Led Zep comeback letdown blow-up

Harvey Goldsmith's single-minded pursuit of touts has caused a massive screw-up in the Led Zep ticketing process.

In order to try and stop touts selling tickets on eBay, Goldsmith and his team decided that you'd have to have tickets with names on that matched the credit card that bought them.

In itself, this is over-prescriptive. Want to buy the tickets as a surprise anniversary gift for your parents? Buying them to pay your mate back for the time he stuck your football tickets on his Visa? Got a friend flying in from overseas who only has Discover card, so you bought on their behalf? Kept your credit card in your maiden name but ordered in your married name? Sorry, you're out of luck.

What makes it worse is they forgot to mention this rather important rule in the terms and conditions when the tickets initially went on sale.

Goldsmith, of course, is so besotted with his anti-touting plans he can't see the problem, and defends it on his blog:

I am fully aware that there seems to be concerns about people who became winners in the ballot and then decided to use somebody else’s credit card to pay for the ticket.

However, I am convinced that those who are bleating the loudest seem to be protesting too much for other reasons.

Fans, it turns out, are not complaining but "bleating". Presumably in the same way that Goldsmith is not explaining, but patronising.

He then explains the ballot system again, before explaining:

On this basis we presumed that those that registered wanted to actually see the show. It is painfully obvious that if the ticket is not transferable then the method of obtaining the ticket is not transferable either.

So "painfully obvious", presumably, they didn't bother to mention it in the terms and conditions.

But is it "painfully obvious"? Why would you assume that, if the ticket has your name on it, and you have ID to prove your credentials, it would make any difference who actually paid the cash?

Goldsmith then weighs in to the people who might have a genuine complaint, in the manner of a mediaeval lord insisting the poor should be grateful for having any parsnips, mouldy or not:

I would have thought that if you were a genuine fan and were lucky enough to win you would have been overjoyed at the opportunity and played the game and paid for your tickets as have the vast majority of winners.

But these aren't people who don't want to pay for their tickets, they're people who've paid more than willingly but been frustrated by the sudden change in rules. And how hollow do you have to be to suggest that if you're frustrated at the arcane and shifting ticketing rules, you're not a "genuine fan". Putting up with endless, pointless hoops to get in to a gig has nothing to do with supporting the act or not - unless Goldsmith's cloud of delusion has left him convinced that he's actually one of Led Zep.

Having looked at eBay, StubHub, viagogo and various other touting websites, it has become obvious that a number of you only joined this ballot for commercial gain. It also appears to me that those who have used this for commercial gain are the ones who are protesting the most.

Yes, there probably are people who are trying to make a quick buck, but to try and just smear everyone who got caught out as being on the make is unfair and insulting.

Of course there are a few people who genuinely want to come but may not have had a suitable credit card to pay for them. The answer to those people is very simple; if you are GENUINE you will contact us and give us a justified explanation.

How big of you, milord Goldsmith. The idea that people should have to justify themselves to you in some sort of kangaroo court doesn't strike you as somehow absurd, then?

It takes quite a talent to generate such a bad taste in so many mouths from something that should have been a triumph.