Jed York would sell SBL's will not sell PSLs

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

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.

That I can agree with

It is a premium paid on top of ticket prices to generate revenue for stadium construction

at least we were 4-0 in the preseason

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

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.

That I can agree with

It is a premium paid on top of ticket prices to generate revenue for stadium construction

wont the SBLs have an appreciated value? Its like an investment.

When a PSL you just lose a butt load of money.

Originally posted by global_nomad:

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

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.

That I can agree with

It is a premium paid on top of ticket prices to generate revenue for stadium construction

wont the SBLs have an appreciated value? Its like an investment.

When a PSL you just lose a butt load of money.

That is my take on it. You pay the premium but keep the rights to it.

It isn't a temporary right that keeps sucking money out of you.

Without knowing any business/legal loopholes it sounds fair to me

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.

Originally posted by Tigerlaw:

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

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

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.

That I can agree with

It is a premium paid on top of ticket prices to generate revenue for stadium construction

I know. Seat license have too much potential for profit for teams to discard them. I've actually wrestled with the idea myself. I might buy season tickets next year (if there's football) although I live in SoCal. It would be a nice getaway 8 times/year. But whenever we get the new stadium, I'll be done buying season tickets because I don't wanna pay for the license. I'll just go to a couple of games per year instead.

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

Can you refute what I'm saying. And, please, don't say "IT WON'T HAPPEN !!!1!1!eleven". This team is not going to win more than 4 games. Barrows himself said it, this team is collapsing.

Who's going to invest in this team? Sure, some die hard fans might, and that's admirable. But a sizable portion of them are pissed off and won't give the Yorks a penny. Meanwhile, no company is going to want to invest in a 4-12-or-worse team.

Add to that the fact that the Stadium Authority, according to sports economist Roger Noll, has a good possibility of going bankrupt. Add to that the fact that we don't know how much the Yorks are willing to pay if the stadium ends up being worth more than they think it will be. Add to that the fact that, due to the labor dispute, the NFL may not be able to give the 49ers the money they promised. Add to that the fact that Ed Roski is willing to build a brand new stadium from his own cash and just needs a team. Add to that the fact that the Wassermans, long-time-friend of the Yorks, is also planning on building a stadium in downtown LA, right next to LA Live and the Staples center.

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

Originally posted by area49:

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

Can you refute what I'm saying. And, please, don't say "IT WON'T HAPPEN !!!1!1!eleven". This team is not going to win more than 4 games. Barrows himself said it, this team is collapsing.

Who's going to invest in this team? Sure, some die hard fans might, and that's admirable. But a sizable portion of them are pissed off and won't give the Yorks a penny. Meanwhile, no company is going to want to invest in a 4-12-or-worse team.

Add to that the fact that the Stadium Authority, according to sports economist Roger Noll, has a good possibility of going bankrupt. Add to that the fact that we don't know how much the Yorks are willing to pay if the stadium ends up being worth more than they think it will be. Add to that the fact that, due to the labor dispute, the NFL may not be able to give the 49ers the money they promised. Add to that the fact that Ed Roski is willing to build a brand new stadium from his own cash and just needs a team. Add to that the fact that the Wassermans, long-time-friend of the Yorks, is also planning on building a stadium in downtown LA, right next to LA Live and the Staples center.

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

Anyone mind answering this questions? Everytime I bring it up, the thread gets eerily silent? Is it because people know I'm right?

Originally posted by area49:

Originally posted by area49:

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

Can you refute what I'm saying. And, please, don't say "IT WON'T HAPPEN !!!1!1!eleven". This team is not going to win more than 4 games. Barrows himself said it, this team is collapsing.

Who's going to invest in this team? Sure, some die hard fans might, and that's admirable. But a sizable portion of them are pissed off and won't give the Yorks a penny. Meanwhile, no company is going to want to invest in a 4-12-or-worse team.

Add to that the fact that the Stadium Authority, according to sports economist Roger Noll, has a good possibility of going bankrupt. Add to that the fact that we don't know how much the Yorks are willing to pay if the stadium ends up being worth more than they think it will be. Add to that the fact that, due to the labor dispute, the NFL may not be able to give the 49ers the money they promised. Add to that the fact that Ed Roski is willing to build a brand new stadium from his own cash and just needs a team. Add to that the fact that the Wassermans, long-time-friend of the Yorks, is also planning on building a stadium in downtown LA, right next to LA Live and the Staples center.

How can you not see the writing on the wall?

Anyone mind answering this questions? Everytime I bring it up, the thread gets eerily silent? Is it because people know I'm right?

Anyone? Did I hit a nerve?