TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 So you think the stadium would be the same if they expanded the number of GA seats and scaled back the premium seats? You know... something to get that big fat waiting list into the stadium? I really don't know. It's a good idea and I certainly wouldn't mind if they did that. However, I don't think that was the main reason our fans didn't turn out for that game. Whether buying directly from the team, other fans, or ticket brokers...our fans chose not to attend that game in DROVES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Supporting what? You are talking about a tiny fraction of what actually happened and are claiming to understand it. Do you even know what a mortgage backed security is and what role it played? I doubt it. You don’t think that defaulted mortgages played a major role in the cause of the recession? There were many reasons why there was an Economic down turn but this was a major factor. To say it was a fraction of the cause of the recession is laughable. And yes I do know what a Mortgage back security is by the way. Please do not insult my intelligence by questioning me. Do you know what made them Toxic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Fortunately, not every franchise sees a need to sue their own die-hard fans into bankruptcy, especially in these trying economic times, over football tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 The message sent, is that if you currently have club seats, you better check your contract and see how soon you can dump them.The second message is, "if you were ever thinking about a future purchase of club seats, forget it." It is total, 100% failure..... You have no understanding of how business works. That is very apparent. After seeing how bad their decision was, they reversed it. What does that tell you? :doh:.... Great post. No sense in even wasting your time, however. QFT. Several times I asked folks defending this practice to answer two questions. 1. Will this story and the mental picture it creates in the mind of the future potential customer make selling those premium seats easier or harder (hence more expensive) in the future? 2. Compare the amount likely to be collected from these judgments with the costs and then make a plausible explanation of how suing the customer benefits the bottom line in this case. I was shocked but there were *GASP* no responses, in spite of the fact that I posed the questions several times in two different threads. To be fair, IIRC Califan did reply in some fashion that he disagreed but did not provide much in the way of a concrete rationale. Again, the team is not in any way "wrong" for doing what it can to collect on money to which it is legally entitled. However, they lost sight of the fact that the mere ability to do something does not always mean it's actually a smart business decision to do so. But then, nobody's ever accused Dan Snyder of being the sharpest knife in the box when it comes to anything but squeezing an extra buck out of the fans....regardless of whether that extra buck might actually cost him $2 in the long run. Sadly, I think we've all wasted our collective breath in trying to make this point to the L.S.A.(League of Snyder Apologists) which probably makes us about as smart and hardheaded as, well, Dan Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaxJoe Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 QFT. Several times I asked folks defending this practice to answer two questions. 1. Will this story and the mental picture it creates in the mind of the future potential customer make selling those premium seats easier or harder (hence more expensive) in the future? 2. Compare the amount likely to be collected from these judgments with the costs and then make a plausible explanation of how suing the customer benefits the bottom line in this case.I was shocked but there were *GASP* no responses, in spite of the fact that I posed the questions several times in two different threads. To be fair, IIRC Califan did reply in some fashion that he disagreed but did not provide much in the way of a concrete rationale. Again, the team is not in any way "wrong" for doing what it can to collect on money to which it is legally entitled. However, they lost sight of the fact that the mere ability to do something does not always mean it's actually a smart business decision to do so. But then, nobody's ever accused Dan Snyder of being the sharpest knife in the box when it comes to anything but squeezing an extra buck out of the fans....regardless of whether that extra buck might actually cost him $2 in the long run. Sadly, I think we've all wasted our collective breath in trying to make this point to the L.S.A.(League of Snyder Apologists) which probably makes us about as smart and hardheaded as, well, Dan Snyder. A seemingly intelligent response with your two-question proposition. The apparent bad publicity the Redskins are receiving because of the WP articles is well understood; it's certain that nobody is a winner in this mess. Especially in this Government-centric town where the citizens are always victims. Well, most club seats are not owned by citizens or even by Skins fans, for that matter. They are owned by sizable companies. Large law firms, lobbying firms, Federal contractors, car dealerships, etc. Not the crippled little grandmothers the WP makes you think are getting the shaft. So, don't gasp too long because here is my response; albeit a bit long-winded: Answer to Question 1. There will be ZEEERO influence on future club section ticket purchases. No difference: Not easier or harder. I was a very happy club seat(s) owner. I had seats in 301, 308 and 342. I am also a General admission season ticket holder (104) which makes me a Redskins season ticket holder. Owning club seats does not make you a season ticket holder. Only GA seats. Of which, there is no annual commitment, and therefore no possible way for the Redskins to sue you (unless you are on a payment plan for that years' tickets). So all those posts referring to Dan Snyder suing season ticket owners is complete bunk. Back to your question. You may not be aware, but just about every seat in the Club Section is owned by a company, not an individual fan like the GA seats. I'm sure there are a few. But the vast vast majority are companies like me. My answer to your question is zero because any reasonable businessman looks at three things in a decision: Risk, commitment, and return on investment. If a business has the capitol to purchase these tickets, has employees and clients/customers that are NFL fans, he will easily purchase these tickets. Even if the skins are 0-16. The businessman knows that this is the hottest ticket in town, and his (like my clients) line up to get at them. We businessmen know that nothing in life is free. We engage in contracts far far far larger than season tickets. We also concurrently purchase other sports teams' season tickets. We fully understand the risks involved in committing to a contract and, trust me, we are not fools to think that if we decide to renege on our part of the deal, that the other party won't be unjust to make a claim on what we promised to deliver. The Redskins have fulfilled their part of the deal. But when the belt starts to tighten, the first thing to go is the luxury items. So, I assure you that many of these companies are not going-out-of-business. They're scaling back. And because you can't just opt out of the immediate year of the contract in hopes of better revenues in the future, you would have to terminate the whole contract including the out years. Does anyone here have an idea how much club tickets are? They start at $275 a game and go up to $575. I hear loge and dream seats are even more. That's $6,000 a year for one seat and, believe me, those companies own more than one seat. One company I happen to know owns half a section. How do you think all those soldiers who go to the games in the club section can afford those while they earn only $20k a year? So, trust me when I say club ticket owners are not in a world of hurt. Unless you're a real estate agent whose available cash income is in the tank, most of those businesses have been willing, are willing, and will continue to be willing to buy club seats. And many of them aren't even Skins fans. Answer to question 2 was properly addressed by many ES threads with regards to both securing the revenue (all or part) and enforcing the rules which the Redskins are ethically, morally, and contractually entitled to. As mentioned above, those owners are not handicapped little grandmas that attend games in the Club section: unless their sons' own a company or are on the bonus payroll. But here's another perspective to answering question 2: It's not in regards to "the bottom line" anytime a company tries to recoup promised revenues due to a defaulted contract. Nobody wins... hardly ever. It's simply part of the cost of doing business. The Washington Post could have easily, and more correctly, wrote a different angle to this story. But that won't sell papers, will it? The biggest losers in this whole mess is not the Skins, but the WP as their circulation continues to dwindle. Do you think it is mere coincidence that JLC is no longer a WP sports writer? The point of damaging the image to the fan base is correct if we were talking about 'fans' But, we're not. The same relationship can be said between the Redskins and the media, especially the Washington Post. An old saying in business is "never burn your bridges" and "don't bite the hand that feeds you" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 ^^^ Yikes lol...perfectly stated, JaxJoe :applause:...posts are never too long when they are as intelligent and make as much sense as yours just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 ^^^ Yikes lol...perfectly stated, JaxJoe :applause:...posts are never too long when they are as intelligent and make as much sense as yours just did. :hysterical: Agreed, I'm awaiting the "Oh OK...so you bring facts and first-hand experience to refute my claim...but I still disagree" reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 :hysterical:Agreed, I'm awaiting the "Oh OK...so you bring facts and first-hand experience to refute my claim...but I still disagree" reply. You mean like: - Most of the original club level contracts are expiring. - The ticket office is directly marketing club level tickets to the average Joe. - The economy is currently in a downswing meaning less companies and businesses are entering these contracts. - Club level is not sold out. - General admission tickets were offered in bundles to brokers as long as they bought club seats. If even one person reconsiders the prospect of entering a club level contract, that is SOME difference. That isn't "ZEEERO influence". The Redskins Club Level has not achieved a complete match of supply and demand which is what is being insinuated by claiming companies scaling back has no effect because they are already locked into contracts. The ironic part of the entire post is the closing statement. An old saying in business is "never burn your bridges" and "don't bite the hand that feeds you" Who do you think that applies more to in this situation. The Washington Post or the Redskins? It's always amazing the idiotic things people will come up with and then pat each other on the back saying, "Wow those are real facts! You're so logical!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaxJoe Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 You mean like:- Most of the original club level contracts are expiring. - The ticket office is directly marketing club level tickets to the average Joe. - The economy is currently in a downswing meaning less companies and businesses are entering these contracts. - Club level is not sold out. - General admission tickets were offered in bundles to brokers as long as they bought club seats. If even one person reconsiders the prospect of entering a club level contract, that is SOME difference. That isn't "ZEEERO influence". The Redskins Club Level has not achieved a complete match of supply and demand which is what is being insinuated by claiming companies scaling back has no effect because they are already locked into contracts. The ironic part of the entire post is the closing statement. An old saying in business is "never burn your bridges" and "don't bite the hand that feeds you" Who do you think that applies more to in this situation. The Washington Post or the Redskins? It's always amazing the idiotic things people will come up with and then pat each other on the back saying, "Wow those are real facts! You're so logical!" Irony? Facts? What do you offer for facts? Shilsu, please. Petty insults are not a way to bolster your argument. Are you a season ticket holder? A Club section holder? What are your counter-points and with what facts do you offer other than baseless rhetoric? 1) You're wrong. ALL original season ticket contracts have expired. You could only buy a ten year contract when the stadium opened in 1997. So the redskins have successfully renewed a huge majority of the club seats already over the last two years, even post 9/11 (God bless those who are fallen), during a war, and while this current slump was ongoing. What can you say about that?, Judging by the presence of fans in the club section, I'd have to say it's at least 90% full. What you may not know is 20 to 30 pct of club fans are in the lounge during the games. Have you seen the lounge? There are leather seats everywhere. That's why it may look empty during the game. But that escalator ride up is packed for at least a half hour before each game. 2) You are correct, as I said in my post, that there are non-companies who have seats, but the vast vast majority are companies. Why wouldn't the Skins market to individuals? Money is money. I don't understand what you're point is. 3) You are correct, the economy is less today and therefore one could reason that there would be less club seat purchases All teams are facing this issue. Tampa may be blacked out this weekend. So may Cincinnati (44 game streak). Again, what's your point? My point was that IF a company has the cash and the desire, the fact that the Skins have sued people to get their money would not inhibit anyone. Which is what the topic I was replying to. Not that there won't be empty club seats. 4) Club level has rarely been been sold out. Even during the JKC years (He was the owner before Dan Snyder was since you were pretty young then (~14)). So I agree. But don't get confused as to the empty seats versus paid seats. But what facts do you offer on this topic since you are so fact-based. Club seats do not have to sell out with respect to NFL rules to define a "sell-out" It is also an interesting read to understand how the revenue sharing works regarding club seats versus general admission. Especially if the owner OWNS the stadium whereas most owners do not. So, of course the Skins want to sell as many club seats as possible to maximize revenue but more importantly: PROFIT. 5) As I said, there is a relationship between the Skins and the fans as well as the Skins and the media. Where do you see irony? You need to learn what 'irony' means. What education do you have anyhow? And by-the-way. I am not an idiot. I am an honors graduate Electrical Engineer that owns his own company and my wife and I fly to home games from one of our homes in Florida. I also know an elderly couple that fly from Alaska to see the skins. The Redskins are the only team in the league that has a fan from each state. Your disgruntled behavior is unwarranted and unfounded. I hope you leave us fans alone and start cheering for another team. How about the Jaguars, of which I used to have season tickets to? They need some extra fans and I'm sure they'd accept even the most disgruntled and boorish.... but they too charge money So, my point again, ZEEERO influence on whether I or any club member I know of regarding lawsuits will be distracted by this. We are treated very very well by the organization. The only reason a potential club season ticket purchaser would not elect to buy seats is one of three things: either he doesn't have the cash to commit, and/or doesn't have an interest in the games, or he doesn't have the cash but will still make a disingenuous contract with the Skins and later default and be surprised that the Redskins want their money of which the Washington Post will gleefully write a yellow-journalistic article about to make the pedestrian Snyder-hater get his panties all tied in a knot. It is you that has been taken, not us gainfully employed happy redskins fans for life. Before, during, and after Dan Snyder! So Shislu, at age 24, you have much to learn about what facts are and what irony is. If what you think an 'idiot' is, well I suggest working for the Government will be right up your alley. Also, please try to have a point when you type. It makes it so much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hilarious how you press me for facts despite your entire post trying to rationalize my list of bulletpoints that completely contradict your previous writeup, with such great factual arguments as the escalator being packed going up to your seats. As an engineer, I would think you would have a greater grasp of logistics, but I guess not. You think the Washington Post is biting the Redskins' "hand" and there is no such thing going on with the Redskins and their fans. That says it all. You're here to rationalize and apologize, and maybe wave around your cyber credentials, play the age card, in hopes they will mask the holes in your post. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 Shilsu is in WAY over his head, here lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 You don’t think that defaulted mortgages played a major role in the cause of the recession? There were many reasons why there was an Economic down turn but this was a major factor. To say it was a fraction of the cause of the recession is laughable. And yes I do know what a Mortgage back security is by the way. Please do not insult my intelligence by questioning me. Do you know what made them Toxic? I do know what made them toxic. SISA, no doc, and neg am loans. Who decided to issue those and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Shilsu is in WAY over his head, here lol... Despite the fact I run circles around you in these type of threads, sometimes with you ending up punching yourself in the face, here's another way to prove a point, by lifting another illogical argument from yourself and applying it to this situation. At least nine other franchises said they do not sue fans. If we are to believe this statement is true, why don't they sue their fans? If we are to believe this statement is false, why would they lie? You'll find the answer to both questions is the same and are in direct contradiction to whatever side you're taking, where I'm supposedly in way over my head. But I suppose you'll reply with some more nonsensical rationalizing followed by a smiley stamp and a "lol". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Emrys Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/09/08/mail/index.htmlAnd, yes, this viewpoint is being delivered through the "national media" lol... Damn dude, some one defends The Dan and you still figure out a way to disagree with him. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I do know what made them toxic. SISA, no doc, and neg am loans. Who decided to issue those and why? Mortgage back securities are coupons that are sold to other banks, So the defaulted loans caused the Mortgage backed securities to go toxic. Mortgagee back securties are sold to other banks. Like if you bought a house you will never end up with the intial mortgage lender that you settled with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 A seemingly intelligent response with your two-question proposition. The apparent bad publicity the Redskins are receiving because of the WP articles is well understood; it's certain that nobody is a winner in this mess. Especially in this Government-centric town where the citizens are always victims. Well, most club seats are not owned by citizens or even by Skins fans, for that matter. They are owned by sizable companies. Large law firms, lobbying firms, Federal contractors, car dealerships, etc. Not the crippled little grandmothers the WP makes you think are getting the shaft. Thanks JaxJoe. Your response was intelligent and well-reasoned also. However as TD_washingtonredskins said, I'll have to beg to differ...with parts of what you said anyway. I agree that most of the premium seats, especially the box seats are held by corporate owners. However, this still makes suing the customer a poor choice. When the team sues a company, one of two outcomes is most likely. The company either will, or already has filed for bankruptcy, in which case the team gets nothing and has to eat the cost of bringing the suit. The other option is that the company is trying to pare back as you said, in which case the company and the team are most likely to settle. It would be interesting to know the percentage of settlements vs. default judgments and bankruptcies that come out of these suits. Since the settlement option ends up being the same outcome as simply charging a hefty contract cancellation fee, I don't see the benefit to the team in going the legal route given the risks I outlined if the final bottom line result is pretty much the same. So, for the corporate premium seat holders, assuming they've structured their business properly, there's no personal risk to them in signing these contracts. However that's probably more than offset by the decreased ability of the team to collect on those defaults as I described above. However, for the individual premium seat holder, the negative publicity from this is chilling and only served to highlight what they should have already known, that premium seats are a sucker's bet. These seats are a huge financial risk with no real reward since they can get game tickets anytime without having to commit to the terms and inflated price of the team's contract. As for the ins and outs of club/premium seats, I'm actually very well acquainted with the club section since I was one of those early 7 year contract suckers. At the time, I knew all the folks in my immediate vicinity and most of them were individual buyers. After all, at $4k or so an annual pop, it's expensive but still doable for many middle class folks. Unfortunately, I'm also well acquainted with the degree to which the team is willing to "work" with the customer when circumstances beyond your control change. In my case, I moved out of town in year five. I called them to see if they'd be willing to work something out, which they were in fact willing to do. Of course, their flexibility in working something out amounted to "will you be sending a check or putting this on your credit card?" OK, there's no whining on my part because I know how things work and after all, I was dumb enough to sign the contract. So I paid the last two years, sold the tix for whatever I could and ate the loss. However, when the team sent the renewal notice with its almost doubled price and escalator clause, it was a foregone conclusion that I wasn't going to be renewing even if I had still been in the area and Dan Snyder had agreed to throw his wife and daughters in with the deal. Of course five years later, they're still contacting me several times every year to see if I want to come back. Yeah, right. My point is that ultimately the fan lawsuits are merely a symptom of the real problem which as I see it is this. Snyder vastly overestimated the real value of premium seats while simultaneously flooding the market with more and more of them. The ridiculous price increases effectively priced many of his potential customers (i.e. the individual buyer) out of the market and the ever expanding inventory of new premium seats created a major supply/demand problem. Ultimately this situation ensured that the premium seats would be an empty white (or yellow) elephant staring at Snyder at every home game. So IMHO at this point, anything that makes it harder for him to dump those white elephants is a really, really bad business decision. Rather than trying to put so much effort into the back end by trying to squeeze blood out of broke turnips, he'd be much better off dropping the price for at least some of the premium seats to a level where they actually start to sell again and make up the difference on volume. But then what do I know? Finally, many of you have pointed to the economic collapse as the reason for this problem. I would disagree. While the economy is obviously a factor, those premium seats have been conspicuous by their emptiness for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Again, I wonder whether the woman's ticket account was in her name or in the name of her real estate company, and if it was in the name of the company, whether that affected how the Redskins' front office and counsel proceeded in that particular case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 What damage was caused?Washington Post would've found something to write about, regardless. Its not Dan Snyder's job to collect debt's. If you look at this situation underneath any different light, it may be easier for you to understand. As I said before: Let me try calling VW and explaining to them how I'm a huge fan of their cars and then ask if I can get out of my current contract with them. The tow-truck will be in my driveway before I can hangup the phone. .......but what if the VW you have is a lemon (lol) .....the law says you don't have to pay.:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.