Einstein

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.

The Bills could sign a backup long-snapper named Alex Falaffigonobonowitz that no-one has ever heard of, and had an incredible blunder in his only snap ever in the NFL, and there would still be fans here talking like “It’s not hard to see that we got better with this move. Great depth. What a solid signing. Beane strikes again”. I want whatever LSD these fans put in their morning coffee.

I simply write the truth of a situation. If it is positive - like last year - then i write about how happy I am with the improvements we made. When there is little positive, I write about that as well. Re-signing who we already had is important - but it doesnt improve the team. It keeps the team stagnant at that position (which is a good thing if you're re-signing a good player).

You didn't answer the question. PFF watched every snap of his and ranked him as one of the worst in the entire NFL. And judging by his pitiful contract, there was little market for him outside of a 1 year prove-it deal. There is zero evidence that we upgraded depth here, as there is little evidence that he is better than who he replaced.

The only way anyone could be happy with this Free Agency is if they expected literally nothing (as you said). As in, they somehow expected us to field a team of 42 players instead of 53. We have acquired: - Curtis Samuel - A defensive tackle with one of the worst possible grades you could ever imagine (Johnson) - A LB whose former teams fans were celebrating him leaving (Morrow) - A backup center - Mitch Trubisky Maybe I missed someone? We have signed scrap heap players.

He has one of the worst PFF grades in the entire NFL. Do you know much about him? Are the grades not representative of his play?

We are 2 years past due. Yes.