PSL Pricing/Seat Selection Discussion

[DieHardFan]

1 minute ago, papazoid said:

 

for 2023 there were just under 64,000 season tickets. the capacity is just over 70,000. they deliberately hold back some for individual sale.

 

i dont think the new stadium will be 100% season ticket (i could be wrong)

Plus they need to reserve some for visiting teams.

[Einstein]

29 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Lol, this is just wrong. The stadium will be ONLY season tickets as it currently is. Now if you’re saying people will purchase tickets on the SECONDARY market at a higher percentage than they do now, that’s possible. The Bills entire stadium though will be sold with season tickets. 

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.

[LabattBlue]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Lol, this is just wrong. The stadium will be ONLY season tickets as it currently is. Now if you’re saying people will purchase tickets on the SECONDARY market at a higher percentage than they do now, that’s possible. The Bills entire stadium though will be sold with season tickets. 

I don’t remember the exact number, but I am pretty sure that it was reported that something like 5-10k seats would be kept aside for individual game sales. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, papazoid said:

 

for 2023 there were just under 64,000 season tickets. the capacity is just over 70,000. they deliberately hold back some for individual sale.

 

i dont think the new stadium will be 100% season ticket (i could be wrong)

 

https://www.buffalobills.com/news/updates-on-bills-2024-season-ticket-member-renewals-and-opening-of-bills-stadium-experience

Certain seats are for internal seats, to leverage sponsorships, etc. Every stadium has that. The Bills have sold as many as season tickets as they’ve elected to make available. That’s the point that I’m making I guess (semantics). That’s what would be considered “only season tickets.” 

 

I don’t remember if they still sell individual games to season ticket holders or the general public? They used to but I don’t remember seeing an email last year. 

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

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.

After all that, we don’t disagree here 🍻

[DaVinci]

As a current Club seat owner this whole process has been pretty slimy. From what I read usually the entire pricing structure is revealed. Customers are now treated like Laboratory animals in a cost experiment. I think I would consider the 50k PSL and 10k ticket cost for 2 seats if Jesus was playing at half time.

Was this really necessary, Pricing out  50 year customers? 

 

 

[Einstein]

13 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

As a current Club seat owner this whole process has been pretty slimy. From what I read usually the entire pricing structure is revealed. Customers are now treated like Laboratory animals in a cost experiment. I think I would consider the 50k PSL and 10k ticket cost for 2 seats if Jesus was playing at half time.

Was this really necessary, Pricing out  50 year customers? 

 

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.

[DaVinci]

Thank for you're reply Einstein,

 

After reading the entire thread I was expecting the response you suggested. I do not wish to argue the Economics of the situation.

I will just hang up and listen

[Augie]

9 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

 

I don’t love it, but you have the right to say no and move along. That sounds better than wallowing in despair over the topic. 

 

We knew it would be “more”, so make a decision and move on is how I would look at it. 

 

[BillsfaninCT]

I'll take fill in the hole and keep Rich Stadium for $2000 Alex.  Not driving from CT to Buff to support that bull####, 12th wealthiest owner and top 200 wealthiest american taking his fan base for gouging AFTER jobbing my friends and family (tax payers) for shame.  what made rich stadium great was the people and the nfl is hell bent on replacing those people with business owners who write-off box seats as expenses..... 60,000 of those in western new york?  selling ocean front in kansas if interested.

 

as i sit here in my bills sweatshirt.

the 5th fall of buffalo, the one that finally moves them to toronto.

Edited April 6 by BillsfaninCT

[Rochesterfan]

13 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

 

I really can not figure out what your deal is.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

You complain about the “timeshare” aspect and how horrible the approach is - when you admit to not having seasons and not having been to the presentation and the couple of people with experience have said it was no/low pressure and they got lots of information and could take info to their lawyers and will have an opportunity if they pass up club seats to move elsewhere.

 

You complain about the resale value of the PSLs (that you do not and won’t own), but that in reading articles - lots of people have found sales in certain sections (end zones, inside the 20’s, upper decks’s) that were lower PSL areas to not lose their value and that is the areas that PSL vendors go after because they can make profits on tickets with individual game tickets and then profit when something positive happens - like the trade for Rodgers in NY last year. 
 

You quote numbers of 25-40% resale after several years - fine, but how different is that from a 5 year old car that you spent $50,000 on and put 120000 miles on.  
 

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.  
 

 

[WotAGuy]

@Rochesterfan you are so much nicer than I am. 

[PromoTheRobot]

18 hours ago, papazoid said:

 

for 2023 there were just under 64,000 season tickets. the capacity is just over 70,000. they deliberately hold back some for individual sale.

 

i dont think the new stadium will be 100% season ticket (i could be wrong)

 

https://www.buffalobills.com/news/updates-on-bills-2024-season-ticket-member-renewals-and-opening-of-bills-stadium-experience

 

My understanding is every seat will be a season ticket. But the new stadium will have expanded stranding room for individual sale.

[Kirby Jackson]

15 hours ago, DaVinci said:

As a current Club seat owner this whole process has been pretty slimy. From what I read usually the entire pricing structure is revealed. Customers are now treated like Laboratory animals in a cost experiment. I think I would consider the 50k PSL and 10k ticket cost for 2 seats if Jesus was playing at half time.

Was this really necessary, Pricing out  50 year customers? 

 

 

The short answer, is “yes” it was absolutely necessary. The economics of the NFL are vastly different than 50 years ago. They are vastly different than 10 years ago. That’s been the entire point here. The Bills haven’t been contributing to the pie at a rate similar to other teams. Pricing the stadium in line with the current state of the NFL allows them to “carry their weight.” That was the entire reason for the new stadium.

 

In terms of PSLs, that’s just the way that business is done in the NFL now. These public/private partnerships are the standard. Would it have been nice for Uncle Terry to pay the entire portion of the private money? Sure. Was that ever realistic? Nope. We have been spoiled for a generation (or generations). We are still going to be on the lower half of pricing in the NFL because of the market. This is just a step in narrowing the gap between the Bills and other NFL teams.

Edited April 6 by Kirby Jackson

[papazoid]

35 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

My understanding is every seat will be a season ticket. But the new stadium will have expanded stranding room for individual sale.

 

i keep seeing 62-63,000 seats with an additional 5,000 SRO (standing room only area)

 

i can't get confirmation on if all 63k seats will be STH ?.....it's on my list of questions when i go thru the "experience"...i'll get back to you late next year..lol

[PromoTheRobot]

18 minutes ago, papazoid said:

 

i keep seeing 62-63,000 seats with an additional 5,000 SRO (standing room only area)

 

i can't get confirmation on if all 63k seats will be STH ?.....it's on my list of questions when i go thru the "experience"...i'll get back to you late next year..lol

 

I thought seating was closer to just 60K.

[Rochesterfan]

26 minutes ago, papazoid said:

 

i keep seeing 62-63,000 seats with an additional 5,000 SRO (standing room only area)

 

i can't get confirmation on if all 63k seats will be STH ?.....it's on my list of questions when i go thru the "experience"...i'll get back to you late next year..lol

 

it will not be 63,000 STH.

 

The percentage will be most likely be similar with no more than 56-57,000 STH - most likely capped at or below 54,000 or so.
 

They will need a % for the other team and the NFL, they need an internal group of seats for groups/ charities as they provide that as part of the overall county agreement, they tend to have some seats for the halftime group - be it kids flag football teams or a band or color guards/troops.

 

They will also want a contingency of tickets in the club areas to offer out to stadium sponsors to provide out each game - especially with fewer actual boxes for these groups.

 

There will most likely be about 10,000 fewer STH in the new stadium - which is why the renewal rate of 75% is so important because if the renewal rate pushes up closer to 85-90% they have more renewals than seats for them once everyone gets a chance to pick seats.

 

 

Edited April 6 by Rochesterfan

[papazoid]

2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

it will not be 63,000 STH.

 

The percentage will be most likely be similar with no more than 56-57,000 STH - most likely capped at or below 54,000 or so.
 

They will need a % for the other team and the NFL, they need an internal group of seats for groups/ charities as they provide that as part of the overall county agreement, they tend to have some seats for the halftime group - be it kids flag football teams or a band or color guards/troops.

 

They will also want a contingency of tickets in the club areas to offer out to stadium sponsors to provide out each game - especially with fewer actual boxes for these groups.

 

There will most likely be about 10,000 fewer STH in the new stadium - which is why the renewal rate of 75% is so important because if the renewal rate pushes up closer to 85-90% they have more renewals than seats for them once everyone gets a chance to pick seats.

 

 

 

i suspect the renewal rate for club seat STH will be higher than 75% once they get their second chance meeting to secure tix in a less expensive area.

 

the renewal rate for the lower bowl is where things will get interesting. if PSL prices stay high, i see alot of STH giving up their seats. if the bills adjust on the fly and lower the PSL price to something more reasonable, then they will have better success.

[Rochesterfan]

Just now, papazoid said:

 

i suspect the renewal rate for club seat STH will be higher than 75% once they get their second chance meeting to secure tix in a less expensive area.

 

the renewal rate for the lower bowl is where things will get interesting. if PSL prices stay high, i see alot of STH giving up their seats. if the bills adjust on the fly and lower the PSL price to something more reasonable, then they will have better success.

Agreed, but you may also see a nice percentage of former club seat holders saying the clubs were to expensive, but the lower bowl is more in line with my thoughts and price range and the new amenities make those seats worth it - so they move down a group and that continues as we expand the stadium.

[papazoid]

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

 

 

Edited April 6 by papazoid

[mrags]

3 minutes 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.

 

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

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. 

[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.