Einstein
-
Posts
7,902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Einstein
-
-
Just now, WotAGuy said:
Weak. You’re running on fumes Einstein. I expected better from you.
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.
-
11 hours ago, WotAGuy said:
How are the Bills gouging the taxpayers?
Taxpayers have no obligation or need to purchase a PSL. It’s a voluntary choice to pay for entertainment.
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).
11 hours ago, WotAGuy said:With regard to your item 2 above, I think it shows growth and maturity on your part to concur that PSLs are a fee, just as Ticketmaster charges a fee. We are finding common ground.
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.
3 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:Why can't they just charge PSLs to non-New York taxpayers?
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?
11 hours ago, WotAGuy said:Your original Taco Bell example that started this whole discussion is not consistent with the reality of the Bills’ PSL and ticket process. 😆
Well, duh. That was the entire point. Did that really go over your head?
-
9 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:
Nice deflection.What deflection? I directly refuted what you wrote.
9 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:You conveniently left out the part about your example not matching the reality of the Bills’ stadium/ticket/PSL scenario.m. 🤣
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.
-
53 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:
Your analogy isn’t consistent with the stadium situation:
1) Taxpayers are only paying a portion of the stadium and in return there will be county sales and state income taxes collected from the games/teams that play there. So there is some return on the “investment”. I believe this is one way that the state and county justify the “investment “ in the stadium.
2) Some consumers are choosing to pay a PSL that will be used to finance the rest of the construction cost as part of their “investment” in attending the games. And contrary to your analogy, a PSL will not get you through the door. Only a game ticket will get you through the door. The PSL and ticket cost are effectively one cost because you cannot own one without the other.
So your three-part example does not exist in the NFL or anywhere that I can think of. Basically taxpayers fund part of the venue construction for a financial return and your PSL/ticket combo get you in the door to watch the show.
@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.
53 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:This is very similar to the example I provided previously where the state and county paid to build the amphitheater in Syracuse and your ticket/Ticketmaster fee combo get you in the door to watch the show.
You keep dismissing everyone’s examples while reciting your example which does not reflect the reality of the stadium situation.
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.
-
1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Why would you do all that arguing over semantics?
If you are "not arguing against" PSL's..........why is the distinction of tactics so important to you?
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.
-
5 minutes ago, PBF81 said:
Doesn't matter what you say, critics will disregard any context and argue based upon what they want your position to be.
🤔😁
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)
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:
You’re trying WAY too hard to differentiate “fees” from “PSLs.”
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.
8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:I have a master’s in sports business and spent almost a decade working in pro sports on the business side. I’ve worked directly on arena lease agreements and funding deals. I understand the topic WAY better than most.
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).
8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:Any EXTRA fees associated with purchasing a ticket is akin to a PSL. That “right to buy a ticket fee” may just go to TM or Stubhub as opposed to the owner offsetting the cost.
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.
8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:You’re trying too hard to be angry or knowledgeable.
I’m not angry at all.
8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:With all of this outrage
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.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Aren't you raking in profits from your investment in Disney? Disney also charges whatever the market will bear for their products........their profit margins are not based on what's fair.
Did you buy when I told you to? If you did, you’re up over 40%!
5 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:I'm not trying to pick on you here. I enjoy your posts typically but you have a very "new money" idea of how capitalism works.
There are going to be 40K+ people in that new stadium every week that contributed between $0 in taxes and the NYS share.......which is literally an ineffectual pittance in construction cost terms.
The PSL matter is really just a stand alone price gouge. Like paying an extra $200 per person or whatever it is to get in the "fast" lines on your Disney stay.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:
The part that I’m hung up on is why are you trying so hard to differentiate a PSL from any other ticketing fee that you pay as a “right to buy the ticket?”
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.
4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:That’s obviously way more common when you’re talking about standalone events like a concert or show. You’re paying someone for the right to buy that seat.
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.4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:I guess the other part that I’m hung up on is, “why do you have an issue with PSLs when the people using the product are the one’s electing to purchase?”
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:
you pay fees for entertainment, there is just an extra one for football because of it's demand.
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.
1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:As someone who apparently runs a business, in this scenario, the business owners who have implemented these plans have seen growth....how is that not a successful business model?
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.
1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:The really high end country club across the street from me, members first have to pay an initiation fee which is a lot. Then they have annual membership fees every year after that.
Was this Country Club paid for by taxpayers? If so, name it. It should be publicly shamed.
-
1 hour ago, Punching Bag said:
Chargers and Rams share a stadium. PSLs for Chargers are not applicable to Rams games and vise versa.
What a scam.
-
15 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Bruh, I promise that you don’t want to do this. 😂😂😂
Ok, guess you weren’t done. Let’s see how many more emojis and memes I can squeeze out of you.
15 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:You’re hung up on the PSL part. It’s okay that you don’t understand how it works. It’s a fee, PAID BY THOSE PLANNING TO CONSUME THE PRODUCT, for the right to purchase tickets, to offset some of the costs, that the private party incurs. So to be clear, you’re upset that THE PEOPLE CONSUMING THE PRODUCT are paying a fee for the right to buy a ticket to consume that product? Don’t you pay a fee on every single ticket that you buy? Isn’t that fee the right to buy a ticket?
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.
-
16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Why do people double down and triple down when their wrong? Remember when you could just be wrong and move along?
You should be asking yourself that question.
16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:At any rate, MANY concert facilities / theaters are owned by the tax payers. As an example, Shea’s is owned by the City of Buffalo. All charge for tickets.
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.
16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:Any fees associated with those tickets are the equivalent of a PSL. They are a fee for the right to buy a ticket.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
This is not necessarily true. I had PSLs at a stadium in another city and only had the rights to the seats for football. The Pegulas can make other events part of the PSL package - or not. It is 100% up to them.
Functionally it doesn’t make much sense to tie PSL holders to their seats anyway. One issue is that some seats won’t even be used for concerts as they’d be behind the stage. Also additional seats would be added for an event like that and other seats would be in much better or worse locations than for football. It’s easier to just allow PSL owners to buy the seats they want before the general public.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:
But it is the norm in entertainment.
It’s not.1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:theater
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.
1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:or concert venue?
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.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
Comparisons do not need to be 100% the same to be valid lol. That would mean you can’t compare anything because nothing is 100% alike.The PSL’s are the problem for most, so removing that comparable item necessarily removes the point of a comparison.
16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:Tax payer funded venues is an easy one. Paying for the ticket is 100% of the time. If you count TM fees or Stub Hub fees or whatever as “the right to buy the seat” all of your boxes are checked.
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.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
Who paid for State Farm Arena when I watched Elton John, Bill Burr, Jo Koy and other entertainers? I had to pay for parking in the parking lot my taxes paid for. I had to pay for the seat. I had to pay the ticket fees.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, mrags said:
And yes, I do like to argue.
Guilty as well.-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, mrags said:
I’m not sure about every seat in the house. But I’ve sat in a suite for a concert before. Pretty sure that constitutes a PSL. They own the box. Just like a club seat. And I’m not so sure that some 200 level tickets don’t have PSLs on them either.
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. -
2 minutes ago, mrags said:
That’s it true. I’ve been to the Sabres Arena (whatever the hell name their calling it now) for multiple concerts from people that paid PSLs.
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. -
1 minute ago, mrags said:
Yes. Exactly. That is 100% the argument. To them, they are all that matters and they are successful and so is their business.
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. -
48 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:
Everyone knew this was coming, so I don't understand the outrage.
Most of the people who are upset about it were upset the entire time. For years. Maybe you're just paying attention now? -
1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:
That is pretty much the case with entertainment venues.
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).QuoteI don't think you can call something insane when it's a very successful model.
What is successful about it? Do you mean that a few billionaire owners are successful at taking money?
-
19 minutes ago, RkFast said:
Unless Im WAY off, the purpose of the PSL is to finance the construction of the Stadium. And a sports team...last I checked...needs a stadium to play and in this day and age thats a lot more than brick steel, toilets, grass and some seats.
Also, you act like sports teams are the only businesses that get tax breaks. Ever hear of IDAs? You also cant compare a fast food franchise to a sports team and how they operate and are financed. Come on.
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.
-
1
-
PSL Pricing/Seat Selection Discussion
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
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.