bbb Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 I can't make it to the game, anybody want to buy my tix? Sec 116 Row 19...just looking for face value. This is actually the type of thing why I have no beef with the blackout rule.....I myself very much doubt that I'll be going to the game now. Right now, my friends and I are all super stressed and busy - it's the busiest time of year for at least 3 of us.......We were all on the fence about going to the game, but leaning towards carving out the time to get out there. Now, since I'll be able to watch and save a lot of time by working while I watch, etc., I don't think I'll be going. So, the team loses on any concessions, etc. that I would have bought.
Just Jack Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 I also now vaguely remember this Syracuse change. I was still thinking it was the way it was back in 93, when they got the Oilers comeback game and Buffalo did not. I remember watching the Oilers game on the Watertown station since Syracuse was blacked out. Where my parents live they can pick up both over the air.
bbb Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 I remember watching the Oilers game on the Watertown station since Syracuse was blacked out. Where my parents live they can pick up both over the air. I think you're memory is wrong. I am quite sure that we got our tape from people in Webster.
jr1 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Western NYers will be able to hear the soothing tones of Kevin Harlan & Solomon Wilcots
vegas55 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Yes he has. In the past, the local TV station may buy the last bit (in order to secure their game advertising) and i think Tops and other businesses have helped out. Hopefully they can get it done for the local fans. Oh that’s just too funny - "for those of us who think he is a tightwad". The guy has profited to the tune of almost one billion dollars via the ownership of the Bills. So who, genius, do you think receives the bulk of that money when the generous Ralph buys up those tickets. The answer - Ralph does - he owns the Bills!!!! Russell has let our tightwad owner off the hook
Luvbills Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 It was not on in the Rochester Market of which Webster is. I had a friend's dad tape in as they are in Pennsylvania. It was not on here I think you're memory is wrong. I am quite sure that we got our tape from people in Webster.
bbb Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 It was not on in the Rochester Market of which Webster is. I had a friend's dad tape in as they are in Pennsylvania. It was not on here Right - people to the west of Rochester were not able to pick it up, but people to the east of Rochester were. I'm still saying it was being shown in Syracuse and this is the reason.
PromoTheRobot Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Russell has let our tightwad owner off the hook Says the person that's too cheap to buy a $30 ticket. PTR
The Dean Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Oh that’s just too funny - "for those of us who think he is a tightwad". The guy has profited to the tune of almost one billion dollars via the ownership of the Bills. So who, genius, do you think receives the bulk of that money when the generous Ralph buys up those tickets. The answer - Ralph does - he owns the Bills!!!! Russell has let our tightwad owner off the hook I think you responded to the wrong post, as that quote isn't from me. But since it is being discussed: Ralph can be, and certainly has been (at times) a tightwad owner. There have also been times when he wasn't so cheap. How effectively he spends is a different subject. By no means is he a "spend whatever it takes to win" owner. That's fairly obvious. It's also fairly obvious he could have made himself much richer, at some point, by moving or selling the team. I'm fairly certain Ralph has bought the remaining tickets on an occasion or two, to ensure a sellout. That's what I was responding to in the above post. And, as I stated, sometimes a local business buys the tickets (that's basically the case this week). Now, as to what Ralph gives up when he buys the tickets, I think you would be surprised. Of course Ralph isn't out the price of the tickets. They don't cost him anything, really. And he can probably write them off, so they may even make him a couple of dollars. But, in meaningless games in December, they may actually hurt the actual attendance/parking/in-game purchases. PLUS, and this is something you may not have considered, he has to pay 40% of the price of those tickets to the NFL pool for visiting teams (visiting teams get 40% of gate receipts. Also, giving tickets away to avoid the deadline, isn't really a sound business practice, in the long run. You can (and I would argue should) do it on a rare occasion, to show good faith/appreciation of the fans. But if it were a regular occurrence it would hurt ticket sales in these kind of games.
CodeMonkey Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 So, the truth is coming out! I have sympathy for any money issues, but not really for the warm bar argument! I am quite sure many of these people spent more money going to Canada, and all this other crap than if they just bought a ticket. Oh I agree with you. I choose not to go (though at $300 a game I would definitely feel the bite). It is not a right to see a NFL game. The NFL produces a product and they have every right to make as much money as they can from said product. But because some like me choose not to go doesn't change the fact that there are many fans who simply cannot afford to go. How much money is enough money to make when it means screwing over your true fans that cannot happen to afford the high price to attend the game.
rockpile Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 So, the truth is coming out! I have sympathy for any money issues, but not really for the warm bar argument! I am quite sure many of these people spent more money going to Canada, and all this other crap than if they just bought a ticket. It used to be that all home games were blacked out, which was wrong. If you couldn't buy a ticket because it's sold out, they shouldn't also not let you watch on TV. So, Congress stepped in and made it fair. If there are tickets available, buy them and you can see the game. If not, then we'll show it on TV. (Of course, this was before the Internet and stubhub, etc. - so back then if you didn't have a ticket to a sold out game, there really was no way of seeing it). Seems to me that it's not some inalienable right to be able to watch a football game. If there is a movie or a fight on HBO, and I don't want to or can't pay for HBO, do I have an an argument that I have the right to watch it on Channel 4? Why should NFL owners be forced to give their product out for free? I remember listening to sold out championships on the radio in the sixties for this reason. Didn't the TV networks have more of a factor on this than Congress?
bbb Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 I remember listening to sold out championships on the radio in the sixties for this reason. Didn't the TV networks have more of a factor on this than Congress? Maybe the networks put pressure on Congress, but I'm pretty sure it's a law that changed the blackout practice.........My father, great uncle and grandmother drove to Rochester and got a hotel room to watch the championship game in '64 or '65!
rockpile Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Maybe the networks put pressure on Congress, but I'm pretty sure it's a law that changed the blackout practice.........My father, great uncle and grandmother drove to Rochester and got a hotel room to watch the championship game in '64 or '65! I know for sure the 1966 Bills vs. Chiefs game in Buffalo was blacked out and sold out. It was followed by the NFL / AFL championship game (AKA Super Bowl I ), which was NOT sold out!
ConradDobler Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 (edited) IIRC it was an exemption from the antitrust law that made the NFL agree to televise sold out home games. I'm too drunk to Google it right now, but I think that there was a specific Senator that insisted on this comprimise. Edited December 24, 2010 by ConradDobler
Section 237 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 I think you responded to the wrong post, as that quote isn't from me. But since it is being discussed: Ralph can be, and certainly has been (at times) a tightwad owner. There have also been times when he wasn't so cheap. How effectively he spends is a different subject. By no means is he a "spend whatever it takes to win" owner. That's fairly obvious. It's also fairly obvious he could have made himself much richer, at some point, by moving or selling the team. I'm fairly certain Ralph has bought the remaining tickets on an occasion or two, to ensure a sellout. That's what I was responding to in the above post. And, as I stated, sometimes a local business buys the tickets (that's basically the case this week). Now, as to what Ralph gives up when he buys the tickets, I think you would be surprised. Of course Ralph isn't out the price of the tickets. They don't cost him anything, really. And he can probably write them off, so they may even make him a couple of dollars. But, in meaningless games in December, they may actually hurt the actual attendance/parking/in-game purchases. PLUS, and this is something you may not have considered, he has to pay 40% of the price of those tickets to the NFL pool for visiting teams (visiting teams get 40% of gate receipts. Also, giving tickets away to avoid the deadline, isn't really a sound business practice, in the long run. You can (and I would argue should) do it on a rare occasion, to show good faith/appreciation of the fans. But if it were a regular occurrence it would hurt ticket sales in these kind of games. Well yeh, that would be about how an informed logical person should see it.
plenzmd1 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 IIRC it was an exemption from the antitrust law that made the NFL agree to televise sold out home games. I'm too drunk to Google it right now, but I think that there was a specific Senator that insisted on this comprimise. You were to drunk, I am to lazy to google it. But I think most of Pittsburgh not seing the Immaculate Reception had a lot to do with it.
QCity Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 So who, genius, do you think receives the bulk of that money when the generous Ralph buys up those tickets. The answer - Ralph does - he owns the Bills!!!! Hey genius, ticket sales are split 60/40 between the home and away teams. You might want to learn how revenue sharing works. Ralph has bought plenty of tickets in the past, you can't say for certain he wouldn't have bought the tickets himself.
CodeMonkey Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 (edited) you can't say for certain he wouldn't have bought the tickets himself. I doubt he would have. He did not do it previous weeks and it was 10% of the seats. Edited December 24, 2010 by CodeMonkey
QCity Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 I doubt he would have. He did not do it previous weeks and it was 10% of the seats. The owner can't buy the remaining seats every single week, that would defeat the entire purpose of the blackout. Fans would come to expect that generosity and think, "Oh, only 4,000 seats left - don't worry Ralph will pick that up, let's just sit home in front of our HDTV's" No one on these boards can say for certain that he would not have bought them. Russ Salvatore has supported and worked with this organization for decades (donating to Bills sponsored charities, chartering flights to Miami games, etc), it wouldn't surprise me if this deal was in place all week. And it also wouldn't surprise me that another deal (Ralph) was in place in case Salvatore had to back out at the last minute.
vegas55 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Hey genius, ticket sales are split 60/40 between the home and away teams. You might want to learn how revenue sharing works. Ralph has bought plenty of tickets in the past, you can't say for certain he wouldn't have bought the tickets himself. I know how revenue sharing works - thats why my post stated that Ralph gets the bulk ( not all) of the benefit. Can you read? The original post I was responding too suggested that Ralph was not the tightwad we make him out to be because, generous soul that he is, has bought out tickets in the past. My point was he is still a miser, running the team on cash to cap basis, underpaying coaches and grinding out a substantial profit every year rather than trying to win a superbowl. A curious and disappointing philosiphy for a 92 year old guy who has already made a billion dollars on this franchise and could not spend even a portion of that fortune in what remains of his lifetime. With more money than god his choice is to attempt to make more money, rather than achieve a superbowl
Recommended Posts