Unfortunately, the lawsuit will go nowhere because nobody is being forced to buy anything. His reference to a cable and phone company is far different as there is no alternative. here the alternative is to sit home and watch it on TV..case dismissed.
Not so fast. I think one of the best points this guy is making is that when the consumer is purchasing the PSL, he's purchasing an unknown element, that being the ticket price. There is no advance pricing schedule being furnished the consumer by the teams as part of this original agreement and therefore, the agreement may be illegal and/or voidable. The consumer ought to be entitled to full disclosure of what the tickets will cost for the usable life expectancy of the PSL he's purchasing, otherwise there's too much room for abuse of this contract on the part of the seller (the teams). Maybe this isn't an excellent example, but I'll sell you my Chevy Tahoe. I'll take a deposit from you and tell you you can make payments to me every month of XXX, but if I want to unilaterally jack up the payments, too bad, you'll have to pay me the extra amount each month or you'll forfeit your deposit. This is open-ended for the consumer (only) but not the seller, and it may in fact be illegal. I'm not sure I can sell you something without revealing all the possible costs to you for the life of the original downpayment or earnest money given up front. To do so leaves too much opportunity for foul play or abuse on my part (the teams' part). I think the guy's point is that the PSL is part and parcel of the buy-sell agreement to purchase the tickets, but without informing the ticketholder what the prices are going to be, it's a trap; a one-sided, unilateral, unfair and possibly illegal contract.
Excellent points And then there's champ still beating the dome issue to death, even though it's pretty much been proven in more recent articles and from people who have visited the stadium that it won't be the case. But whatever.
Possibly, but Champ's point is well-founded if you consider any other improvements, renovations, additions or alterations of seating areas, restaurant upgrades, facades, lighting, parking areas, elevators, etc. This stadium is much more elaborate than what we have and almost certainly will require some of the above additional capital expenditures (not maintenance) over the years. What prevents the teams from coming back 7 years from now and saying, "We need to charge you an assessment on your original PSL for these improvements/upgrades. This enhances the value of your PSLs and hence your ticket value and the value of your game-day experience. Thank you, we knew you would understand. Please remit an additional $2800 per PSL purchased."
Oh, I agree with any other improvements. I just don't think we'll ever see a dome on this beast, and that's pretty much what the owners have said themselves. As far as the other PSL money, it won't matter to me, as I already decided it's upper deck or bust for me. Since I'm right at the top of the waiting list, that makes my chances even slimmer of getting anything in the upper deck. I'll just keep deferring until the next year and hope something opens up in the upper deck. Honestly, the deciding factor for me was the ticket prices. There is no way I'm willing to pay that much $$$ for a PSL without knowing that the game-day tickets aren't going to increase exponentially over the years. If they came out with like a 15-20 year schedule of the expected price increases, then maybe, but I know that's not going to happen.
Exactly. In effect, the PSL is a financial trap from which there is no reasonable escape for the consumer. "We're jacking up ticket prices by 30% this year. Don't like that? Then don't buy them, but you lose the $30,000 you gave us ($7500 X 4). This sets a very bad precedent and an unbelievable area of potential abuse, not only on the part of the football franchises, but anyone else coming along who latches onto this idea and uses it contractually. I think this guy should take this all the way to the Supreme Court.
Good points but again they don't have to buy it. The real lawsuit might be appropriate after they have been bought some number of years down the road. Not now. The other thing to look out for is all of the people opting for the upper deck to avoid PSLs will be in for a scock when the Jets decide to add one for those seats a few years down the road. Nothing stops them from doing that.
This is actually a decent legal argument. It could also be stopped pretty cold if the Jets/Giants simply include language in the PSL contract that only permitted a maximum increase per year in ticket prices prices say 5 or 10%.
My section is $120 per seat right now. In 2010, the same seat is $400. The PSL is $7500 per seat. I've got 4 seats. It costs me $480 to go to a game this year, plus parking. Figure $500 for an afternoon of live football and taligating. Next year, after having paid the $30,000 for the PSLs, each game will cost me $1600 plus parking. And no tailgating unless I want to schlepp to the "Tailgating Zone," where, for a price, they will rent me a grille. Well Whoop-Tee-Fucking-Do. No way, Jose.
Well, exactly, and they should be compelled to provide that number. But the consumer should be entitled to know that, whatever the number is, because that's what he needs to make an educated decision. If the Jets say, "Well, it won't ever exceed more than 10% per year," then at least the consumer is more informed. Or the consumer might say, "10% per year? Are you out of your mind? That means the seats could double in 7.5 years. No fucking way!" But at lest he'd be able to make an educated decision based on SOMETHING, instead of the teams unjustly failing to provide full disclosure.
I agree!! I was just throwing numbers out there that they could use as a ceiling for a maximum increase. If such a clause were written in the most certainly use a number higher than they would plan on for a normal ticket increase for unforseeable reasons. They would not want to sell themselves short. Also while that would allow them to raise prices every year doesn't mean they would have to.
Oh, I'm fully aware of that. Nothing is in stone. Anyone going upstairs needs to know the free ride could be very short-lived. I won't give them one dime, that I'm sure of.
That's the part I don't get. Say the Jets sell 45000 PSLs at an average of 10 grand each..(who knows what it will be). That's 450 million bucks. The Giants do the same. so they have 900 million plus the 300 million they borrowed from the NFL. That pretty much pays off the new stadium instantly. Why do they ALSO have to raise ticket prices 400% right out of the gate?
That's true, but our track record in the Mezz under Woody Johnson has been deplorable. When Leon Hess owned the team, his price increases were uniform across the board percentage-wise. And most years, the increases were just about in keeping with cost of living standards... maybe 5% at the most in some years. Consequently, during the year in which Leon Hess sold the team, my tickets were probably $60-$63. That seems to ring a bell. In the years since (under Woody) our increases have averaged about 10% per year. The tickets have doubled in that period of time (a 10% add-on will result in the principle doubling in 7.5 years). So this tells me that while everyone would like to THINK that the Jets would NEVER raise prices unreasonably, my experience and the history of the price hikes we've been slapped with tell me that this owner doesn't give two shits about as-raping his ticketholders. It's totally "buyer beware" with this whole program, let me tell you. Anyone who wants to think otherwise is going to be in for a rude awakening.
That does not matter since if they decide to implement PSLs for the UD or raise the price per seat to a outlandish amount then the seat owner can just say NO when the next renewal year comes around
Don't get me started. You're already igniting my afterburners. Among other things, I think the lawsuit should also compel Woody and Mara to provide a full accounting of the money. It sounds like the fans are footing the bill for the entire stadium. If the fans are paying for the stadium, why aren't we entitled to ownership in it? Shares of stock in the stadium? A sharing of the profits? What about other venues? What exactly are we paying for? If we're paying only for the "priviledge" of purchasing tickets, doesn't that sound like the biggest monopoly you've ever heard of, and aren't monopolies illegal? Total ream job.
