The Senator Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Yes I most definitely do. I watch the preseason when the games are "meaningless." As do I...and I pay a small fortune to go to the stadium and sit thru those meaningless preseason games, too! I'm always amazed how folks who rant about freeloaders in society expect Ralph Wilson to give away his product. PTR Or the ones that complain "Ralph is cheap" when he doesn't sign each & every marquee free agent - then rail at him for trying to maximize the revenue that makes those signings possible... GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! . Edited July 13, 2012 by The Senator
BuffBill Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Yes I most definitely do. I watch the preseason when the games are "meaningless." I only get 16 Sundays a year with Bills football and I enjoy each and every one. So do I, although technically with the preseason games you get more then 16 sundays (unless they are all on saturdays).
The Senator Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 So do I, although technically with the preseason games you get more then 16 sundays (unless they are all on saturdays). Actually, I think they (the preseason games) are on Thurdays and Fridays as well
section122 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 i think that the others plight idea is a bit exaggerated in most cases. You want the game, and you want it packaged how you want it at the price you want it at (free). just because someone is used to getting it, doesnt mean its a right either. liking something doesnt equate to deserving for free (you didnt make the argument as strongly as some, but it tip toed in that direction). Tbh I think both sides have a valid argument which makes this difficult. I think I have a solution though, what if blacked out games were available ppv? I don't need the games for free but can't afford to make the trip. I would be willing to pay and have a chance to watch the game as opposed to my options now. People that pay for the ticket should not have the blackout rule even apply to them as they are already putting money in the nfls pocket. I think this would make everyone happy and even though it's a cash grab many fans would be happy to have the opportunity - which as of now is lacking.
artmalibu Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 The stadium capacity has decreased by more than 10% in the last 20 years. With the upcoming renovations, I'd assume it will continue to do so. Besides, there are over 1 million people living in the greater Buffalo area, so it's not as though there isn't enough of a population to support a 70,000 seat stadium No offense, but it is your choice to live where you do, just as it is your choice to cheer for the team. If you want to see them, you can choose to give up your whole Sunday to do so. Or not. Either way, it's my opinion that the team has no responsibility to show you the game, especially since you live outside the tax district that supports them. Again, no offense intended, as I would be interested in hearing why you feel otherwise. Strongly disagree. I feel that the notion of non-ticket-buying folks complaining about the blackout rule is a slap in the face to the Bills' fans that buy the tickets. Not to dig at your fandom, but the ticket-holders are the ones that have supported the team with their dollars, not the people that watch them from home. ^ This...all of this. Opinions will vary and I am ok with that. Take a look at CURRENT stadium capacities and draw your own conclusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_National_Football_League_stadiums New York state tax dollars are going to a privet business period. To show or not to show the game on TV biased on ticket sales, makes no sense to me. Many people in the "tax district" may not have the health to sit in the cold or the money to buy the tickets and parking, might have to work part of day etc,etc. As far as the season ticket holders feeling that they are somehow bigger supporters dollars wise is just stupid. Its my understanding that much more profit comes from TV money than stadium money. Am I wrong.
thebandit27 Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Opinions will vary and I am ok with that. Take a look at CURRENT stadium capacities and draw your own conclusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_National_Football_League_stadiums New York state tax dollars are going to a privet business period. To show or not to show the game on TV biased on ticket sales, makes no sense to me. Many people in the "tax district" may not have the health to sit in the cold or the money to buy the tickets and parking, might have to work part of day etc,etc. As far as the season ticket holders feeling that they are somehow bigger supporters dollars wise is just stupid. Its my understanding that much more profit comes from TV money than stadium money. Am I wrong. Thanks for taking the time to shed some light on the thinking behind an opposing viewpoint. I certainly don't disagree that it's not exactly a level playing field in terms of capacity, and I think that'll be somewhat mediated in the next stage of Ralph renovations. I agree that there are likely a number of people physically unable to go to the games. I also believe that this portion of the population make up a minority of the folks that opt not to go to the game and instead stay home, hoping for a sell-out and the friendly confines of their home as their game-watching experience. I would also say that there are plenty of able-bodied, able-pocketed, avid Bills' fans who--if we are concrened about those who are physically unable to watch the team in person--can take up the mantle and buy tickets in an altruistic spirit. I also don't mean to sound holier-than-thou in regard to my stance on ticket-buyers vs. TV watchers in terms of their monetary contributions, so my apologies if it came off that way. I simply meant to say that watching the games on TV is free since they are televised on CBS/NBC/FOX, all of which can be viewed via antenna with no financial commitment to a cable company, and thus no contribution to those responsible for paying the NFL their gargantuan TV revenue. From that standpoint is where I make my statement that the ticket-buyers are the ones that financially support the team, as opposed to those that watch it for free on local television. Hope that makes sense.
The Wiz Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Opinions will vary and I am ok with that. Take a look at CURRENT stadium capacities and draw your own conclusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_National_Football_League_stadiums New York state tax dollars are going to a privet business period. To show or not to show the game on TV biased on ticket sales, makes no sense to me. Many people in the "tax district" may not have the health to sit in the cold or the money to buy the tickets and parking, might have to work part of day etc,etc. As far as the season ticket holders feeling that they are somehow bigger supporters dollars wise is just stupid. Its my understanding that much more profit comes from TV money than stadium money. Am I wrong. I really have no clue how much they make on TV money but stadium money isn't necessarily a drop in the bucket. Think of it this way. If 1/2 the people(rounding down to 35,000) at the stadium drink 1 beer at $9/per, that's $315,000. Most people probably don't drink just one along with other food and souvenirs that people might buy for kids and such. And this isn't even including what everyone paid for their tickets originally. Do I like the black out decision, no. Will I be attending any games this season, try to but not likely. Do I have a reason to complain since everything is staying the same, nope. Edited July 13, 2012 by The Wiz
ChevyVanMiller Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I'm surprised that in this era this is still such a hotly debated topic. The days of driving around looking for a bar with a dish on the roof are long gone - EVERY NFL game is availbale online for FREE. You just have to look for them.
NoSaint Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Tbh I think both sides have a valid argument which makes this difficult. I think I have a solution though, what if blacked out games were available ppv? I don't need the games for free but can't afford to make the trip. I would be willing to pay and have a chance to watch the game as opposed to my options now. People that pay for the ticket should not have the blackout rule even apply to them as they are already putting money in the nfls pocket. I think this would make everyone happy and even though it's a cash grab many fans would be happy to have the opportunity - which as of now is lacking. see, ive never had sunday ticket inside the blackout area, so im not even really familiar with its black . I would say somewhere in the pay package option is a fair compromise. price points and such i wont even guess on.
CodeMonkey Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) see, ive never had sunday ticket inside the blackout area, so im not even really familiar with its black . I would say somewhere in the pay package option is a fair compromise. price points and such i wont even guess on. Sunday ticket subscribers within the blackout area are absolutely blacked out. Even though they do pay to see the game. My guess is, the NFL feels that they do not make as much money off of those people as they do people at the stadium. I'm surprised that in this era this is still such a hotly debated topic. The days of driving around looking for a bar with a dish on the roof are long gone - EVERY NFL game is availbale online for FREE. You just have to look for them. Or in HD on satellites if you are technically capable. But not everyone in capable of that, or even online. Edited July 13, 2012 by CodeMonkey
BillnutinHouston Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 As far as the season ticket holders feeling that they are somehow bigger supporters dollars wise is just stupid. Stupid? OK then let's make a deal. You pay my season ticket invoice for me, and in exchange I'll do my part by staying home and watching commercials on TV. Fair deal?
Homey D. Clown Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I am a diehard Bills fan and appreciate the difficult decision that Mr. Brandon had to make. I am sure it was difficult and will have a great deal of scrutiny with it. True Bills fans will completely understand the rationale, but this really should not have surprised anyone. Our boxes are a tough sell along with our club seats. We need the revenue from the tickets but probably could not afford the financial obligation to the league if we went with the 85%. Before those of you who wish to bash this move do so, try and think outside the box a bit. I agree with the team's decision 100%. If the area wants to keep the team, and the product is good, they won't even have a problem with this.
Coach Tuesday Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I'm always amazed how folks who rant about freeloaders in society expect Ralph Wilson to give away his product. PTR It is a semi-subsidized legal monopoly so fans have every right to scrutinize decisions like this one. But I don't have a problem with it in this instance.
artmalibu Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Stupid? OK then let's make a deal. You pay my season ticket invoice for me, and in exchange I'll do my part by staying home and watching commercials on TV. Fair deal? So you only go to the game because you want to be assured to watch the game? I will throw the BS flag on that!! I typically go to a few games a year and dont do it to just see the game. I do it for the experience of seeing a game in person, may people dont understand that. But, you being a season ticket holder I bet you would NOT be content watching the game from the couch. Where are your seats?? might be a good deal for me. Try to buy single game tickets, so where you get to sit.
CodeMonkey Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 We need the revenue from the tickets but probably could not afford the financial obligation to the league if we went with the 85%. How in the world do you figure this is true? You mean that Mr. Wilson, the man who owns the Bills outright, gets a sweetheart deal on the stadium, and has zero debt load for the team or the stadium, that Mr. Wilson cannot afford to drop down to 85% even though he has one of the lowest ticket prices in the league and plays 2 teams twice a year that has some of the highest? Come on man, the one thing Mr. Wilson can't plead is poverty
FreakPop Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I agree with the team's decision 100%. If the area wants to keep the team, and the product is good, they won't even have a problem with this. This is exactly the mind set the NFL loves. You my friend are snowballed! The revenue that the NFL generates from merchandising, television deals, radio, internet, etc is so ridiculous that blacking out games because of a non sellout is bogus at best. This is a perfect example of the bark being worse than the bite. Every team could play in front half filled stadiums and they still would be making stupid revenue. The threat of leaving and them keeping their hand in your pocket is just what they want. Edited July 13, 2012 by FreakPop
26CornerBlitz Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Interesting that the Bucs opted in and the Bills, Chargers, and Colts opted out: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/13/bucs-take-full-advantage-of-new-blackout-rule/
vincec Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I don't live in the area any more so it doesn't affect me but I think the team is cutting their own throats. As they are trying to expand their market and become regional they take games off the air. This can't help them compete with the NYC teams in the middle of the state. Also, they really are rubbing it in the face of their home fans who's support they rely on when they punish them for not going to see December games pitting one crappy team against another. I know, they can backout ALL of the games and just air them locally on pay per view. That way they can really cash in on local revenue.
The Senator Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) As far as the season ticket holders feeling that they are somehow bigger supporters dollars wise is just stupid. OK, now I'm just a Polish kid from Buffalo so you're gonna have to help me out with that one... So it's stupid to think that the $1650 per seat invoice I receive from One Bills Drive doesn't represent a larger financial stake than the ersatz fan who is only willing to pay, oh, let's just pick an arbitrary number here...ZERO??? Its my understanding that much more profit comes from TV money than stadium money. Am I wrong. The TV contract revenue and how is it shared is a fixed amount and remains constant until the next network contract is negotiated, regardless of this new blackout policy - so how the heck does would the Bills agreeing to forgoe an additional percentage of their seat revenue change anything? . Edited July 13, 2012 by The Senator
dbow Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 Lets not forget the Bills want the county to spend upwards of 250 million on the stadium. That money wont come from just season ticket holders. So don't give me crap about how I shouldn't get the game for free because I'm not contributing. They make way more from advertisers than they do from ticket sales. And those advertisers want as many people as possible to watch the game. The black out rule is anti productive to whose paying the most.
Recommended Posts