Einstein

If youre looking for suggestions, East Club has my vote. The heat and coverage is irreplaceable.

Yes, close to 20,000. As I said. Maybe you’re confused due the 9,000 that wasn’t sold. They essentially had to lower everyone’s prices who purchased in those sections in order to get the last 10k sold. Considering that teams hold back several thousand tickets for individual sales (they don’t sell seasons for all seats), and that the Jets didn’t sell PSL’s (at all) in a lot of the upper decks, those 18,000 seats were likely close to 30% of all season tickets. Summary; The Jets had to reduce PSL pricing on 18,000 PSLS. Atlanta did too. Oakland did too.

I can imagine! It's exactly what the Jets did. And the Falcons. And the Raiders. Although the Raiders (to their credit), ended up reimbursing the fans who paid more at first.

Do you mean like the multi-billionaire in NY (Jets - Woody Johnson) and his team who had to cut their PSL prices in half for nearly 20,000 seats to sell them? Or the billionaire owner in Atlanta that also had to cut their PSL prices? And Oakland? "Shoot for the stars and you will land on the moon". If you think billionaire teams dont mess up... google "New Coke".

I don't see the correlation you're drawing. If I am confident in my analysis, and therefore persistent in my belief, that = emotional ... to you?

Better yet, grab a PSL when the Bills cut the price in half - or when someone sells it on the resale market for penny's on the dollar.

Well said. We took KC down to the wire with 60% of our defense injured. If we had a few of those guys back, we may have found ourselves in the Super Bowl.

Successful for the billionaire owner, yes.

I stand corrected. The Vikings too. I didn’t find any info on this when I looked. The Vikings however publicly announced prices for PSL’s without having to go to the timeshare presentation. They didn’t hide it. The presentation was just to buy the PSL you already knew the price of.

Well said. I was just reading through some older stadium builds and found some interesting tidbits. - The only stadium I could find that also had a timeshare style presentation is the Falcons. They initially were selling the club section fairly quickly and advertised that (remind you of anyone?) and then it slowed down… They ended up cutting the price of PSL’s in HALF in some sections, which angered a lot of fans who paid PSL’s at full price. - The Jets had a similar situation. They reduced the price of nearly 18,000 PSL’s (over 20% of the stadium) in half after a year of trying to sell them. - Raiders reduced the price of PSL’s at their new stadium too, but to their credited, they credited people who already bought PSL’s to the new discounted price.

Yes you were an early adopter of that analogy. You saw what many others couldn’t, and some still can’t, likely because you work directly in architecture and understand what is normal and what is not. You were able to understand very quickly that what the Bills are doing is not normal. I think you pose an excellent question of whether price or presentation is the problem. While a fool and their money are soon parted, I do believe it is a mixture of price and presentation and roll-out. The team created no hype, released very little in the way of renderings, require a timeshare style presentation, and THEN expect people to pay thousands of dollars on top of it. It was a poor plan.

Not sure if you know this (genuinely) but PSL’s do not simply exist in the clubs. They exist in the entire stadium (including the area where I will sit). That being said, I’m not “bitchin”. I am simply speaking truth to the situation. Many attempt to apply an emotion to my posts, but the truth is that I have very few feels on what I post. There are facts, there are numbers, and there is analysis based upon those facts and numbers. Whoever wishes to purchase a PSL should do so. Their choice has no impact on me.

Not anymore. Moved from Jim Kelly Club to M&T club (all exclusive with buffet)

Not that ive seen. Edit; The Falcons had a PSL preview center too, but I don’t know if it was required or just a perk. I have traced back the announcements of the previous decade of new stadiums that I could find, and when the PSL’s were announced, nearly all of them had full write-ups of exactly what was included, how much they would cost in various parts of the stadiums, etc. This was in addition to releasing dozens of renderings and introducing features and advertising benefits of the new stadium. None that I can find have done this shut-lips, timeshare style presentation, with a purposeful restriction of renderings. The Bills are breaking the mold with this process.

They’re very different. Apples and oranges. The club seat is essentially a ticket fee. They are a per year charge (PSL’s are a 30 year charge with a one-time fee) and the club seats can be cancelled at any time (PSL’s can’t) without paying any charge for a further 3 years. They also can’t be sold (PSL’s can), and there is no double taxation (PSL’s do). Theyre completely different animals. Really the only way they are similar is they cost money.

Yeah, it's unfortunate. Many people skim posts, assume what it says, and then respond to it. My response to Rochester Fan was essentially a dissertation for his failing grade in comprehending what I have written. Which brings us back to the analogy I made here: https://www.twobillsdrive.com/community/topic/253817-psl-pricingseat-selection-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=9001503

It is only necessary because owners don't want it to come out of their pocket. This is not "necessary" as in gravity is "necessary" for earth to not drift off into space due to the centripetal force that keeps Earth in its elliptical orbit around the Sun. This is "necessary" as in blackmail. As in "if you don't bend over, I will get another city to bend over".

It's exceptionally difficult to understand one's position when you waste so much of your time mischaracterizing what they are saying, misapplying other posters words to their own, and approaching the person with a hostile attitude. The vast majority of what you have written below, and I have corrected, fit the above bill. You have failed to engage in a constructive dialogue, instead resorting to defensive posturing that only serves to escalate tensions and misunderstandings. By focusing on attacking rather than understanding, you not only stifle the potential for meaningful conversation but also risk alienating those who might otherwise be inclined to listen and contribute positively. It's crucial to approach discussions with an open mind and a willingness to consider perspectives different from our own. By "this", you are referring to the time-share style presentation the Bills have opted to present in order to sell PSL's. You seem to be conflating the successful sale of PSLs with the sales approach itself being above criticism. This is a flawed comparison, akin to comparing apples to oranges. The eventual sell-out of PSLs is almost a given, irrespective of the sales tactics employed. However, the Buffalo Bills' decision to adopt a timeshare-like approach for their presentation is notably problematic. Such a method is distinctively unappealing and has its own set of issues, which does not, however, inherently impact the ultimate sale of PSLs. Your equation of these two aspects is perplexing, as the effectiveness of a sales strategy should not be solely judged by its end result but also by the process and experience it entails for potential buyers. In my opening statement, I highlighted how you mistakenly attributed other commenters' statements to me. Here's a prime example of that. I never used the term "investment" in any of my contributions. Instead, my discussions have consistently focused on the rapid depreciation of PSLs. They should not be considered an investment by any means. They are not a good investment, or a bad investment. They are simply not an investment at all, as an investment is a mechanism used for generating future income. PSL's, outside of an extremely rare circumstance, do not offer that potential. Your comparing apples to orange again. The conversation about rationalization (and therefore Stockholm) explored the various ways individuals react to adverse situations. Some choose to confront, others withdraw, while some rationalize to make sense of their predicament. This rationalization is a defense mechanism, a way to justify contentious situations with seemingly logical explanations, avoiding the real reasons to make them seem less daunting. In the context of PSLs, this rationalization manifests when individuals justify the financial burden placed on taxpayers by viewing it through the lens of broader, supposedly understandable changes in NFL business practices, suggesting these changes are just part of the evolving landscape and should be accepted. This has nothing to do with equating the successful sale of PSLs across the league to my comments on how individuals psychologically cope with such financial strategies. I never complained about the 75% renewal rate. I simply analyzed it for what it was - 1 out of every 4 customers are saying "no". I do agree that you and others have a fair hypothesis that a portion of the 25% who are not renewing will renew at a lower price, however there is no real evidence to support that. It just 'sounds' right, which is fine. Unlike you and Kirby, I do not believe for one second that the Bills want to lose 1 out of every 4 customers. That is silly and absurd. It is a good problem to have to have too many customers. The Bills did NOT go into this sales process thinking "our stadium is smaller now, therefore lets go out and lose 25% of our customers". I assure that didn't happen and is beyond ridiculous to think. People often see what they want to see. For you, the above is the result of your emotional reaction to any post that is not pro-Bills. It is apparent that any critique of the Bills quickly draws your opposition, as evidenced by your routine use of disagreeing emojis on every post across the forum that don't align with a pro-organization view. This reaction seems to stem from a deep emotional connection to the team, influencing how you interpret and respond to differing opinions. Contrastingly, my approach to this discussion is driven by analysis, seeking to understand and question the underlying aspects of the situation without bias. I aim to differentiate between what makes sense and what doesn't, based on logical reasoning rather than team allegiance. This method of engagement is not about taking sides but about fostering a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

Picked up this Josh Allen pennant from Wegmans today as well.

I get it. I was a Diggs fan too. If I could replay that 2020 year over and over again, i’d die a happy man. But he deserves the crap he got from the media. He caused it. He is his own worst enemy. He lost me for good with that crap he pulled with Allen on Twitter. Allen is everything you write about Diggs, but WITHOUT all the self induced negatives. I swing to defend Allen - not Diggs.

Get ready for: ”other teams do it too, therefore it is okay” ”ya want the team? deal with the prices” ”shut up and pay” For what it’s worth, I agree with you. This whole timeshare style sales process is ridiculous.

He did these things you mention. but it certainly wasn’t “all” he did. - He also yelled at Allen on the sidelines of a playoff game. - He also left the stadium after a playoff game without saying goodbye to any teammates or coaches. - He also left minicamp causing McDermott to say he was “very concerned”. - He also implied that Allen’s success was due to him, just days ago on twitter. - He also made numerous cryptic comments. - He also got Beane to trade him. Which, if all he did was “work hard, produce, and elevate the level of the team”, wouldn’t have happened. The media doesn’t just throw dice to pick a random player to make up narratives about. Are they making up narratives about Shakir? Cooper Kupp? Jefferson? Amon Ra St Brown? No. They follow stories and have been known to embellish, yes. But Diggs gave them PLENTY to run with and embellish.

That's exactly what he is saying. It is what happened in NY. PSL owners got "stuck" with their PSL's and can't off-load them because they're practically worthless. So they sell the individual tickets online. Eventually many PSL owners default on their payments, creating more PSL's on the market (this time sold by the team). But no one wants team bought tickets because they're selling on the resale market for penny's on the dollar. And then there is the 5k or so holdover individual tickets that the team doesnt sell as seasons.

This is exactly right. And it plummeted the PSL market.