Jman888 Moderator June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 What does it mean? they can continue to sell and charge $3 fee per ticket? [confused] it was like some kind of taxes lor! $3 per ticket is quite siong SISTIC anti-competitive verdict upheld Posted: 01 June 2012 1336 hrs SINGAPORE: Ticketing services provider SISTIC has lost its appeal against a decision by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) that it abused its dominant position through a series of exclusive agreements. The Competition Appeal Board (CAB) upheld that decision on Monday. The appeal board also agreed with CCS's decision to impose a financial penalty on SISTIC but reduced the quantum. The initial penalty imposed amounting to S$989,000 has been reduced to S$769,000 after the board took both aggravating and mitigating factors into consideration. CAB also ordered that SISTIC pay 70 per cent of CCS' costs incurred for the appeal. - CNA/wm ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamburger Hypersonic June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 sistic is overcharging both tix and booking charges. machiam our pub bill....not happy, use candle or go swimming pool bathe lah Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerwoods Turbocharged June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 Question is Who OWNs SISTIC ?? Who are their shareholders ? Any Garment officials have a stake in it that works in a dept that that is related to it ? Why has this continued for so many years as a Monopoly ? We need heads to roll as we sharpen our axes of accountability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman888 Moderator June 1, 2012 Author Share June 1, 2012 Question is Who OWNs SISTIC ?? Who are their shareholders ? Any Garment officials have a stake in it that works in a dept that that is related to it ? Why has this continued for so many years as a Monopoly ? We need heads to roll as we sharpen our axes of accountability. Gatecrash also does ticketing but not many event go through them but yes, my first thought was they belong to a govt agency to promote the art scene/activities <_< Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mllcg 3rd Gear June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 i still dont understand the $1/$3 logic... they are already earning when those hosting events go through them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonyhawk 1st Gear June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 (edited) iirc, i think this was about SISTIC insisting venue operators use their services. e.g. if you wanted to stage a show at the indoor stadium, you MUST use SISTIC. Therefore, anti-competitive. they are free to charge whatever they like, but they cannot abuse their dominant position. i.e. force others to use them. Edited June 1, 2012 by Tonyhawk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman888 Moderator June 1, 2012 Author Share June 1, 2012 iirc, i think this was about SISTIC insisting venue operators use their services. e.g. if you wanted to stage a show at the indoor stadium, you MUST use SISTIC. Therefore, anti-competitive. they are free to charge whatever they like, but they cannot abuse their dominant position. i.e. force others to use them. they provide a central site for booking ticket is fine, but i dun mind if Esplanade or Indoor stadium has their own online ticketing system then we dun have to pay extra Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamesc Hypersonic June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 So who will pay the 769k penalty and 70% CCS cost? Will they have to increase ticket prices to cover this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happily1986 5th Gear June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 iirc, i think this was about SISTIC insisting venue operators use their services. e.g. if you wanted to stage a show at the indoor stadium, you MUST use SISTIC. Therefore, anti-competitive. they are free to charge whatever they like, but they cannot abuse their dominant position. i.e. force others to use them. and that was where the problem arose. i would have not given two hoots if SISTIC own all those venues where it insisted that events organisers had no other avenue to head to but them when it came to ticketing. SISTIC doesn't. this doesn't even make sense in my opinion. they are just a middle man. on what basis did it claim a strong handed monopoly on events held at those venues? and for such a long time. i dont really like the fact that the penalty quantum decreased after the appeal. what signal is being sent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerwoods Turbocharged June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 and that was where the problem arose. i would have not given two hoots if SISTIC own all those venues where it insisted that events organisers had no other avenue to head to but them when it came to ticketing. SISTIC doesn't. this doesn't even make sense in my opinion. they are just a middle man. on what basis did it claim a strong handed monopoly on events held at those venues? and for such a long time. i dont really like the fact that the penalty quantum decreased after the appeal. what signal is being sent? This type of company So Garang sure got backing by some high officials and no one dare question their actions. reduce the penalty ? I'd say dig backwards all the years and increase the penalty instead. sadly the reduction must have come from influential official one lah... having officials in your pockets is better than a gun sometimes.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca 1st Gear June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 What does it mean? they can continue to sell and charge $3 fee per ticket? [confused] it was like some kind of taxes lor! $3 per ticket is quite siong SISTIC anti-competitive verdict upheld Posted: 01 June 2012 1336 hrs SINGAPORE: Ticketing services provider SISTIC has lost its appeal against a decision by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) that it abused its dominant position through a series of exclusive agreements. The Competition Appeal Board (CAB) upheld that decision on Monday. The appeal board also agreed with CCS's decision to impose a financial penalty on SISTIC but reduced the quantum. The initial penalty imposed amounting to S$989,000 has been reduced to S$769,000 after the board took both aggravating and mitigating factors into consideration. CAB also ordered that SISTIC pay 70 per cent of CCS' costs incurred for the appeal. - CNA/wm It's upheld ma. So it's the otherway round. Means sistic is screwed. Sort of. Hope this opens up other ticket sellers. Because, honestly, Sistic sucsk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
13177 Supersonic June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 What's the point of this verdict? Since SISTIC still continue to charge extra $3 booking fee? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacca 1st Gear June 1, 2012 Share June 1, 2012 What's the point of this verdict? Since SISTIC still continue to charge extra $3 booking fee? It's a fine first ma. If they continue, then fine some more lor. Fine until they stop.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
13177 Supersonic June 2, 2012 Share June 2, 2012 It's a fine first ma. If they continue, then fine some more lor. Fine until they stop.... Doesnt benefits consumers no matter how many times and how much they got fine. SISTIC still continue to charge the $3 booking fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie 1st Gear June 2, 2012 Share June 2, 2012 What's the point of this verdict? Since SISTIC still continue to charge extra $3 booking fee? We pay charges to Sistic. Sistic pays "fine" to govt. So you know where our money goes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westkid 2nd Gear June 2, 2012 Share June 2, 2012 Price-fixing is very rampant in Singapore---for survival.Too open markets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good-Carbuyer 1st Gear June 2, 2012 Share June 2, 2012 Typical monopoly business administration ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
Want to reverse aging? Do this now!
Want to reverse aging? Do this now!
Doctor gets 10 years jail for Sexual Assault
Doctor gets 10 years jail for Sexual Assault
Anti-slip treatment
Anti-slip treatment
Anti Glare rear view mirror
Anti Glare rear view mirror
Singapore to join anti-piracy efforts in Gulf of Aden
Singapore to join anti-piracy efforts in Gulf of Aden
Car Anti Fog Spray / Water Stain remover
Car Anti Fog Spray / Water Stain remover
Peugeot 207CC Anti - pollution system faulty
Peugeot 207CC Anti - pollution system faulty
Is college admission too competitive?
Is college admission too competitive?