Hmmmmm

[STEVEFRYER]

1)  Transactions cannot occur at a value above the advertised buy in price for the event.


Two seats for Walsall sold via this board so far and neither seems to adhere to this rule, is it just for show?

[kinboshi]

They are sold at face value = £75. 

You are allowed to give a percentage of yourself away to others if you want.  Many people exchange percentages - it increases your chances of cashing (although could potentially reduce your return if you do cash).

Has anyone sold their seat for more than £75?

[STEVEFRYER]

So "£75 plus 15% of my winnings" has the same value as "£75"? If that were the case then why would people offer the percentage as a sweetener? Does something have to be money to have a value?

[Jon MW]

So "£75 plus 15% of my winnings" has the same value as "£75"? If that were the case then why would people offer the percentage as a sweetener? Does something have to be money to have a value?

I think you"re right that it involves a "flexible" definition of value.

Essentially it has been interpreted as just the immediate money sum.

But every transaction has to be agreed to by APAT customer services so there is "some" safeguard.

[STEVEFRYER]

So just as long as I don"t mention extra money it"s ok?

£75 plus my car is good but £75 plus £50 (similar value(there"s that word again)) isn"t.

[Jon MW]

...
But every transaction has to be agreed to by APAT customer services...

[STEVEFRYER]

...
But every transaction has to be agreed to by APAT customer services...

hence my first question, are half of the rules for this board just for show or will APAT enforce them?

[Jon MW]

I think it"s been fairly clear.

£75 is the value of the ticket
APAT have agreed that people can add a % of winnings as a sweetener

if this is the deal then there is little reason to assume that APAT won"t agree to it.

If it is an alternative deal then APAT will decide whether to agree to it or not.

For example
If you did offer £75 + a car, APAT could decide that it wasn"t going to accept this arrangement or they could decide that they were.

If they did accept it then people in future would know that adding a car to the offer was generally acceptable and if they rejected it then people would know that it wasn"t worth trying.

[STEVEFRYER]

Got it, thanks Jon for clearing that up


Just for show it is then

[Jon MW]

I may have explained that badly.

[MintTrav]

Transactions cannot occur at a value above the advertised buy in price for the event.
Two seats for Walsall sold via this board so far and neither seems to adhere to this rule, is it just for show?

So just as long as I don"t mention extra money it"s ok?
£75 plus my car is good but £75 plus £50 (similar value(there"s that word again)) isn"t.

Must say I thought the same when I saw the transactions. They are not being sold for face value, though I"m not sure whether that really matters.

More importantly, Steve, if you"re interested in a ticket, what kind of car is it?

[STEVEFRYER]

More importantly, Steve, if you"re interested in a ticket, what kind of car is it?

Obv the car was just an example, I"m saving that for when the buy-ins go up for the DTD games, will offer £75 plus 3 lifts down the pub in it if you"re tempted  

[monkeyman]

For what its worth, I"m with Fryer on this one. What is to stop someone getting a ticket via the clickfest with no intention of playing, then putting it up for sale at "Face value" with the caveat that the original purchaser retains a percentage of the person they sell the ticket onto? The successful clickfest applicant then has the possibility of winning a few quid without risking any of their own capital.
   I hope this is just one of those one of those situations for which a ruling hasn"t been created, so can"t be stopped this time, but will be for future events. Yes, there are always going to be people who purchase a ticket in good faith, but because of circumstances beyond their control, can"t make it. However, i believe that practise of players selling seats at nationals, but retaining a percentage runs contrary to the spirit that APAT is supposed to stand for and needs to be quashed sooner rather than later.

[Pilf]

Just for show it is then

I cant understand what the problem is here to be honest.
Transaction 1)You pay £75 to APAT for a seat.
If you cash
Transaction 2)APAT pays you.

Or alternatively
Transaction 1)I pay Joe Bloggs £75 for a ticket
If I cash APAT
Transaction 2)pays me £x

Transaction 3)I pay Joe Bloggs £x/5

The payment for the ticket is always the same amount (£75) This I have called transaction 1.
That is the deal done unless I cash in the tournament.

Nothing extra (like a car or a horse or whatever) is paid up front.
Therefore we are adding value but not to the amount we pay up front.


To add to Monkeymans point, I agree that a reserve list from day 1, or some other method may be a better long term solution, however this would surely involve more work for the APAT team who already have so much on to get these events running.
I do not however feel that anyone is going to go through the ordeal that is the clickfest just to gain a percentage of some unknown amateur and therefore do not feel it is in any way contrary to the spirit of APAT.

Heres hoping a long term solution that keeps EVERYBODY happy is in the offing.

[STEVEFRYER]

Nothing extra (like a car or a horse or whatever) is paid up front.
Therefore we are adding value but not to the amount we pay up front.

what difference does it make if I say £75 plus my car today or £75 today plus my car next month (provided I don"t change cars in the meantime)