Jed York would sell SBL's will not sell PSLs

Originally posted by susweel:
If the team is gonna perform like this then they should pay us to watch.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:
I'm not looking to any SL. I just want to pay for my tickets, and that's it. I know this is a pipe dream in this day and age, but I hope this option will be available. And I also don't want to see another huge jump in ticket prices. I'll pay a little more for the new stadium seats, but if it's double or more, I'll stay home, or buy a ticket from the homeboys outside the stadium.

Same

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by valrod33:
this is old news

yes but I'm trying to get the word out because people are wasting their time debating if a PSL will sell or not, when the whole argument(s) is irrelevant if the organization wont even be using them.

It's pretty much the same thing, they just called it something different and adjusted some of the nuances.

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by rapid4:
What a guy, always looking out for the Faithful!

I'll be 29 in 2014, maybe I'll buy one hold onto it for 35 years and then sell it right before my retirement.

But then you would be old and bored and want to go to the games.
The 49ers should be good by then.

Whatever it is he wants to sell, he won't be able to sell enough after this season.

After this season, fans won't want to buy thousand-dollar SBL's and companies won't want to invest in us. York won't be able to prove to banks he can pay back loans because revenue from games will be so down because fans won't go to them.

Thus, the stadium deal collapses.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by valrod33:
this is old news

yes but I'm trying to get the word out because people are wasting their time debating if a PSL will sell or not, when the whole argument(s) is irrelevant if the organization wont even be using them.

It's pretty much the same thing, they just called it something different and adjusted some of the nuances.

...

It isn't the same thing. That is the entire point. You basically own the seat for any event held at the venue.

That is vastly superior to football only seating rights.

area49 talking about moving the team to LA in 5...4...3....2....1....

Originally posted by chico49erfan:
area49 talking about moving the team to LA in 5...4...3....2....1....

I hear Toronto has expressed interest

Shouldn't they call them BSLs

SBL's....

because you could be watching some moto cross in January...ear plugs included

Originally posted by danimal:
SBL's....

because you could be watching some moto cross in January...ear plugs included

or you could profit from your valuable asset and sell motocross tickets to a fan of the genre

that is the major difference...you aren't giving money to the team for other business ventures

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by valrod33:
this is old news

yes but I'm trying to get the word out because people are wasting their time debating if a PSL will sell or not, when the whole argument(s) is irrelevant if the organization wont even be using them.

It's pretty much the same thing, they just called it something different and adjusted some of the nuances.

...

It isn't the same thing. That is the entire point. You basically own the seat for any event held at the venue.

That is vastly superior to football only seating rights.

Some teams call them PSL's, some teams call them BSL's, some team call them CSL's, but for NFL fans discussing the topic, they're the same thing.

I know some offer bonuses that other's may not, but that's not what the debate is about. People who are against seat licensing are worrying about the SL part of it. They're complaining about having to buy a license in order to purchase season tickets to the football games. They're not complaining about not getting the first crack at the next Lady Gaga concert.

Originally posted by susweel:
If the team is gonna perform like this then they should pay us to watch.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by valrod33:
this is old news

yes but I'm trying to get the word out because people are wasting their time debating if a PSL will sell or not, when the whole argument(s) is irrelevant if the organization wont even be using them.

It's pretty much the same thing, they just called it something different and adjusted some of the nuances.

...

It isn't the same thing. That is the entire point. You basically own the seat for any event held at the venue.

That is vastly superior to football only seating rights.

Some teams call them PSL's, some teams call them BSL's, some team call them CSL's, but for NFL fans discussing the topic, they're the same thing.

I know some offer bonuses that other's may not, but that's not what the debate is about. People who are against seat licensing are worrying about the SL part of it. They're complaining about having to buy a license in order to purchase season tickets to the football games. They're not complaining about not getting the first crack at the next Lady Gaga concert.

I disagree with your take on it.

The article distinguishes the plan proposed by the 49ers from the traditional PSLs

Having to buy a "license" is the current PSL. It is a right that expires

The SBL offered by the 49ers is a full property right. It doesn't expire and you can pass it on.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by valrod33:
this is old news

yes but I'm trying to get the word out because people are wasting their time debating if a PSL will sell or not, when the whole argument(s) is irrelevant if the organization wont even be using them.

It's pretty much the same thing, they just called it something different and adjusted some of the nuances.

...

It isn't the same thing. That is the entire point. You basically own the seat for any event held at the venue.

That is vastly superior to football only seating rights.

Some teams call them PSL's, some teams call them BSL's, some team call them CSL's, but for NFL fans discussing the topic, they're the same thing.

I know some offer bonuses that other's may not, but that's not what the debate is about. People who are against seat licensing are worrying about the SL part of it. They're complaining about having to buy a license in order to purchase season tickets to the football games. They're not complaining about not getting the first crack at the next Lady Gaga concert.

I disagree with your take on it.

The article distinguishes the plan proposed by the 49ers from the traditional PSLs

Having to buy a "license" is the current PSL. It is a right that expires

The SBL offered by the 49ers is a full property right. It doesn't expire and you can pass it on.

The article is just repeating what York said. I heard him say the same thing on NFL network a few months ago and later the guys on there also said it's just another form of PSLs.

I understand the differences. My response is regarding the idea that people are wasting their time debating whether PSLs will sell or not because they are technically SBLs, and not PSLs. I'm saying for those people debating, it's the same thing. Their concern is about having to purchase a seat license before buying season tickets. Especially the people who have already been buying season tickets. They just want to simply pay the price for the tickets. I know that's probably no longer an option, but that's their complaint whether it's SBLs or PSLs.

Although I live in SoCal, I would buy season tickets but not if it requires any of the current forms of SLs.