PSL Pricing/Seat Selection Discussion

[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. 

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

#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.

Anyone looking at a PSL as some type of investment opportunity is probably checking out bridges in the Jersey swamplands too. 

[Einstein]

Just now, Boatdrinks said:

Anyone looking at a PSL as some type of investment opportunity is probably checking out bridges in the Jersey swamplands too. 

Agreed with you there my friend. 

[Boatdrinks]

6 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

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.

 

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. 

Of course there is “ inequity”. That shouldn’t be a surprise. Seeing the reality for what it is - reality is not “ coping” or rationalizing or any other psychobabble that you want to throw in there. It’s simply having a brain and seeing things for what they are. The world isn’t perfect. The other option was the team leaves. Neither is a perfect choice, but few things ever are. Some would prefer that the State, County etc “ save” the money and waste it on something else. I’m not one of them. The perfect third option just doesn’t exist, no matter how much anyone wishes it did. 

Edited April 3 by Boatdrinks

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

Of course there is “ inequity”. That shouldn’t be a surprise. 

Again, no one that I have seen is really "surprised". We are simply talking about the reality of the situation now that it is officially here (we have the official numbers for some sections).

While we do that, many posters are making it their job to defend, defend, defend the Bills. That's not simply discussing the reality. That's Rationalization with a dash of Stockholm. These posters have a compulsion to defend.