PSL Pricing/Seat Selection Discussion

[WotAGuy]

5 minutes ago, mrags said:

My issue, and it’s besides the point. Is that people can’t assume that the back 65% of people will be under cover. 
 

It appears that 100% of the 200s, 300s, and possibly 400s will be completely covered. And we’re seeing that a lot of those seats aren’t for the average fan. 
 

I don’t believe that 100% of the 500s will be covered. Probably 60-80% of them. I also don’t believe ANY of the 100s will be covered unless your in the last few rows under the 200 overhang. 
 

again, I didn’t want to hijack your post. I just see the % of seats that will be covered and always get annoyed with it. 

Not to mention, if the wind doesn’t get “confused”, the downwind side of the stadium probably will have very minimal protection from the canopy. 

[papazoid]

Additionally, the stadium will have a perforated multidimensional exterior skin that will prevent swirling winds from getting to the field level. The construction of the new stadium will also have concourses that are enclosed, protecting fans from the elements as they walk around the facility.

 

i mean the rain always comes straight down in orchard park...right ?

[Virgil]

1 hour ago, papazoid said:

Additionally, the stadium will have a perforated multidimensional exterior skin that will prevent swirling winds from getting to the field level. The construction of the new stadium will also have concourses that are enclosed, protecting fans from the elements as they walk around the facility.

 

i mean the rain always comes straight down in orchard park...right ?

 

What you meant to say was "wind confusion"

[Einstein]

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

I really can not figure out what your deal is.

 

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. 

 

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

You argue this is bad, but admit the stadium and PSLs will sell out.

 

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.
 

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

You argue that it is a bad investment, and then admit no one is talking about using it as an investment - including the team.

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. 

 

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

You argue about Stockholm Syndrome and admit it has been used across the league and successfully for the team.

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.
 

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

You complain about the 75% announced rate of renewal and say that is a sign of failure - when the reality is with a stadium that is only 80% in size and a large waiting list and no pricing outside of clubs - it seems they are most likely right where they want to be.

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.

 

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

Basically what I see is that you are just in this thread to argue.  You spit out a bunch of garbage and then admit the Bills are doing exactly what others have done and that the stadium will sell out and you are not a part of the buyers.  Ok - we get it - you want to argue against reality and you like everyone else don’t like PSLs - the rest is you just pissing into a windstorm and wondering why you are getting wet.  

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.

[QCity]

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

....

[Einstein]

5 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The short answer, is “yes” it was absolutely necessary.

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". 

[Einstein]

18 minutes ago, QCity said:

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

 

[WotAGuy]

[PBF81]

5 hours ago, papazoid said:

The future 63,000-plus seat stadium will feature a canopy that will cover 65% of the seats and protect against wind and precipitation.

(in the bills PSL agreement, it makes clear that seating capacity is subject to change)

 

What are the chances the Bills will leave in the near future?

 

When the deal was announced as officially completed in early April 2023, the documents included a non-relocation agreement that has language permitting the team from even considering a move. Specifically it says that the Bills shall not "entertain any offer or proposal to relocate the Team to a location other than the Stadium." If the Pegulas were to sell the team, the non-relocation agreement would apply to any new ownership.

It also states in the document that if the team did try to leave Buffalo before the lease is up, the county or state could sue. While it is not impossible for the Bills to move based on the agreement, it is difficult and Poloncarz said that it should be the biggest takeaway from pages and pages of documentation.

"The Buffalo Bills will be staying here, not only for the next few years during construction, but 30 years thereafter, so this lease secures them in our community until 2055," Poloncarz said.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37773941/buffalo-bills-new-stadium-need-know

 

 

 

The cost for the team to leave, as it's been explained, is that all they'd have to do is reimburse the state/county for the $850M given them.  

 

Whether that's enough to anchor them here long-term remains to be seen.  But given what teams have gotten in the past to move or stay where they've been, and with the overseas market opening up, it shouldn't be beyond comprehension that at some point another locale would offer a package that includes that amount to relocate. 

 

 

[WotAGuy]

14 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

The cost for the team to leave, as it's been explained, is that all they'd have to do is reimburse the state/county for the $850M given them.  

 

Whether that's enough to anchor them here long-term remains to be seen.  But given what teams have gotten in the past to move or stay where they've been, and with the overseas market opening up, it shouldn't be beyond comprehension that at some point another locale would offer a package that includes that amount to relocate. 

 

 

I wonder what will happen with PSLs if they were to move.  
 

I suppose it will be SOL. 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

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". 

Forcing the 50 year people out and PSLs are different conversations. The answer is, “yes” the Bills needed to charge SIGNIFICANTLY more for the lower level, between the 30’s that are largely populated with the longest tenured season ticket holders. This was a response to “did the Bills really need to price out 50 year season ticket holders?” 

 

Edited April 6 by Kirby Jackson

[PBF81]

12 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

I wonder what will happen with PSLs if they were to move.  
 

I suppose it will be SOL. 

 

What, you think that the Pegulas will offer partial refunds?  LOL  

 

They have a lifestyle to maintain and it's a safe bet that that wouldn't fit with the Pegula Family Values.  

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

LOL  

 

 

[WotAGuy]

1 minute ago, PBF81 said:

 

What, you think that the Pegulas will offer partial refunds?  LOL  

 

They have a lifestyle to maintain and it's a safe bet that that wouldn't fit with the Pegula Family Values.  

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

LOL  

 

 

Maybe @Mr Info can give a quick recap of if and how it’s addressed in the PSL agreement. I would want some kind of explanation of how that would be addressed before I put that much money (15k - 50k) into it.  For PSLs under about 5k, I wouldn’t care so much. 

[PBF81]

3 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Maybe @Mr Info can give a quick recap of if and how it’s addressed in the PSL agreement. I would want some kind of explanation of how that would be addressed before I put that much money (15k - 50k) into it.  For PSLs under about 5k, I wouldn’t care so much. 

 

No doubt.  I'm simply going off of what was publicly reported, BN articles and the like.  

 

From a quick google ... 

 

Under terms spelled out in a memorandum of understanding between the state, county and team, the Bills could walk away at any time, unless a judge blocked them. If they leave in the first 15 years, they would have to pay the state and county the $850 million invested to construct the stadium and another $13.3 million in capital and operating assistance for every year they occupy the stadium.

If the team moved after 15 years, the penalties would “steadily” decrease, according to state officials.

 

https://www.investigativepost.org/2023/01/26/weak-relocation-clause-in-bills-lease/

 

With the way teams are increasing in value, and given some of the wealth, both municipal as well as market wealth, that simply doesn't seem to be "ironclad."  

 

 

[K-9]

11 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

Not to mention, if the wind doesn’t get “confused”, the downwind side of the stadium probably will have very minimal protection from the canopy. 

Most of the wind problems at the current stadium will be mitigated by the more north/south orientation and much shallower bowl of the new stadium and that’s before any deliberate wind-lessening design elements are incorporated into the structure itself. 

Edited April 7 by K-9

[Boatdrinks]

4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Forcing the 50 year people out and PSLs are different conversations. The answer is, “yes” the Bills needed to charge SIGNIFICANTLY more for the lower level, between the 30’s that are largely populated with the longest tenured season ticket holders. This was a response to “did the Bills really need to price out 50 year season ticket holders?” 

 

I agree. A new stadium with a new pricing structure was a necessary part of keeping the Bills in Buffalo. They also knew that such a pricing change would mean some customers would be effective priced out - or “ lost”. The goal actually was not to retain 100% of the previous customers- not realistically anyway. The expectation is that new customers ( willing / able to spend significantly more ) would replace any who were lost. If it were (for the sake of argument )a brand new building with the same pricing and seat total then 100% retention would be the goal. This of course would never happen in the real world. More expensive seating with less seats overall guarantees some old customers will need to be replaced. Again, all of this was necessary if the Bills were to remain here. Otherwise they’d have simply left for greener pastures- and more green $$ elsewhere. 

[WotAGuy]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Most of the current wind problems at the current stadium will be mitigated by the more north/south orientation and much shallower bowl of the new stadium and that’s before any deliberate wind-lessening design elements are incorporated into the structure itself. 

Isn’t the new stadium going to be taller than the current stadium?  I thought I read that the new stadium will be as high as the light standards on the current stadium.  I know the bottom won’t be as deep in the ground, so it will have to be higher than the current stadium.
 

Also, the more north-south orientation won’t do anything to lessen the wind speed.
 

I would say having a more enclosed design without open ends, like the current stadium, is going to be the biggest wind deterrent. 

 

It will be interesting to see how the wind confusion does/doesn’t work. 

[K-9]

8 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Isn’t the new stadium going to be taller than the current stadium?  I thought I read that the new stadium will be as high as the light standards on the current stadium.  I know the bottom won’t be as deep in the ground, so it will have to be higher than the current stadium.
 

Also, the more north-south orientation won’t do anything to lessen the wind speed.
 

I would say having a more enclosed design without open ends, like the current stadium, is going to be the biggest wind deterrent. 

 

It will be interesting to see how the wind confusion does/doesn’t work. 

The more north/south orientation and shallower depth means the prevailing wind can’t swoop in over the score board (west side) of the stadium into the bowl like it does now, where it smashes into the far tunnel end helping to create the swirl conditions we often have at the current stadium. That is straight from a structural wind engineer. 

 

And as you mentioned, the new higher structure fully enclosing the field will add to the wind mitigation as will the “wind confusing” screening built into the enclosure that will work in tandem with the the canopy design to steer winds up and out of the stadium. It will be night and day compared to what we have now and it will no longer be the worst stadium to pass and kick in when the November gales start blowing. Can’t wait.

[SoCal Deek]

9 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

I agree. A new stadium with a new pricing structure was a necessary part of keeping the Bills in Buffalo. They also knew that such a pricing change would mean some customers would be effective priced out - or “ lost”. The goal actually was not to retain 100% of the previous customers- not realistically anyway. The expectation is that new customers ( willing / able to spend significantly more ) would replace any who were lost. If it were (for the sake of argument )a brand new building with the same pricing and seat total then 100% retention would be the goal. This of course would never happen in the real world. More expensive seating with less seats overall guarantees some old customers will need to be replaced. Again, all of this was necessary if the Bills were to remain here. Otherwise they’d have simply left for greener pastures- and more green $$ elsewhere. 

The marketing mistake the Bills made was linking the new prices to the new stadium. They should’ve been raising prices throughout the years so the sticker shock wouldn’t have been so immediate. I’m was on the Board of an HOA a few years back and I would regularly advocate for raising the monthly dues to keep up with inflation. The majority of the Board wanted to delay things so they’d let the deficit pile up and hit all the residents with a significant increase every three or four years. That increase was predictably followed by a lot of teeth gnashing and ire cast at the Board for mismanagement. 

[mrags]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

The marketing mistake the Bills made was linking the new prices to the new stadium. They should’ve been raising prices throughout the years so the sticker shock wouldn’t have been so immediate. I’m was on the Board of an HOA a few years back and I would regularly advocate for raising the monthly dues to keep up with inflation. The majority of the Board wanted to delay things so they’d let the deficit pile up and hit all the residents with a significant increase every three or four years. That increase was predictably followed by a lot of teeth gnashing and ire cast at the Board for mismanagement. 

They have raised their prices. I’d say 10% every other year for the last 8 years or so. 
 

my first year in the clubs was last year but before that I was in the end zones and from what I remember the tickets when I started in 06 were around $440/ticket for the year. By the time I left last year I’m pretty sure they were close to double that. We’ve definitely seen price increases over the years. 
 

imo, people are mostly angry about the PSLs. Now that I’ve looked into it more. They aren’t very bad. Even the 15-20k ones. For example, I pay approx 1k/seat now in PSL in the clubs. I just pay it every year with my season tickets, not all at once for the next 30 years. Really isn’t that terrible tho if you look at it like that. That’s where the 10 year payment plan works for most people. The interest isn’t terrible considering. Of course I don’t want to be forced to have to pay all 30 years up front.