Einstein

Not really... And definitely not if you live in Western NY. 1) You are being taxed for the stadium against your will. 2) Even if you only go to a few games per year (do not buy season tix), the resale tickets will be inflated proportionally to the PSL value. This is a function of the owner. Some owners will pay for the stadium themselves AND not charge a PSL. See New England.

If someone tells you that they are going to poke you in the eye of March 22nd at 4:32pm, i'm sure you will be upset. Will you be any less upset when the eye poke happens, having known that it was comming?

They can, but most people won't want to, because humans are reluctant to abandon something they've already put resources into, even when doing so would be the rational decision based on current circumstances. It's then sunk cost fallacy. "I just paid $40k for two PSL's in the club section five years ago. How could I possibly justify letting them go? I must suck it up and pay the ever-increasing season ticket prices, because if I don't, that $40k was a waste." Yes, which is part of why it sucks so much. And it can be calculated 10 ways to Sunday and all the results would be a dismal picture. Consider the time value of money, for one. Take a $20k PSL (club section pricing I've seen) as an example. What is the NPV? Well, NPV is a function of time and discount rate. Let's use a simplified NPV due to no cash inflows, replacing with price. From what we have seen, $20,000 per PSL is what the Bills are asking for club seats. And we know they have a 30 year lifespan, so let's look at the NPV for 5 years from purchase date. Assuming only a 5% discount rate, we get a dismal future outlook The NPV of a $20,000 PSL at 5 year onset is $5,906.67. And this is only a discount rate at 5%. The opportunity cost of capital for any of us could be the average market return at the moment. 2023 was over 20%. You don't want to see the calculations at 20+% discount rate. If they WIN a Super Bowl, it will spike for a year or two. Are you willing to sell your PSL in that time to realize the gain (or lack of loss)? Or will you be so excited about the Championship that you decide to keep it? Which then creates a situation where if the team does not repeat (regresses), your value goes down. We saw this with Giants PSL's after their Super Bowl. Wild peak, then off a cliff.

It’s like a super power and truth is their kryptonite.

The Jets situation is exactly what people who purchase PSL’s right now are going to, unfortunately be in in a few years. PSL’s that are worth approximately half of what they paid and ever increasing season ticket costs. You see, once you buy (especially in the more expensive sections), they know they have you. They can double season ticket prices and you’ll be stuck. It’s a sunk cost and most people will not be willing to give up on their $5k-$10k PSL’s, so they will feel justified to pay the ever increasing season ticket rate.

This is common in debate tactic. A final or semi-final dismissive phrase that lacks substance because the person can’t offer a meaningful rebuttal anymore. When it’s pointed out, that person typically responds with something that straddles the lines of ad hominem, such as “I just can’t continue to get it through your thick head” or “Not much to say when you won’t understand”. It’s an attempt to dismiss the conversation by feigning intellectual exhaustion as they have no true counterpoint.

I never said they were obligatory. You are falling into the same trap that Kirby did, moving the goalposts of the conversation. I simply stated that they are not common in other business. It’s a racket that is found nearly exclusively in sports (and timeshares). It is a fee - considering a fee is just a payment made in return for something - never said it wasn’t. But it’s not the same as a ticket fee. - PSL fees go to the originator (who also benefit from the ticket price AND the taxpayer money). - Ticket fees go to a third party (unaffiliated with the originator) and that is the only revenue they collect. They do not receive the ticket price or the taxpayer money. Two completely and fundamentally different items. For any similar comparison to be made they must contain all three components: Taxpayer funded, taxpayer double dipped (PSL), then taxpayer purchases for tickets. They could. But that would remove a very large portion of the PSL money. Why only single dip when you can double dip and get those taxpayers to pay for your stadium twice? Well, duh. That was the entire point. Did that really go over your head?

What deflection? I directly refuted what you wrote. How is the reality different? Do you mean your comments on how fans are only paying for 70% of the stadium instead of 100%? Or do you mean your comment on how some fans see PSL’s as an investment.

@BADOLBILZ, now THIS post above is semantics. Correcting a (clearly figurative) depiction of the situation with minor or insignificant sentence changes. Writing things such as “a PSL will not get you through the door. Only a game ticket will get you through the door” … lol. I think everyone outside of WOT understand I was speaking figuratively when saying ‘through the door’. Semantics vs fundamental difference. The Ticket Fee comparison doesn’t work. I explained this before so i’ll just copy/paste. PSL’s and Ticket Fees are completely different. There is a reason why Ticketmaster and Stubhub don’t label their ticket fees as PSL’s. 1) PSL’s originate from the organization producing the product (Buffalo Bills, for example). The originating organization receives all 3 parts of the equation (taxpayer money, PSL, and ticket cost). Ticket fees originate from a completely separate entity (a third party) that uses stub fees as their business model and this model does not benefit the originating organization. They ONLY receive the fee, not the taxpayer money or the ticket cost. 2) Taxpayers did not subsidize the building of Ticketmaster and Stubhub. Therefore there is no “double taxation” so to speak. 3) PSLs come with perceived value. Conversely, ticket service fees offer no such value proposition; they are akin to a delivery charge, which increases the cost of the product without enhancing its value. They simply aren’t the same at all. Though they’re both crappy.

It’s not important for me at all. I made a factual statement, Kirby wrongly classified my statement as false, I defended it. Thats the entirety. Businesses may attempt to gouge as much as they can in each sector, but the vast majority of businesses were not given over $800 million dollars by those same taxpayers they are gouging. That is rare. It has happened, but it’s the far outlier ran than the rule. I’ve said it before, but for any comparison to be valid, it must contain ALL three items. 1) Taxpayers paid for the business/product/venue to be created. 2) AND the business/product/venue then gouges those same taxpayers with a large fee before they can utilize or enjoy the business they just built for them. 3) AND they then charge the actual price/fee for what is consumed. Fulfilling all 3 of those is rare for any business. It happens in sports, on a percentage basis, far more often than any other sector. Thats not semantics. Its a fundamental difference.

Yes. So much information being skimmed and disregarded in order to move the conversation into a territory it was never originated to be in. This thread is a microcosm of the world. Person A: Tomatoes are a fruit. Person B: Ugh, but Apples are a red fruit and they don’t taste like tomatoes. Person A: Okay? But we aren’t talking about Apples, we are talking about Tomatoes. Person B: So you don’t like Tomatoes Person A: I never said that. I just said they’re a fruit. Person B: I’m a botanist, I have a degree in seeds, why are you so angry? Person A: I’m not angry. I’m just telling you that Tomatoes are a fruit. Person B: What is your issue with tomatoes!?!? Person A: Huh!? (this is where I am now)

They are different. You are attempting to equate two different charges as the same. As I’ve said before, to make a comparison to a PSL in the Bills situation, you must use a comparable product that: 1) Is taxpayer funded for the benefit of the originating organization. 2) AND an extra fee is charged that goes into the coffers of the originating organization. 3) AND the originating organization pockets the ticket money. Ticket fees meet only ONE of those three items. Let’s not get into a genitalia measuring contest. It’s not gentlemenly and no-one wants to read that type of discussion. Besides, one of us is Google’able. Only one of us has articles written about them on Yahoo Finance and Business Insider. The other is you (wink). As I’ve said before, to make a comparison to a PSL in the Bills situation, you must use a product that: 1) The venue was paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of the originating organization. 2) AND an extra fee was charged that goes into the coffers of the originating organization. 3) AND the originating organization pockets the ticket money. Ticket fees meet only ONE of those three items. I’m not angry at all. There is no outrage. I’m not upset at all. I’m simply explaining that PSL’s are not common in business (outside of sports). You continuously try to divert this conversation into an arena it was never intended to be in.

Did you buy when I told you to? If you did, you’re up over 40%! Im not arguing for or against PSL’s. Im not telling anyone not to buy them. Im not sure how to say this more clearly… Im simply arguing that PSL’s are not the “norm” in business.

I’ve explained this already but I have a feeling that you’re just skimming my posts in haste to reply rather than reading and comprehending. Put simply, PSL’s and Ticket Fees are completely different. There is a reason why Ticketmaster and Stubhub don’t label their ticket fees as PSL’s. 1) PSL’s originate from the organization producing the product (Buffalo Bills, for example). The originating organization receives all 3 parts of the equation (taxpayer money, PSL, and ticket cost). Ticket fees originate from a completely separate entity (a third party) that uses stub fees as their business model and this model does not benefit the originating organization. They ONLY receive the fee, not the taxpayer money or the ticket cost. 2) Taxpayers did not subsidize the building of Ticketmaster and Stubhub. Therefore there is no “double taxation” so to speak. 3) PSLs come with perceived value. Conversely, ticket service fees offer no such value proposition; they are akin to a delivery charge, which increases the cost of the product without enhancing its value. They simply aren’t the same at all. Though they’re both crappy. In the example you’re writing, you’re not paying a fee to the party that benefited from taxpayer dollars, and the party who is also benefiting from the sale of the ticket. You’re paying a fee to Ticketmaster and that’s all they get. They don’t get the proceeds of the ticket and the taxpayer money as well. Just the fee. As I said, you need all 3 parts: 1) Taxpayer funded 2) AND PSL 3) AND Ticket cost You can find examples of 1 or 2 of those parts; but finding all 3 is very difficult and results in only extreme outliers. Not the norm. Ok now I know for a fact that you’re not actually reading what i’m writing and simply want to respond and argue rather than have a gentlemanly debate. I know this because in the post you responded to, I wrote: “I agree that people have the right to purchase them. That is not the debate here. The debate here is whether PSL’s are the “norm” in entertainment. They are not. If people want to purchase PSL’s, great. Go for it. But that’s not the conversation.” Put simply, I don’t care at all if people buy PSL’s. That was never the conversation. You have consistently misunderstood the context of this conversation despite me telling you several times. This conversation was about whether this is the “norm” in other businesses (it’s not). The conversation was NEVER about whether I care if people buy PSL’s.

That extra fee is why it’s not comparable to most other businesses (even in entertainment). The extra fee isn’t there for concerts, magician acts, car shows, etc etc etc. That’s the entire point. The growth has no correlation to the PSL. The PSL’s do not contribute to growth because they directly subsidize the stadium rather than the P/L of the team. This is what the owner of the team should be paying. Not to mention, the NFL has seen consistent growth for over 100 years and PSL’s are a relatively new part of the equation, and for less than half the teams the majority of that time. The vast majority of growth is attributable to media rights. Was this Country Club paid for by taxpayers? If so, name it. It should be publicly shamed.

What a scam.

Ok, guess you weren’t done. Let’s see how many more emojis and memes I can squeeze out of you. You have a clear misunderstanding of my feelings in this debate and of the debate itself. In fact, you have misunderstood much of this conversation because you didn’t understand the context of the post you were replying to when you entered the conversation. I fully understand how PSL’s work and I agree that people have the right to purchase them. That is not the debate here. The debate here is whether PSL’s are the “norm” in entertainment. They are not. Which is why you can’t list the theatres, concerts, magician acts, etc that require them, in addition to being taxpayer funded. They are the norm in sports, most pressingly football and soccer (europe), but they are not the norm in entertainment. Or business. Which is what this conversation that you entered without understanding the context was about. If people want to purchase PSL’s, great. Go for it. But that’s not the conversation. I also yell at the taxpayer funded cloud too.

You should be asking yourself that question. Dont move the goalposts. No-one said there aren’t any entertainment venues built by taxpayers. The question was non-sports entertainment venues that were: 1) Built by taxpayers. 2) AND Have PSL’s. 3) AND You must purchase tickets on top of the PSL or lose it. All three must apply for comparison. I would have assumed you would be able to find at least a few outliers among the 20,000+ in existence. But that really goes to show how it’s NOT the norm. Only in sports. No. Ticket fees = / = PSL’s. PSL’s originate from the organization producing the product (Buffalo Bills, for example). Ticket fees originate from a completely separate entity that uses stub fees as their business model and does not benefit the originating organization. To say that ticket fees are PSL’s is to say that restaurant who put a “kitchen fee” on your tab are charging PSL’s for your food. It’s not optional and you aren’t getting your food (at least legally) without paying for the fee. It also makes no sense considering that the Bills have announced that they will only be using online brokers (like Ticketmaster) going forward, so it would be a double PSL - ticket fee and *actual* PSL. Its all around a really poor argument on your part.

This is correct. PSL’s mainly give you first dibs at paying full price to garbage - Monster Truck Rallies, lower level concerts, etc. For example, Atlanta Falcons PSL holders don’t get to use their PSL for Chick Fil A bowl game, or college playoff, or even bowl game. I don’t think Taylor Swift concerts count either. You just get football tickets and the garbage that doesn’t sell out.

It’s not. Name the theaters that were: 1) Built using taxpayer money 2) AND Charges PSL’s for the right to purchase tickets. 3) AND Then charges for the ticket itself. You may find some venues that meet #1. And of course #3. But show me the venues that meet all three. Then we can compare. Name the concert venues that were: 1) Built using taxpayer money 2) AND Charges PSL’s for the right to purchase tickets. 3) AND Then charges for the ticket itself. You may find some venues that meet #1. And of course #3. But show me the venues that meet all three. Then we can compare. The reason the Taco Bell argument arose is because a poster made a comment that this type of activity is normal in all business. Not just sports. The entire point was to compare what is done in sports to an unrelated business. Again, you have to follow the conversation to understand why posts are written. Outside of a few extreme outliers, you’re not going to find many examples.

The PSL’s are the problem for most, so removing that comparable item necessarily removes the point of a comparison. Posters really need to read and understand the context of a post or discussion before responding. 1) PSL’s = / = Ticket Fees. 2) No-one is arguing that this is not rare circumstance in sports. We all know billionaire owners made PSL’s common in sports. This discussion originated from saying that it is not common in general BUSINESS. An analogy was made to taxpayers not paying for the Taco Bell building, then paying to enter the building they paid for, then paying for the tacos themselves. That is what spawned the post you responded to.

Where did you pay for the right to buy the tickets in this example? To meet the qualifications of our situation, the example must include: 1) You, the taxpayer, paying for the venue. 2) You paying for the right to buy the ticket (PSL). 3) You paying for the ticket. If any of these are missing, the comparison is not valid.

Guilty as well.

A suite is a completely different animal and not what anyone in this thread is talking about. What i'm gathering is that you are mistakenly considering a season benefit perk that club holders get (about 15% of the stadium), where they get to purchase event tickets at the normal price as the general public, as "Personal Seat Licenses". Despite neither the Bills or Sabres EVER marketing this benefit as a PSL (because it's not). Or maybe you just have the urge to argue.

Huh? The Sabres dont have PSL's. You may have bought concert tickets (that were publicly available by the way) from Sabres season ticket holders who responded to an emailed that offered them to buy concert tickets, that you also could have purchased on Ticketmaster.