PSL Pricing/Seat Selection Discussion

[WotAGuy]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

You missed it. The Bills *want* to not sell 100% of their season ticket allotment. They want to lose 1 out of every 4 customers.

That’s because having an undertaker in your club seats brings everyone down.  Time for them to go and be replaced with Casino people. 

[Kirby Jackson]

9 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

You missed it. The Bills *want* to not sell 100% of their season ticket allotment. They want to lose 1 out of every 4 customers.

Just to be clear, they don’t want to sell 100% of their available inventory to the public. There is a percentage (that we don’t know) of the premium tickets that the Bills will use as leverage to sell soft assets in the new stadium (ie signage, commercials, naming rights of clubs, etc).

[WotAGuy]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Just to be clear, they don’t want to sell 100% of their available inventory to the public. There is a percentage (that we don’t know) of the premium tickets that the Bills will use as leverage to sell soft assets in the new stadium (ie signage, commercials, naming rights of clubs, etc).

….and if there’s anyone that knows about “soft assets”, it’s @Einstein

[Einstein]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Just to be clear, they don’t want to sell 100% of their available inventory to the public. There is a percentage (that we don’t know) of the premium tickets that the Bills will use as leverage to sell soft assets in the new stadium (ie signage, commercials, naming rights of clubs, etc). 

 

These sponsorship deals exist at the current stadium as well, not to mention every stadium in existence. No, this does not mean the team wants to lose 25% of its season ticket base.

[mrags]

26 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

You missed it. The Bills *want* to not sell 100% of their season ticket allotment. They want to lose 1 out of every 4 customers.

You don’t give up ever do you 

[PBF81]

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[Einstein]

3 minutes ago, mrags said:

You don’t give up ever do you 

 

Not when i’m correct.

[mrags]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

Not when i’m correct.

You’re Humble and not stubborn at all either. 

[Kirby Jackson]

7 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

These sponsorship deals exist at the current stadium as well, not to mention every stadium in existence. No, this does not mean the team wants to lose 25% of its season ticket base.

They don’t want to lose 25% of their season ticket base. Of course they don’t!! Who said that they do? What was said is that 75% of 1.6% of the stadium, in the most expensive areas, is not predictive of anything. The Bills may want those 500 seats (or whatever we are calling it) to leverage for way more.
 

I think that the Senecas get 1,000 tickets per game and 100 to every Super Bowl (or something like that). The Bills can get all kinds of extra money creating other assets to attach to those. They’ll create their own scarcity. Those sponsorship deals will ALL be redone in the new stadium. You’re correct in saying that they exist now. You’re incorrect if you believe that the Bills are just going to roll forward their tickets without getting new assets sold.

[Einstein]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

They don’t want to lose 25% of their season ticket base. 

 

Exactly right.

 

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

What was said is that 75% of 1.6% of the stadium, in the most expensive areas, is not predictive of anything.

 

You should learn about predictive modeling. You don’t have to guess or use a hunch. We have maths to give us the answer on what is predictive.

 

The 1.6% is predictive. At a 95% confidence interval.

[WotAGuy]

23 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Exactly right.

 

 

You should learn about predictive modeling. You don’t have to guess or use a hunch. We have maths to give us the answer on what is predictive.

 

The 1.6% is predictive. At a 95% confidence interval.

 

But there are two entirely different populations of customers - one eats those tiny hot dogs on sticks, and the other drinks Genny Cream Ale and sets themselves on fire.  It’s not apples and apples. One doesn’t predict the other. 
 

What you fail to comprehend is the Bills want to lose the Cyglinski family with 8 seats on the 50 and replace them with casino people.  Or Pepsi people.  Or Draftkings people. Those families taking up prime $$ seats need to go and be replaced by revenue generators. 
 

The only thing that can be predicted so far is that you will lock onto an obscure, irrelevant aspect of the discussion to draw people away from the fact you don’t know anything about this PSL business. 
 

I guarantee the Legends people are reading all the whining and threats to opt out on Facebook and saying

“Good riddance!  Now we can bring in revenue generators and make some $$ on our best assets.”

Edited April 3 by WotAGuy

[Einstein]

8 minutes ago, mrags said:

You’re Humble and not stubborn at all either. 

 

We are alike in many ways. It’s likely why we butt heads sometimes 😉.

[WotAGuy]

14 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

That’s right Wot! Good job!

 

What you’re knocking on the door of is 

price sensitivity and elasticity of demand. But it’s actually the other way around from how you are imagining. Lower income fans that often make up the less pricier areas of the stadium are generally more price-sensitive, meaning their demand for tickets is more elastic. This elasticity is due to their inability (and sometimes unwillingness) to purchase tickets with even a small increase in price, as the cost represents a larger portion of their discretionary spending.

 

This is exactly why the Bills are selling the club tickets first. They are obtaining a benchmark for sales with fans who have higher discretionary income and are likely adjusting their pricing for fans in other sections of the stadium based off of this data. When prices increase across the board, the demand among these fans might drop more sharply than among higher-income fans, who are less sensitive to price changes.

 

The way most businesses get around this is by increasing the amount of available quantity at lower prices, thereby offsetting any reduced demand (on a percentage basis). What is interesting about the Bills situation is that they have reduced quantity available for lower priced seats, as the club seats now take up a much larger portion of the stadium AND they already reduced the stadium by close to 10k seats. 

 

Which again, is exactly why they doing clubs first. They’re going to use clubs as a benchmark to adjust the less pricier areas. Most club buyers can afford to purchase the seats. For them it comes down to willingness and opportunity cost. For less price seat buys, many of them may have the willingness, but without the ability.

 

What will undoubtedly happen next is that the Bills will leverage their media connections to push false scarcity.

 

Dude, you are just rephrasing points that others made 10 pages ago. Do you have an original thought to contribute or not?

 

Wait, that was you making these points 10 pages ago.  Still irrelevant to the fact the Bills hired Legends to get rid of the fat, old fannies in the best seats and get the fannies in there that will spend big $$. 
 

I mean, even you can figure that out, no?

 

Edit: guess not.  We tried!

 

Edited April 3 by WotAGuy

[Einstein]

3 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

 

Dude, you are just rephrasing points that others made 10 pages ago. Do you have an original thought to contribute or not?

 

I contradicted your hypothesis of the existence of two different customer types negating predictive potential. But it appears to have gone over your head.

 

Unless you mean that someone else also corrected you on that point 10 pages ago. If so, you probably should have heeded that posters advice.

[WotAGuy]

7 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I contradicted your hypothesis of the existence of two different customer types negating predictive potential. But it appears to have gone over your head.

 

Unless you mean that someone else also corrected you on that point 10 pages ago. If so, you probably should have heeded that posters advice.

Guess that’s a no.  You would rather argue your obtuse, unrelated points than what the Bills true strategy is. Given your lack of knowledge about sports marketing, it’s ok. We forgive you. 
 

Gimme a laugh emoji if you agree you’re wrong.

 

Damn, you deleted it.  😝

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by WotAGuy

[reddogblitz]

On 3/25/2024 at 11:55 AM, Poleshifter said:

Has there been a new NFL stadium built that did NOT requires PSLs to be purchased?
 

I hated the PSL idea when I first heard it decades ago. It still sucks.

 

 

When Texas Stadium opened in 1972 they had PSLs.  It's not new.  But I agree, it sucks.

 

Seattle has them as well.

[Rochesterfan]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Exactly right.

 

 

You should learn about predictive modeling. You don’t have to guess or use a hunch. We have maths to give us the answer on what is predictive.

 

The 1.6% is predictive. At a 95% confidence interval.

 

I am sorry, but this is 100% wrong and if you are truly a CEO/upper level leader - you should be ashamed.

 

The 1.6% is not predictive because the variability of the test subject - in this case the PSLs cost and section are going to vary as they move around the stadium.  Therefore trying to use bull**** numbers as concrete values means very little.  You also totally are ignoring the fact that the 25% that are declining will have a chance to purchase in a different section if they find that those PSLs are more agreeable.

 

So for example if they stay at a 75% renewal rate in this section - which is predictive.  Going to the next area to sell - they now have 125% of the fans to offer tickets to rather than 100% and the 25% that declined earlier are now getting a price closer to their current cost.  So if the predictive value of 75% holds - that would leave 25% of section 2 unsold and about 25% of the initial buyers to purchase those seats.  So now group 2 sells closer to 90-95% sold or more.

 

Now you move to the third tier of pricing and you have the 100% of current holders, the 25% from the section 2 and all remaining people from the club seats vying for this section. So again if they get 75% of the initial group - you now have 30% vying for 25% of available seats.  And this will continue and each subsequent area will have an abundance of current season ticket holders trying to pick up tickets because saying no to your current area does not lock you out.

 

Finally in the end if there are open seats - which will be limited - there are 10,000 people on a waiting list to begin to fill in the different sections. so what you end up with is limited open seats in the most expensive area - which as @Kirby Jackson said can be packaged to other clients for advertising or offered to businesses that had suites, but with fewer suites are priced out or even certain ticket vendors to have a supply on the secondary market, but as they move out of the club seats - more and more seats will be filled by current season ticket holders and people on the waiting list.  
 

The predictive nature of your math begins to immediately fall apart because of the assumption built into it because a non renewal does not mean they can’t get tickets later - something a good CEO and leader would understand and something Kirby has tried to explain to you.  You have no idea what the expectations were for renewal on this first set.  They know that many of the “No’s” in the first pass become people happy to get a seat in a different section closer to their current rates and people from subsequent sections will also downgrade and thus the Bills decreased the capacity to cover that eventuality as some fans may be priced out or opt out.

 

Additionally- it would be very, very bad for the Bills - if they had 100% of people renewing because the new stadium is 16% smaller than the current stadium and if 100% tried to renew they would be overcapacity.  They need about 25% renewal failure in each section to allow people to drop sections to different areas and not have a percentage of people that could not be moved due to all seats being sold.  Basic math says they are probably right on their goal so far, but you be you and come up with a different formula that is just used in the wrong context.

 

🤦‍♂️

Edited April 3 by Rochesterfan

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

I am sorry, but this is 100% wrong

 

It’s not.

 

But I do want to commend you for posting. It’s nice to see your name pop up next to a post, rather than just reacting to others thoughts. I’m sure you have a lot to offer the forum so I encourage you to post more often.

 

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

The 1.6% is not predictive because the variability of the test subject - in this case the PSLs cost and section are going to vary as they move around the stadium.  

 

If your argument is that there is data that is not included in a model, then yes, i’d agree.
 

But for the data we have, the margin of error and confidence level provide measures of how much the sample results can vary from the true population parameter. In our calculations, even when accounting for a 95% confidence level, the sample size of 420 account holders exceeded the necessary size to achieve a margin of error of 5%. This means the estimate of 75% buying under the new pricing, even with variability in PSL costs and sections, is statistically reliable within the predefined margin of error.

 

Another problem is that you, like Kirby, assume a higher sales rate with lower priced tickets. I wouldn’t assume that. As I mentioned prior, price sensitivity and elasticity of demand. Lower income fans that often make up the less pricier areas of the stadium are generally more price-sensitive, meaning their demand for tickets is more elastic. This elasticity is due to their inability (and sometimes unwillingness) to purchase tickets with even a small increase in price, as the cost represents a larger portion of their discretionary spending. 

 

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

You also totally are ignoring the fact that the 25% that are declining will have a chance to purchase in a different section if they find that those PSLs are more agreeable

 

🤦‍♂️

 

You’re comparing unlike items here.

 

Predictive values are just that. Predictive of future failure at the same clip. But that has nothing to do with whether that 25% end up purchasing elsewhere in the stadium. Apples and oranges. The model predicts a future sales rate of 75%. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less. If a portion of the 25% from another tier end up purchasing at a later time in a cheaper tier, that doesn’t change the idea that approximately 25% of the current season ticket holders in that tier are choosing not to purchase.

 

For what it’s worth, I think the argument that a portion of the 25% purchase elsewhere is a good hypothesis to make. There is no evidence to back it up at this point - it’s pure conjecture - but it is reasonable. That being said, it has nothing to do with predictive values. It’s an outside factor completely unrelated to the model. If you are concerned that i’m arguing that the stadium will not be full, fear not. That is not my argument at all. That’s ridiculous.

 

Now if you want a more interesting hypothesis with also absolutely no evidence - It’s very possible that the Bills are inflating the renewal number to 75% with corporate tickets. What piqued my interest is the Bills usage of “account holders” for renewal rates, rather than seats or tickets. That is a term I would use if I wanted to obfuscate data. But that’s an entirely different topic.

 

Edited April 3 by Einstein

[Locomark]

PSLs are as good as stocks when the team is winning. In some future date, when you sell your seats, you will recoup the PSL from that buyer plus a premium. 
 

The modern NFL charges these everywhere including in the other blue collar towns. I think people forget that a season ticket for the Sabres 100 level is $8000+ per ticket so when the cheaper PSLs $s come out around or lower than that, it’s relatively cheap. 

[WotAGuy]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

That is a term I would use if I wanted to obfuscate data. But that’s an entirely different topic.

 

Obfuscate…..now we’re getting into your area of expertise!

[Kirby Jackson]

Another factor that we really haven’t gone too deep on is the total club seat universe in the new stadium. @Rochesterfan correctly mentioned it. By my estimation, the current stadium has roughly 10,000 club seats. There are 19 sections of sideline clubs. I think that all sections are 15 rows and most have 30 seats. That’s roughly 8500. There is probably another 1500ish with indoor clubs (this number I’m less confident in but think it’s directionally accurate).
 

If the clubs shrink at the same rate as the rest of the stadium, you’ll have a total of 1400ish less club seats. We have NO IDEA if this is the case or not. There are dozens, maybe even hundreds, more data points that the team, and Legends are using to gauge success beyond that 75% of 1.6% of the stadium. 😂😂 If it makes people sleep at night to say, “in a vacuum it’s predictable,” go for it. That’s not what the analytics folks at Legends and the Bills are doing. They’re analyzing all of the trends and data available to understand how it’s going and adjustments that need to be made (both up and down). 

As an example, seniority is the leading indicator of “likelihood to renew” in sports. It is a more important factor than team record. This stadium will almost certainly go against that. That’s not going to be surprising for the Bills. It was a goal of the Bills!! The pricing model was designed to “gentrify” the top locations. At what cost? We have no idea. We don’t have the information nor do we have a sense of what they want that number to be. 

No matter how many times one person comes here, pounding his fist on the table, saying definitively, that it isn’t going well, that doesn’t make it true. We won’t know for months / maybe even a year+ how this is going. The Bills and Legends have a WAY better idea than the general public because they can look at all of those other trends and factors that are a part of their model. The sample size though is far too small to have any concretes projections. They certainly don’t expect all pricing levels to sell at the same rate. Because the other levels haven’t been released, they won’t know if they were on or off the mark.
 

Right now, they probably have a sense for the success/failure of the club seat rollout. We do not know that answer though. We MAY know more as they get through the other 85%-90% of club seat holders that still need to go. That’ll be up to the Bills and Legends as to how much information they’ll share and the manner in which they share it. Will they use fearmongering to sell more? That’s what we did when rumors of a move was out there. It felt dirty. It worked. Will they say that it exceeded their expectations to inflate a sense of scarcity? This might drive some people on the fence to commit to avoid missing out. So, so, so, so many factors at play here. 
 

 

Edited April 3 by Kirby Jackson

[Jrb1979]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Another factor that we really haven’t gone too deep on is the total club seat universe in the new stadium. @Rochesterfan correctly mentioned it. By my estimation, the current stadium has roughly 10,000 club seats. There are 19 sections of sideline clubs. I think that all sections are 15 rows and most have 30 seats. That’s roughly 8500. There is probably another 1500ish with indoor clubs (this number I’m less confident in but think it’s directionally accurate).
 

If the clubs shrink at the same rate as the rest of the stadium, you’ll have a total of 1400ish less club seats. We have NO IDEA if this is the case or not. There are dozens, maybe even hundreds, more data points that the team, and Legends are using to gauge success beyond that 75% of 1.6% of the stadium. 😂😂 If it makes people sleep at night to say, “in a vacuum it’s predictable,” go for it. That’s not what the analytics folks at Legends and the Bills are doing. They’re analyzing all of the trends and data available to understand how it’s going and adjustments that need to be made (both up and down). 

As an example, seniority is the leading indicator of “likelihood to renew” in sports. It is a more important factor than team record. This stadium will almost certainly go against that. That’s not going to be surprising for the Bills. It was a goal of the Bills!! The pricing model was designed to “gentrify” the top locations. At what cost? We have no idea. We don’t have the information nor do we have a sense of what they want that number to be. 

No matter how many times one person comes here, pounding his fist on the table, saying definitively, that it isn’t going well, that doesn’t make it true. We won’t know for months / maybe even a year+ how this is going. The Bills and Legends have a WAY better idea than the general public because they can look at all of those other trends and factors that are a part of their model. The sample size though is far too small to have any concretes projections. They certainly don’t expect all pricing levels to sell at the same rate. Because the other levels haven’t been released, they won’t know if they were on or off the mark.
 

Right now, they probably have a sense for the success/failure of the club seat rollout. We do not know that answer though. We MAY know more as they get through the other 85%-90% of club seat holders that still need to go. That’ll be up to the Bills and Legends as to how much information they’ll share and the manner in which they share it. Will they use fearmongering to sell more? That’s what we did when rumors of a move was out there. It felt dirty. It worked. Will they say that it exceeded their expectations to inflate a sense of scarcity? This might drive some people on the fence to commit to avoid missing out. So, so, so, so many factors at play here. 
 

 

Sure they will sell the tickets but the days of the regular average joe owning them sound like they are over. The more you post the more it sounds it's going to be a stadium full of corporate people and less hardcore fans. 

[papazoid]

2 hours ago, Locomark said:

PSLs are as good as stocks when the team is winning. In some future date, when you sell your seats, you will recoup the PSL from that buyer plus a premium. 
 

The modern NFL charges these everywhere including in the other blue collar towns. I think people forget that a season ticket for the Sabres 100 level is $8000+ per ticket so when the cheaper PSLs $s come out around or lower than that, it’s relatively cheap. 

 

#1 - what happens to the STH who keeps his seats for the full 30 years of the PSL's life. what is the PSL worth to them after 30 years. i'd say zero ? maybe the right to purchase the next PSL for stadium renovations ?

 

#2- what happens to the STH who sells after 20 years ? doesn't the new owner only transfer over the remaining 10 years. what's that worth ? probably less than the original initial fee

 

#3- what happens to the STH who sells in 10 years ? if you look at the history of the browns and jets....it's for less than they initially paid.

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

Sure they will sell the tickets but the days of the regular average joe owning them sound like they are over. The more you post the more it sounds it's going to be a stadium full of corporate people and less hardcore fans. 

The club areas, all that we know right now, will be more corporate than it is now. Between the 40’s in the lower level will be a totally different demographic than is currently there. The rest of the stadium will be more regular fans.

[Rochesterfan]

5 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

It’s not.

 

But I do want to commend you for posting. It’s nice to see your name pop up next to a post, rather than just reacting to others thoughts. I’m sure you have a lot to offer the forum so I encourage you to post more often.

 

 

 

 

I am very sorry, but as I have said before - I am only going to post when there is real information that is being glossed over or missed.  I do not need to add the exact same info to an argument when someone is wrong because one additional person saying the same thing will not change anyone mind. 
 

With nothing to add - more people would be advised to just use both positive and negative reactions rather than just spewing incorrect information.

 

 

[Jrb1979]

12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The club areas, all that we know right now, will be more corporate than it is now. Between the 40’s in the lower level will be a totally different demographic than is currently there. The rest of the stadium will be more regular fans.

Now you can see why many are upset and "fearmongering". They have basically gave the middle finger to the average fan and said we don't want you in the good seats. The plebs move to the back. 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

Now you can see why many are upset and "fearmongering". They have basically gave the middle finger to the average fan and said we don't want you in the good seats. The plebs move to the back. 

Yep, that’s fair. Anyone paying attention could see this coming a decade ago. The reason that the Bills needed a new stadium instead of a refurb is that they couldn’t have the best locations paying a fraction of what others around the league pay for those same locations. I think that they went with the $15k PSLs there to not force everyone out. It will force a lot of them out but not the same way that $50k would have in that area. They split the baby a little there.

[papazoid]

The Bills say they grew their season ticket base to 63,767 in 2023. That's the most ever for the organization. The team projects that number to grow to 64,000 for the 2024 season.

 

https://www.wkbw.com/sports/buffalo-bills/heres-how-buffalo-bills-season-ticket-prices-are-changing-for-the-2024-season

[Jrb1979]

5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yep, that’s fair. Anyone paying attention could see this coming a decade ago. The reason that the Bills needed a new stadium instead of a refurb is that they couldn’t have the best locations paying a fraction of what others around the league pay for those same locations. I think that they went with the $15k PSLs there to not force everyone out. It will force a lot of them out but not the same way that $50k would have in that area. They split the baby a little there.

As much as I don't agree with what they are doing, I do hope that by doing this it forces change to what goes on during tailgating. I hope it ends the drunkenness, the table slamming and condiment guys. It becomes more of a corporate feel and less a college feel to it. It's why I wanted a stadium downtown. It would have made tailgating much smaller and guaranteed the end of the those things 

[Rochesterfan]

5 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

If your argument is that there is data that is not included in a model, then yes, i’d agree.
 

But for the data we have, the margin of error and confidence level provide measures of how much the sample results can vary from the true population parameter. In our calculations, even when accounting for a 95% confidence level, the sample size of 420 account holders exceeded the necessary size to achieve a margin of error of 5%. This means the estimate of 75% buying under the new pricing, even with variability in PSL costs and sections, is statistically reliable within the predefined margin of error.

 

Another problem is that you, like Kirby, assume a higher sales rate with lower priced tickets. I wouldn’t assume that. As I mentioned prior, price sensitivity and elasticity of demand. Lower income fans that often make up the less pricier areas of the stadium are generally more price-sensitive, meaning their demand for tickets is more elastic. This elasticity is due to their inability (and sometimes unwillingness) to purchase tickets with even a small increase in price, as the cost represents a larger portion of their discretionary spending. 

 

 

 

 

You are correct for the data we have there is a margin of error and it is correct - if nothing changes - yes we could expect the same 75% across the new stadium - which may or may not happen.

 

This is like using 1930’s life expectancy models in 2024 and expecting the predictive model to be accurate.

 

The problem is as you move to other sections the variables change significantly as I stated. 
 

1) First the PSL cost are expected to drop dramatically based upon the original survey reports.  If based upon the first section the PSL cost is about double what came from the survey - then the PSL cost in end zone and upper deck areas will be $1000 - 2000 or more per seat.  
 

2) The pool of people changes as you move around sections - The end zones with lower PSL may see a similar 75% renewal rate, but with the extra people available 100% of the seats will be purchased by STH.

 

3) There is an additional pool outside the normal pool of people - if they decide to purchase tickets at a similar 75% rate (which they will not) - that creates a pool of 7500 additional new season ticket holders.  
 

The predictive model works great when the variables do not change, but until you know the impact of the variables in each area - your data is faulty.  It is why insurance companies group people by age and sex - the variables change the data.  
 

In addition - as I stated 75% may still be higher than they expected for the new stadium - we do not know the expectations or goals.  With a decrease of 16% in size and a waiting list of about 15% of capacity - if everyone purchased at only 75% you have 57,000 season ticket holders in a 61,000 seat stadium and that is 100% without any of the 25% changing sections or moving down.  That is to many people.

 

The Legends team are 100% hoping in the cheaper areas - the renewal rate drops - opening up more seats for the 25% of more well off STH from the club seats to move to those areas.   The goal is to drive a percentage of the STH population that eat and drink 100% in the parking lot  and spend nothing in the stadium away - to replace them with with people that will spend additional money in the stadium increasing their revenue.  
 

They are not worried about selling the season tickets in the new stadium - the 75% rate has already shown with super high pricing that they should be able to hit 100% of their goal as those club holders move out to less expensive areas.  

[PBF81]

12 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

But there are two entirely different populations of customers - one eats those tiny hot dogs on sticks, and the other drinks Genny Cream Ale and sets themselves on fire.  

 

😂

 

Not jumping in on this congenial discussion, but that's hilarious.  

 

 

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

You are correct for the data we have there is a margin of error and it is correct - if nothing changes - yes we could expect the same 75% across the new stadium.

 

There it is!

 

That was my entire point with my predictive model. Kirby and Wot were disputing the facts of what you just admitted it. It is simply maths.

 

As for your point that lower PSL’s will encourage more buying - we’ll, I’ve already written several posts on why I don’t see that happening, so I don’t want to spam the forum with information on elasticity.

 

The idea was never that the stadium wouldn’t be full. The Bills will MAKE SURE it’s full.

[Einstein]

3 hours ago, papazoid said:

 

#1 - what happens to the STH who keeps his seats for the full 30 years of the PSL's life. what is the PSL worth to them after 30 years. i'd say zero ? maybe the right to purchase the next PSL for stadium renovations ?

 

#2- what happens to the STH who sells after 20 years ? doesn't the new owner only transfer over the remaining 10 years. what's that worth ? probably less than the original initial fee

 

#1 - Yes, it would be zero.

 

#2 - I ran the math on this earlier. PSL value will be approximately 1/4 of what owners paid within 5 years of ownership. This could potentially change if the team wins a SB the year before you sell your tickets, but you would need that luck to cause a temporary spike.

[BillsfaninCT]

the only reason we needed a new stadium is so that the owners could make more money else they'd force the team to move to someplace where they could.  I was and am 100% against tax payer money for this joint.  The PSL shouldn't have been allowed with tax payer money.  You can PSL and pay for it yourself or tax payers pay for it and we determine the costs... in fact Greenbay is the only team that actually has it correct where the fans own the team.

 

The NFL owners treat their customers and employees worse than walmart and walmart looks like it's on the other extreme end of it by comparison.  just outright fleecing and they're hiding less and less of it.  just waiting on the 2024 script, myself.

Edited April 3 by BillsfaninCT

[Boatdrinks]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yep, that’s fair. Anyone paying attention could see this coming a decade ago. The reason that the Bills needed a new stadium instead of a refurb is that they couldn’t have the best locations paying a fraction of what others around the league pay for those same locations. I think that they went with the $15k PSLs there to not force everyone out. It will force a lot of them out but not the same way that $50k would have in that area. They split the baby a little there.

This is correct. We hashed this stuff out in stadium threads years ago. Pretty much verbatim and that’s exactly what we’re seeing now. 

[Jrb1979]

12 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

This is correct. We hashed this stuff out in stadium threads years ago. Pretty much verbatim and that’s exactly what we’re seeing now. 

The worst part is how some of you are ok with it as long the Bills stay in Buffalo. 

[Einstein]

27 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

The worst part is how some of you are ok with it as long the Bills stay in Buffalo. 

 

The general attitude I see in this thread is “We all knew it was coming, it’s what is common in the NFL, therefore it is okay.”

 

I, like you, don’t understand those feelings. But everyone is different and its a coping strategy on their part and people have to do what they have to do to get on.

 

Let them buy them first, and then scoop them up for pennys on the dollar in a few years.

 

Edited April 3 by Einstein

[Boatdrinks]

25 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

The worst part is how some of you are ok with it as long the Bills stay in Buffalo. 

Without it, the Bills would not be staying in Buffalo. It’s just the reality of todays NFL. 

[Boatdrinks]

24 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

The general attitude I see in this thread is “We all knew it was coming, it’s what is common in the NFL, therefore it is okay.”

 

I, like you, don’t understand those feelings. But everyone is different and its a coping strategy on their part and people have to do what they have to do to get on.

 

Let them buy them first, and then scoop them up for pennie’s on the dollar in a few years.

Coping with what ? The Bills not leaving for greener pastures in some other city ? The NFL changed dramatically decades ago and that’s just reality. Those who seem shocked , stunned , surprised etc are the ones trying to “ cope”. 

4 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

Now you can see why many are upset and "fearmongering". They have basically gave the middle finger to the average fan and said we don't want you in the good seats. The plebs move to the back. 

The best seats were undervalued vs the rest of the league. That wasn’t going to continue in a new building. 

[Einstein]

Just now, Boatdrinks said:

Coping with what ? The Bills not leaving for greener pastures in some other city ? The NFL changed dramatically decades ago and that’s just reality.

 

There are several ways people deal with adversity. Some people fight back. Some people disengage. And some people cope with it by rationalizing. "Yeah, they're charging a lot of money. But that's the business. The NFL has changed. We must understand. etc"

Rationalization is a defense mechanism in which controversial situations are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and thereby make them appear less threatening. Some people will rationalize the PSL's which double dip on taxpayers by attributing them to broader, understandable business practices and changes within the NFL, suggesting that such changes are inevitable and should be accepted.

There is a bit of stockholm syndrome mixed in.

 

Just now, Boatdrinks said:

 

Those who seem shocked , stunned , surprised etc

I haven't seen anyone in this thread who is shocked, stunned or surprise. Everyone knew it was coming. Some are pointing out the inequity in it. Thats not a sign of being surprised - its a sign of evaluating the situation for what it is.