Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Oh, By The Way...

Don't worry about getting too cold if the Super Bowl committee approves the Giants' and Jets' bid for the 2014 game. Hand-warmers and heated seat cushions, as well as additional heating units in the concourses, are accounted for in the bid book.

I'd show up just for the hot seat cushion.



  1. I'm sure there is a psl attached to those hand warmers but dont worry..... its a good investment hahah ahahh ahahha

  2. Yeah, and don't forget the PLA you are gonna have to pay, say, 10K, to have the right to BUY the ticket in the first place. Cause sure as god made little green apples that is coming. We can argue about the amount...the licensing agreement to buy Super Bowl tickets is coming.

  3. JME - Super Bowl tickets are controlled by the League, not individual teams. The League GIVES tickets to the teams to sell or give away as they see fit. The League would not charge a PSL for Super Bowl tickets because it would endanger their anti-trust agreement. They wouldn't allow the teams to do it for the above reason and it would cut them out from the action. I was able to go to Super Bowl XXV and I remember that the Giants did NOT get 50% of the tickets. I believe it was in the high 30%, low 40% range. Same with Buffalo, which meant the League kept about 20% of the tickets for itself.
    Now, could the Super Bowl become a pay-per-view? Maybe, but given the huge ad revenues it generates, I would doubt that the NFL would ever go that route. They are greedy b**tards, not doubt, but they also aren't stupid enough to kill the golden goose. At over $1000 a seat and millions of dollars per commercial, they really don't need to charge a PSL. The current system makes them billions as is. The Giants charged a PSL because, quite frankly, they could. It may have enraged Wayno, but the simple economic reality is the stadium had a huge waiting list, Giants tickets have always been in demand, and, despite horrendous economic conditions, the stadium is over 98% sold out for as long as it stands. Is it fair? Well, if you believe supply and demand is fair, then, yes it is. If you feel the Giants owners owe their fans some consideration for decades of devout loyalty, then, no it is not. I'll let you and Wayno debate that one.

  4. Dweez115,

    You wrote: "The League would not charge a PSL for Super Bowl tickets because it would endanger their anti-trust agreement". I disagree with your anti trust assessment both in a legal sense, i.e. what is precedent?

    And in a political sense. i.e. what is possible?

    Yes, I am aware that the tickets are "controlled by the league". And it is the league that I suggest require the PSL. That is my prediction.

    The essence of big time sports today is "killing the golden goose". Just takes time.

    The fact that the Giant Stadium is sold out, or 98% there, is not the full story Dweeze. At least in my opinion. The full story involves, I would argue, the following. Giant tickets have come in the past few decades to been seen as a commodity. And a speculative one at that. The issue is less that the stadium sells out...than what the resale price is of the tickets. On the white market. The gray market. And the black market. That is the more accurate way to assess the value of Giant tickets, at a given point in time.

    I think big time sports are in trouble. They have peaked in the revenue earnings, as things now stand. They have to come up with dramatically new sources of revenue, from a shirking fan base. One can muster statistics to back up my point. And they can offer stats to challenge it. Only time will tell.

  5. JME - Arlen Spector threatened the NFL with revoking their anti-trust protection over the Pats video taping fiasco. So, legal precedent doesn't really come into play here. It's Congress, not the courts, that has the power to pull that string and we all know they play by their own rules with our money. My wife is an advertising exec. NFL is still a booming business. It is consider one the last "safe" vehicles to getting your ad seen by the increasingly fragmented viewing public. The money is still flowing freely, despite the economy and there are many signs that the economy is picking up. My wife has clients that are getting much more aggressive in their spending than they were last year. I'm not saying the economy is out of the woods yet, but certain people and businesses are making nice profits once again. Frankly, I don't see how your "shrinking fan base" applies to the NFL. The past Super Bowl set a record for the watched TV event in history. Doesn't sound like like they're in trouble to me. Could it all go south for the NFL? Sure. A meteor could slam into the planet killing us all, as well. I don't claim to have a window into the future. I can say, from an advertising standpoint, the NFL is on rock solid ground. A few franchises, Jacksonville being the most obvious one, are having difficulties. Relocating to a larger media market would solve that problem and Jacksonville may very well be on it's way to greener pastures. A few poorly run franchises does not make the League, however. Today, the NFL is rolling money. Tomorrow? Well, like I said, I can't predict the future but it's hard to think a collection of billionaires will serious undermine an extremely valuable asset. Those billionaires always seem to find a way to hang unto their money while everyone else loses theirs.

  6. JME - I apologize. I re-read your post. You said a "shirking" fan base, not "shrinking". I misquoted you and I am sorry about that. The overall point of my post still stands, but it's unfair for me to misquote you in a discussion and use a misquote against your argument. My mistake.

  7. That is a considerate gesture dweeze, thank you. But by the way, I meant "shrinking" so you were correct in the first place.

    Now I owe you an apology because I am bringing up issues, and disagreeing with you, and I know I don't have the time to back up what my conclusions are. Which is unfair to you.

    I think the stats are there to raise questions regarding your general premise about the general long term health of the NFL. I think the TV revenues have peaked. I think the marketing has peaked. I think more than a few franchise are in trouble, but most of all, unless they expand the fan base OUTSIDE the US, they will have a shirking fan base to pull people in from. Kids are changing. Markets, as your wife seems to note, are fragmenting. Now, given that, even a shrinking market like the NFL, assuming I am correct in my assumption, is still a substantial target. Yes, she's right. And I may be wrong in my assumptions. But it is not really fair to disagree with you when I know up front I'm too busy to do the research to back up what I am arguing. So....we just got to agree to disagree. Respectfully.

    As to Specter....look, I'm attorney, taking away anti-trust protection is, at one level, always a litigation issue. But that said....I am not overly impressed with Arlen Specter. He simply made a fool out of himself, and he came off like a bully, threatening the NFL over something minor like the taping fiasco, as you call it.

    I have to take issue with one other thing you wrote when you noted: "I can't predict the future but it's hard to think a collection of billionaires will serious undermine an extremely valuable asset. " Have you viewed the Real Estate Market lately? Or the Financials? I would say those are prime examples of Billionaires undermining valuable assets.

  8. all this over the possibilty of a cold tush at super bowl 48. oh well Ernie, what else can I say but...oy vey azamir?