PSL Pricing/Seat Selection Discussion

[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. 

[BillsfaninCT]

I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible for the new stadium to double the value of individual viewing angles of the game.... it's not like the seats are super relevant at a bills game when the bills are relevant, stand the whole game when it's being played.

 

well, i guess the seats do matter then because 1/2 of the total time is commercial and replay reviews these days lol... still not worth double.

 

I guess all the value is about everything except the game itself and in my opinion buffalo didn't need that, the entertainment is served outside the stadium before and after the game in the parking lot, this isn't NYC.

[WotAGuy]

12 minutes ago, BillsfaninCT said:

I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible for the new stadium to double the value of individual viewing angles of the game.... it's not like the seats are super relevant at a bills game when the bills are relevant, stand the whole game when it's being played.

 

well, i guess the seats do matter then because 1/2 of the total time is commercial and replay reviews these days lol... still not worth double.

 

I guess all the value is about everything except the game itself and in my opinion buffalo didn't need that, the entertainment is served outside the stadium before and after the game in the parking lot, this isn't NYC.

 

Well, the new PSL owners will be sitting on their gold fleece orthopedic pillows 

[SoCal Deek]

51 minutes ago, mrags said:

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. 

Thanks for sharing the information. I am obviously not an expert on the stadium’s ticket pricing history. If what you’re saying is true then the team should have no problem filling the seats or getting their allotment of repeat season ticket holders. Of course if that’s true then there’s no need for this thread to be up to 40 plus pages. 😉

[mrags]

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks for sharing the information. I am obviously not an expert on the stadium’s ticket pricing history. If what you’re saying is true then the team should have no problem filling the seats or getting their allotment of repeat season ticket holders. Of course if that’s true then there’s no need for this thread to be up to 40 plus pages. 😉

Well. Of course some people are dropping. I found that apparent when I was able to move my season tickets this year to a better part of the clubs. Surprised there was as many relocation options that were available to me. At least compared to last year. 
 

I knew I paid PSLs for my correct seats but couldn’t remember how much. Then when I relocated and looked at the contract I saw that it was $985/seat this season and went up to $1005 next year. 
 

but I definitely remember paying only $440 a year for my season tix. It was near $800 by the time I moved last year. Same exact seats. Nothing changed. From 06-23 that’s the increase. It’s quite a long time for that change, but I didn’t remember there being any large increases until the mid 2000 teens.