Einstein

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.

yeah thats why I laughed when the poster labeled this model as "successful". I mean, it's successful for 1 of the 60,000 people involved.

Most of the people who are upset about it were upset the entire time. For years. Maybe you're just paying attention now?

By entertainment venues do you mean *only* football (or soccer in Europe)? Because I cant think of any other entertainment venue where you pay for the building, then pay to enter the building, then pay to sit in the seat. - You dont do that at concerts (unless its at a FOOTBALL stadium). - You dont do that at comedy shows (no PSL, and taxpayers didnt pay for the venue). - You dont do that at magician acts (no PSL, and taxpayers didnt pay for the venue). - You dont do that at medieval times (no PSL, and taxpayers didnt pay for the venue). - You don't do that at festivals (taxpayers *might* have paid for the venue, but no PSL). It's only football (or soccer). What is successful about it? Do you mean that a few billionaire owners are successful at taking money?

Tax break = / = paying for the stadium. The taxpayers are literally PAYING for the stadium. Then they're being charged to enter the stadium. Then being charged to sit in the seat.

Not many businesses exist where the fans (taxpayers) pay for the building and THEN get charged to enter the building and THEN get charged to buy the product. Imagine if YOU (the taxpayer) had to pay for new Taco Bell building. And THEN when the fancy new Taco Bell you paid for was all constructed, management made you pay to enter the building you just paid for. And THEN once youre in the building you paid to build, and paid to enter, you had to then pay for the actual tacos. Your analogy doesnt wash because 99% of businesses... this would be thought of as insane. Which it is. It is not even remotely close to passing the cost of doing business onto the customer.

Honestly ruins kickoffs in my opinion. The entire optics of the “opening kickoff” is just gone. The number of rule changes that have taken place in the last 10 years is dizzying. Watch a full game from 2000 (not that long ago!) and it feels like a different league.

Exactly right. Imagine the resale value of a PSL during the drought. Would be lucky to get a basket of chicken wings for them.

https://www.wgrz.com/article/sports/nfl/bills/season-ticket-holder-shocked-at-400000-price-tag-to-keep-seats-at-the-new-bills-stadium-money-nfl-mafia/71-fc3661ab-73ac-4fb7-917e-eb0cd386e5bc?fbclid=IwAR3jwFi_bjXlXA6-UCrdB0mLSkc2b1q92C6dBzc85a2uT-TYj5MNuzHogKA_aem_Ac-h4ndNB2H8JGvfP81yXDyLZw7StOY6Z-wvccS-FXZGZmxhxPTjrihTIIuKT6PCOlY#lu957j46vme6dsky5t

So they’ll end up paying 5 to 10% of the stadium cost?

Wow. I forgot how badly KC fleeced us on that one.