Seat buyins and reservations.

[GiMac]

I get that the £5 booking fee is not popular with some people ( maybe lots of people ).

Personally I haven"t used the option yet and may never use it, but I do feel that having it there may prove beneficial at some time in the future.

But I don"t get the outright disgust at something that is simply an alternative option, if you don"t like the option don"t use it.

The disgust isn"t at it being an alternative option, the disgust is at it being the ONLY option.

[AAroddersAA]

Was the reservation opened before the holding tank for Scotland? If it was I can sort of see the point here, as it fills up you feel obliged to reserve a seat or risk not getting one. So you end up having to pay the extra fiver. Not a big deal obviously but the question why was the direct buyin was not available at the same time as the reservation is a good one.

[AAroddersAA]

I get that the £5 booking fee is not popular with some people ( maybe lots of people ).

Personally I haven"t used the option yet and may never use it, but I do feel that having it there may prove beneficial at some time in the future.

But I don"t get the outright disgust at something that is simply an alternative option, if you don"t like the option don"t use it.

The disgust isn"t at it being an alternative option, the disgust is at it being the ONLY option.

As an alternative it is an EXCELLENT service. We get the fact holding tanks need to close in time to get the funds to the casino in time.

I was not sure if I could attend Coventry this year until after the holding tank closed, I therefore used the reservation service and played the event when I would have otherwise missed it.

I would not want the option to go away but still would like the option to just buy in directly.

[MintTrav]

[MintTrav]

I don"t see how the reservation method benefits APAT either, as a tournament that appeared to be full could suddenly have multiple gaps on the day. There is also a risk that, at some point, another very attractive event might be announced after the reservations are in, and a lot of reservers might decide to drop the five pounds and play the other event, leaving a half-full APAT tournament, whereas paid-up players wouldn"t switch or would sell their seat on the exchange.

[ian.ski309]

Wasn"t the seat reservation fee introduced partly as a result of a number of people reserving seats for APAT Wembley by posting in a thread on the forum, then failing to turn up ?

How about a compromise ? If the seat reservation fee is here to stay, why not make it a non-refundable £20 for no-shows but subtract it from the buy-in of those who turn up. I don"t know how much of an admin nightmare this might create, but it seems like it could be a win-win for everyone.

[AMRN]

Wasn"t the seat reservation fee introduced partly as a result of a number of people reserving seats for APAT Wembley by posting in a thread on the forum, then failing to turn up ?

How about a compromise ? If the seat reservation fee is here to stay, why not make it a non-refundable £20 for no-shows but subtract it from the buy-in of those who turn up. I don"t know how much of an admin nightmare this might create, but it seems like it could be a win-win for everyone.

A non refundable deposit is preferable to a non refundable fee, and far less likely to cause any contention.

If the £5 reservation fee is here to stay, I think it should be opened in parallel to a direct buy in - people can then either pay the full amount in advance and commit to the event, or pay a £5 fee if they are unsure about whether they will play or not. 

The current system is a penalty to those that wish to pay in advance - both of the above options would overcome that.

[AJDUK]

I agree with all the parallel fee option talk.

Since this is the first APAT that has sold out based on reservation fee I hope that some analysis is done on how many of those people actually make it to the game. If the event doesn"t sell out on the day it will be a disaster.

[ian.ski309]

If the £5 reservation fee is here to stay, I think it should be opened in parallel to a direct buy in - people can then either pay the full amount in advance and commit to the event, or pay a £5 fee if they are unsure about whether they will play or not.  

Playing devil"s advocate here     lets say for argument"s sake that there is a 120 seat APAT event. At 2pm on Monday (one month in advance of the event), the holding tank is opened for direct buy-ins at the same time as Eventbrite invite players to reserve a seat. By the end of business on that Monday 90 players have bought in for the full amount and 55 players have reserved a seat. It"s highly unlikely I know, but what happens then ? How would you choose which 25 "reserve a seat" players get a refund ?

Even if that scenario didn"t unfold, at some point during the month you could easily end up with more seats reserved than there are available. The two systems (holding tank and eventbrite) would have to be linked to each other to ensure that once capacity was reached they stopped selling/reserving. As far as I understand it, they are two totally separate entities.

[MintTrav]

If the £5 reservation fee is here to stay, I think it should be opened in parallel to a direct buy in - people can then either pay the full amount in advance and commit to the event, or pay a £5 fee if they are unsure about whether they will play or not.  

Playing devil"s advocate here     lets say for argument"s sake that there is a 120 seat APAT event. At 2pm on Monday (one month in advance of the event), the holding tank is opened for direct buy-ins at the same time as Eventbrite invite players to reserve a seat. By the end of business on that Monday 90 players have bought in for the full amount and 55 players have reserved a seat. It"s highly unlikely I know, but what happens then ? How would you choose which 25 "reserve a seat" players get a refund ?

Even if that scenario didn"t unfold, at some point during the month you could easily end up with more seats reserved than there are available. The two systems (holding tank and eventbrite) would have to be linked to each other to ensure that once capacity was reached they stopped selling/reserving. As far as I understand it, they are two totally separate entities.

Yeah, can"t see any way round that.

[Curlarge]

[fandango]

I"d much prefer to be able to fully register for an event I intend on playing - preferably via a single APAT site with the ability to unregister (up to a specified time in advance to meet APATs Admin needs) thus guaranteeing my seat without the "Reserve a Seat" Function or Extra cost.

I don"t mind the Reserve a SEAT function for those that don"t want to (Mini-edit or can"t) Reg online. But both options should be available at same point in time.

+2

The announcements for the season are posted well in advance, so we pretty much know 100% where and when we are playing (albeit apart from WCOAP final leg).

Don"t know the ins and outs of PayPal charges etc, but could those who want to pay in full well in advance prehaps pay into a PayPal account held by APAT prehaps paying a little extra to cover admin charges etc?. Prehaps hold 75% of the seats in a holding tank for those wanting to pay in full, say a month 6 weeks before event if all seats are not sold then open em up for the reserve a seat option?

Just a thought but obv don"t know about the logistics/ costs of  withdrawing funds and transferring to casino..

Whatever the outcome there is always going to be conflicting views on whatever Des/APAT decide, those who have used the reserve option have stated that they have had no real qualms using this.. If you are against paying the £5 fee it"s your choice to pay or not.. Def don"t think Des has to justify doing a freeroll for the funds already taken, if they go in to the APAT coffers to help with costs of medals, award trophies etc then it"s a win for all of us.

This sums up my thoughts

[GiMac]

[Sef]

As I said in a previous thread... I like the idea of the £5 reserve fee but I feel there were far too many seats allocated to it. 5 seats for those putting up the full buy in is a bit disappointing. Split it 50/50 and the F5 crew also get to have their fun when the holding tank opens.

[GiMac]

If the £5 reservation fee is here to stay, I think it should be opened in parallel to a direct buy in - people can then either pay the full amount in advance and commit to the event, or pay a £5 fee if they are unsure about whether they will play or not.  

Playing devil"s advocate here     lets say for argument"s sake that there is a 120 seat APAT event. At 2pm on Monday (one month in advance of the event), the holding tank is opened for direct buy-ins at the same time as Eventbrite invite players to reserve a seat. By the end of business on that Monday 90 players have bought in for the full amount and 55 players have reserved a seat. It"s highly unlikely I know, but what happens then ? How would you choose which 25 "reserve a seat" players get a refund ?

Even if that scenario didn"t unfold, at some point during the month you could easily end up with more seats reserved than there are available. The two systems (holding tank and eventbrite) would have to be linked to each other to ensure that once capacity was reached they stopped selling/reserving. As far as I understand it, they are two totally separate entities.

Split the seat allocation however you like. eg 50% direct buy, 50% Eventbrite or any other split you want i.e. 60/40, 70/30. Any left over from either option can then be shifted to the remaining option. For example reservation sells out, but direct buy in has 5 seats left, then offer those seats up for reservation or vice versa. Easy game.