogo is already advertising tickets for the 2017 Last Night of the Proms for more than £1,500. Tickets for the popular annual concert are not yet on official sale, suggesting some are being advertised by members. The group of members includes private individuals but also professional ticket agencies.
Viagogo does not list any information about who is selling the tickets or their contact details, even though under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that is information which anyone selling a ticket must publish.
The Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, who has campaigned for reform of secondary ticketing, said: “Members of the Royal Albert Hall are in a position of privilege when they have access to the best tickets in the hall and they shouldn’t forget that.
“Sadly, the abuse that has been uncovered shows that this privilege is being abused for the sake of greed.
“This is an ongoing issue which must be addressed. The Charity Commission needs to get to the bottom of this and ensure that fans are not ripped off and members do not abuse their position to profiteer.”
