Businessman Ken Lanci suing Cleveland Browns, NFL over PSL contract vi (1 Viewer)

[DawgPoundNJ]

Businessman Ken Lanci suing Cleveland Browns, NFL over PSL contract violation from lockoutPublished: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:45 PM Updated: Friday, March 25, 2011, 7:57 AMBy Pat Galbincea, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer John ####z / The Plain DealerWhen NFL players went on strike in 1982, reducing the season from 16 to nine games, no teams had PSLs. CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Businessman Ken Lanci sued the NFL, the Cleveland Browns and the league's 31 other teams on Thursday, aiming to save the upcoming football season.Lanci says in the suit that the lockout violates his private seat license contract with the Browns and jeopardizes his right to watch a full season of home games. He filed the suit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, asking the court to prohibit the lockout that threatens to cancel the 2011-12 NFL season ( lancisuit.pdf ). The 60-year-old Gates Mills resident said he is hoping to make a difference with this suit. Allison Carey, The Plain DealerKen Lanci"What tipped the scale for me is the labor issue between millionaires and billionaires and the fact they can't settle it when the country is in a recession," he said. "Worse yet, they have to rub this in our faces." Lanci, a self-made millionaire, ran as an independent for Cuyahoga County executive last year in a mostly self-financed campaigned. He lost. But he became known, partly for his thick white hair that contrasted with the orange glow he gained from his personal tanning bed. Lanci owns PSLs for 10 seats in Club Section C3, which he bought in October 1997. People pay an upfront fee for a PSL that gives them the right to purchase a season ticket for a specific seat in a stadium. He is in effect saying the lockout robs him of his right to watch games this season because his PSL contract gives him "exclusive use and possession" of 10 specified seats in Cleveland Browns Stadium. On March 10, the NFL Players Association decertified itself as the union for NFL players to avoid a strike, but a day later team owners nonetheless announced the lockout. "The owners and players can't decide what to do with an extra billion dollars between them," Lanci said. "I have the perfect solution. That one billion should go to all cities that gave them money to build football stadiums they couldn't afford to build. This would give these cities badly needed tax relief." The lawsuit caught the Browns by surprise, said Neal Gulkis, a team spokesman. He said he could not comment until the organization could study the suit. Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the NFL, said the league would look into the matter further before commenting. Lanci, who owns Graphic Arts Centre and is chairman and chief executive officer of Consolidated Graphics Group Inc. in Cleveland, is hoping to be a voice for the average Browns fan. "The players union says NFL owners are offering what will be the worst deal ever," Lanci said. "Really? How about being unemployed? Right now they get 59 percent of the take, and that's beyond comprehension. "These players should get on their knees and be grateful they can play a game for that kind of money when so many others in this city and country are hurting financially." When NFL players went on strike in 1982, reducing the season from 16 to nine games, no teams had PSLs. Today, 20 of the 32 teams -- mostly those with newer stadiums -- offer 'them. The Carolina Panthers were the first team to offer them in 1993, and the Browns followed upon their return to the NFL in 1999 after a three-year absence. Lanci does not consider his lawsuit frivolous. He is seeking at least $75,000 in damages. But does he really expect to win the suit? "At the end of the day, [Cuyahoga County Common Pleas] Judge John P. O'Donnell has to judge if this suit has merit or not," he said, "but I'm sure the court of public opinion will certainly weigh in on this."

 

[griff321]

Outstanding! I HATE the PSL to begin with, but if it can now be used as a tool against ownership then it's exactly what they deserve.

 

[Please See Mine]

His suit may have merit, but his rhetoric is hollow and smacks of nothing but a publicity campaign.

 

[fatness]

Never argue with a guy with an orange glow.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Good for him

 

[Warpig]

Now we need other PSL owners to join in. Perhaps a class action lawsuit against all the teams that offer PSL's? Good God I hope this catches on!

 

[lynx4ben]

Never argue with a guy with an orange glow.

No kidding. That was quite odd in the article.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wouldn't any PSL agreement be drafted to provide for the possibility that football won't be played for some reason, be it labor dispute, national emergency, stadiums crushed by giant guinea pigs previously kept at bay by pan flute music, or whatever? I mean, the owners are giant tools, but they're not morons, and I assume that their well-paid attorneys aren't either.

 

[phillyphan07]

Wouldn't any PSL agreement be drafted to provide for the possibility that football won't be played for some reason, be it labor dispute, national emergency, stadiums crushed by giant guinea pigs previously kept at bay by pan flute music, or whatever? I mean, the owners are giant tools, but they're not morons, and I assume that their well-paid attorneys aren't either.

I guess he is arguing that the owners are choosing not to have games.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let me see if I understand this right:

1) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to pay for their new stadiums with PSLs

2) Fans hate hate hate when owners force fans to pay full price for pre-season games

3) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up ticket prices

4) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up parking lot spaces

5) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to get government aid to build new stadiums

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? I find it hard to understand how PSLs aren't the *least* obnoxious of all of these moves. Essentially, it's having the richest people who most want tickets to pay for new stadiums. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

bake sale

 

[Ksquared]

Quit throwing logic into an emotionally driven thread. Although I do find the PSL stuff over the top the way it is implemented with certain teams.

 

[scoobygang]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

 

[GridironMenace]

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about the owner of the team pay for it themselves? There's a novel idea. Listen, I'm 100% behind the owners in this CBA mess, however, the owners own a business. They should be responsible for the upkeep for said business. If the owners can't afford to write a check for a new stadium, then they need to take out a loan for it. If they can't take out a loan for it, then they can't afford the business. If any person can't afford their own business, I don't want to be forced to pay for it with my tax dollars.

 

[GridironMenace]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about the owner of the team pay for it themselves? There's a novel idea. Listen, I'm 100% behind the owners in this CBA mess, however, the owners own a business. They should be responsible for the upkeep for said business. If the owners can't afford to write a check for a new stadium, then they need to take out a loan for it. If they can't take out a loan for it, then they can't afford the business. If any person can't afford their own business, I don't want to be forced to pay for it with my tax dollars.

They did pay for it themselves. Now they're trying to get a return on their investment. It's just like buying a lawnmower and then mowing people's lawns for money. If a stadium costs $1.4 billion dollars to make, how can you blame owners for jacking up ticket prices and/or asking for PSLs?

 

[Fantasy Strategist]

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about the owner of the team pay for it themselves? There's a novel idea. Listen, I'm 100% behind the owners in this CBA mess, however, the owners own a business. They should be responsible for the upkeep for said business. If the owners can't afford to write a check for a new stadium, then they need to take out a loan for it. If they can't take out a loan for it, then they can't afford the business. If any person can't afford their own business, I don't want to be forced to pay for it with my tax dollars.

They did pay for it themselves. Now they're trying to get a return on their investment. It's just like buying a lawnmower and then mowing people's lawns for money. If a stadium costs $1.4 billion dollars to make, how can you blame owners for jacking up ticket prices and/or asking for PSLs?

I agree with the owners being able to charge whatever they want for tickets/psl's...we can choose to pay or not...however...when they bought the team they had a stadium...now they want a new one...why should we pay for it...in your example...I have a lawn mowing business...I want a new and improved lawn mower so I can earn more money...I doubt my present clients will pony up for the new mower...I will be responsible for it...as should the owners...now if my clients were willing to buy me a new mower I sure as heck would let them though...we could go on and on about me having the only mower in town and I will threaten to never mow their lawn if they don't buy me a new but I think you get my point...

 

[Joe Summer]

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums?

Can someone explain exactly *why* teams should build new stadiums?

 

[scoobygang]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

 

[Sidewinder16]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

I figured GridironMenace had been around long enough.Or am I the one that should know better? Was that a purposeful softball?

 

[scoobygang]

A PSL is simply an exclusive right to purchase season tickets each year a team is in a stadium. The lockout doesn't impair that right. It's not as if they're making him purchase season tickets for the 2011/12 season. But even if the lockout somehow did impair his contractual right, the contractual remedy would be damages, not an injunction ending the lockout.

 

[GridironMenace]

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about the owner of the team pay for it themselves? There's a novel idea. Listen, I'm 100% behind the owners in this CBA mess, however, the owners own a business. They should be responsible for the upkeep for said business. If the owners can't afford to write a check for a new stadium, then they need to take out a loan for it. If they can't take out a loan for it, then they can't afford the business. If any person can't afford their own business, I don't want to be forced to pay for it with my tax dollars.

They did pay for it themselves. Now they're trying to get a return on their investment. It's just like buying a lawnmower and then mowing people's lawns for money. If a stadium costs $1.4 billion dollars to make, how can you blame owners for jacking up ticket prices and/or asking for PSLs?

You made a post and asked this question: "Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums?" It made it seem like you were in the camp that thinks stadiums should be wholly (or partially) subsidized by the tax payer. Miscommunication perhaps.Moving on, I don't blame owners one bit for asking for PSL's or jacking ticket prices up. If people are willing to pay for it, then more power to them. In any business, the consumer always ends up paying for the business' mortgage, employees, upkeep, advertising, etc... IE, practically any commercial you see on tv is paid for by the consumer. The cost is just cooked into the price of the product. You just don't see exactly how management decides to split up the revenue. With PSL's, owners could eliminate PSL's altogether and jack up the cost of the tickets and/or the concessions to make up for it. People only complain because they see where it is being used. Small price to pay to support your team. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to participate.

 

[GridironMenace]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary. If you haven't read the small print on the Cleveland Browns' PSL agreement, then you and your law degree don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

 

[cobalt_27]

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums?

Can someone explain exactly *why* teams should build new stadiums?

Umm...I dunno. Maybe because fans like them and, thus, new stadiums generate more revenue?

 

[cobalt_27]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary.

Your law degree states that his suit doesn't have merit? I doubt that.

 

[GridironMenace]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary.

Your law degree states that his suit doesn't have merit? I doubt that.

I think you should probably read the entire thread instead of just looking at the last post. Scooby is saying that. Not me.

 

[scoobygang]

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary. If you haven't read the small print on the Cleveland Browns' PSL agreement, then you and your law degree don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

PSLs are pretty standard. As is contract law. Not to mention the implications on labor law. In order to win what the story says he's asking for a court would have to find:1. A contract granting the exclusive right to purchase tickets to NFL games for the the life of a stadium is breached by not having a 2011/12 season, despite the fact that the guy hasn't paid a dime for tickets to the 2011/12 season yet;2. That he couldn't mitigate the damage from the breach (such as by selling his PSL);3. That monetary damages can't compensate him for the breach; and 4. That his contract voids the labor rights conferred to the owners under Norris-LaGuardia Act, entitling him to the relief of an injunction stopping the lockout.Using your law degree, you might ponder whether if breach of contract were a sufficient basis to allow a court to enjoin the individual owners, the players' association would even need an antitrust theory. There are hundreds of NFL players under contract to individual teams right now.

 

[GridironMenace]

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary. If you haven't read the small print on the Cleveland Browns' PSL agreement, then you and your law degree don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

PSLs are pretty standard.

So you haven't read the Cleveland Browns PSL small print. I'm glad we straightened that out.

 

[cobalt_27]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary.

Your law degree states that his suit doesn't have merit? I doubt that.

I think you should probably read the entire thread instead of just looking at the last post. Scooby is saying that. Not me.

The answer, "the one hanging on my wall" is an appropriate response to the question "What law degree do you have...?"But, to say that the "[law degree] on my wall states the contrary" would be a little unusual, don't you think? Unless, of course, you didn't mean what you said.

 

[GridironMenace]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary.

Your law degree states that his suit doesn't have merit? I doubt that.

I think you should probably read the entire thread instead of just looking at the last post. Scooby is saying that. Not me.

The answer, "the one hanging on my wall" is an appropriate response to the question "What law degree do you have...?"But, to say that the "[law degree] on my wall states the contrary" would be a little unusual, don't you think? Unless, of course, you didn't mean what you said.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

 

[scoobygang]

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary. If you haven't read the small print on the Cleveland Browns' PSL agreement, then you and your law degree don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

PSLs are pretty standard.

So you haven't read the Cleveland Browns PSL small print. I'm glad we straightened that out.

This is true. I haven't. Maybe you could explain what clause, in whatever size print, would grant him the right to ask a court to enjoin not only the Cleveland Browns, but other teams that aren't even signatories to the contract to end the lockout. Because, you know, presumably you can't have an NFL football game with only one team. There are lots of legal questions I can answer without reading the contract. Because there are obligations that a contract between a businessman and the Cleveland Browns cannot create.

 

[cobalt_27]

His suit may have merit . . .

This seems doubtful.

Why? What law degree do you have to make such an (un)biased claim?

The one hanging on my wall.

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary.

Your law degree states that his suit doesn't have merit? I doubt that.

I think you should probably read the entire thread instead of just looking at the last post. Scooby is saying that. Not me.

The answer, "the one hanging on my wall" is an appropriate response to the question "What law degree do you have...?"But, to say that the "[law degree] on my wall states the contrary" would be a little unusual, don't you think? Unless, of course, you didn't mean what you said.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Christo]

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary. If you haven't read the small print on the Cleveland Browns' PSL agreement, then you and your law degree don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

PSLs are pretty standard.

So you haven't read the Cleveland Browns PSL small print. I'm glad we straightened that out.

Perhaps you should explain what you think may be in the small print of the Browns' PSLs that would give a Browns' PSL holder the right to have a court order all 32 NFL teams to abandon the lockout.

 

[Bri]

if people can sue over the temperature of coffee then cmon,

 

[MAC_32]

Never argue with a guy with an orange glow.

No kidding. That was quite odd in the article.

He has a personalized and custom made tanning bed in his house. I know, odd duck.Anyway, the guy is an attention whore so this could be BS but from what I'm hearing he's doing this in hopes that others follow suit because he just wants football next year. He really doesn't care about winning or losing the suit.

 

[griff321]

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary. If you haven't read the small print on the Cleveland Browns' PSL agreement, then you and your law degree don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

PSLs are pretty standard.

So you haven't read the Cleveland Browns PSL small print. I'm glad we straightened that out.

Perhaps you should explain what you think may be in the small print of the Browns' PSLs that would give a Browns' PSL holder the right to have a court order all 32 NFL teams to abandon the lockout.

Not that it exists anywhere in the contract, but his contention is the other teams conspired with the Browns to bring about this lockout thus violating his contractual agreement. Whether that holds water or not remains to be seen.

 

[Christo]

Uh huh. Well, the one on my wall states the contrary. If you haven't read the small print on the Cleveland Browns' PSL agreement, then you and your law degree don't have a clue on what you are talking about.

PSLs are pretty standard.

So you haven't read the Cleveland Browns PSL small print. I'm glad we straightened that out.

Perhaps you should explain what you think may be in the small print of the Browns' PSLs that would give a Browns' PSL holder the right to have a court order all 32 NFL teams to abandon the lockout.

Not that it exists anywhere in the contract, but his contention is the other teams conspired with the Browns to bring about this lockout thus violating his contractual agreement. Whether that holds water or not remains to be seen.

Well, as has been explained, even if the contract was breached an injunction prohibiting the lockout is not a proper remedy.

 

[BoltBacker]

Let me see if I understand this right:1) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to pay for their new stadiums with PSLs2) Fans hate hate hate when owners force fans to pay full price for pre-season games 3) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up ticket prices4) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up parking lot spaces5) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to get government aid to build new stadiumsCan someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? I find it hard to understand how PSLs aren't the *least* obnoxious of all of these moves. Essentially, it's having the richest people who most want tickets to pay for new stadiums. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

I think in many cases fans would prefer saving $ on items 1-5 and simply watching games in the "old" stadiums. Who wants all these new stadiums? Usually it's the team owner. Why do you think that is? Because his profits will be higher in the new stadium. I would assume that means items 1-5 do more than simply offset the cost of the new stadium.

 

[CalBear]

Let me see if I understand this right:1) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to pay for their new stadiums with PSLs2) Fans hate hate hate when owners force fans to pay full price for pre-season games 3) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up ticket prices4) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up parking lot spaces5) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to get government aid to build new stadiumsCan someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? I find it hard to understand how PSLs aren't the *least* obnoxious of all of these moves. Essentially, it's having the richest people who most want tickets to pay for new stadiums. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about this: Don't pay for new stadiums unless you can afford them. There was nothing wrong with the Meadowlands, for example, other than that the owners didn't have as many ways to skim off revenue from games played there.

 

[GridironMenace]

Let me see if I understand this right:1) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to pay for their new stadiums with PSLs2) Fans hate hate hate when owners force fans to pay full price for pre-season games 3) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up ticket prices4) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up parking lot spaces5) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to get government aid to build new stadiumsCan someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? I find it hard to understand how PSLs aren't the *least* obnoxious of all of these moves. Essentially, it's having the richest people who most want tickets to pay for new stadiums. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about this: Don't pay for new stadiums unless you can afford them. There was nothing wrong with the Meadowlands, for example, other than that the owners didn't have as many ways to skim off revenue from games played there.

Owners need newer stadiums to create more revenue. Larger stadiums. More skyboxes. More 'premium' seating. More concessions. It all creates revenue. Why do they need that revenue? To pay the absurd cost of doing business, which is: paying for players' absurd salaries, paying for ever increasing TV deals, etc...

 

[CalBear]

Owners need newer stadiums to create more revenue. Larger stadiums. More skyboxes. More 'premium' seating. More concessions. It all creates revenue. Why do they need that revenue? To pay the absurd cost of doing business, which is: paying for players' absurd salaries, paying for ever increasing TV deals, etc...

It is symbolic of the extent to which you understand the issues that you think the owners pay for TV deals.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Owners need newer stadiums to create more revenue. Larger stadiums. More skyboxes. More 'premium' seating. More concessions. It all creates revenue. Why do they need that revenue? To pay the absurd cost of doing business, which is: paying for players' absurd salaries, paying for ever increasing TV deals, etc...

It is symbolic of the extent to which you understand the issues that you think the owners pay for TV deals.

Yeah...that's an embarrassing mistake.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Owners need newer stadiums to create more revenue. Larger stadiums. More skyboxes. More 'premium' seating. More concessions. It all creates revenue. Why do they need that revenue? To pay the absurd cost of doing business, which is: paying for players' absurd salaries, paying for ever increasing TV deals, etc...

Salaries are based on revenues, not the other way around.

 

[GregR_2]

A PSL is simply an exclusive right to purchase season tickets each year a team is in a stadium. The lockout doesn't impair that right. It's not as if they're making him purchase season tickets for the 2011/12 season. But even if the lockout somehow did impair his contractual right, the contractual remedy would be damages, not an injunction ending the lockout.

It is exactly like they're making him purchase season tickets for the 2011/12 season. Because they are.http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ef1de4/printable/giants-jets-among-teams-adjusting-ticket-plans-in-lockout

The New York Giants and Jets, Carolina Panthers and Buffalo Bills made changes to their season-ticket plans this year to account for the lockout, with the Giants taking the biggest step by not requiring renewals until the labor stoppage ends.

According to a survey of all 32 teams by The Associated Press, 17 teams aren't changing ticket prices, nine are raising them, four are decreasing them -- and two are both raising and decreasing, depending on seat location.

I can tell you from personal experience that Texans PSL owners still have to pay full price for their tickets on the same schedule. All they've done is issue a statement about when refunds will be available if games don't happen. It includes interest paid back to the ticket holder, but not for the full time their money was sitting in the team's bank account.

You don't buy the season tickets, you lose your PSL. If they don't amend the season tickets, you're stuck buying them for the time being.

Go lawsuit.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Owners need newer stadiums to create more revenue. Larger stadiums. More skyboxes. More 'premium' seating. More concessions. It all creates revenue. Why do they need that revenue? To pay the absurd cost of doing business, which is: paying for players' absurd salaries, paying for ever increasing TV deals, etc...

It is symbolic of the extent to which you understand the issues that you think the owners pay for TV deals.

Or that the "absurd salaries" are based on a percentage of the revenue thus increasing revenue is not actually necessary to help pay for those salaries, since it just increases them.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let me see if I understand this right:1) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to pay for their new stadiums with PSLs2) Fans hate hate hate when owners force fans to pay full price for pre-season games 3) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up ticket prices4) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up parking lot spaces5) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to get government aid to build new stadiumsCan someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? I find it hard to understand how PSLs aren't the *least* obnoxious of all of these moves. Essentially, it's having the richest people who most want tickets to pay for new stadiums. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about this: Don't pay for new stadiums unless you can afford them. There was nothing wrong with the Meadowlands, for example, other than that the owners didn't have as many ways to skim off revenue from games played there.

How frequently should teams build stadiums? I understand that there's rarely a "need" for a new stadium in any given year, but eventually, you have to rebuild those things. Fans prefer new stadiums to older ones, and new stadiums help attract non-NFL events, too.The old Meadowlands was okay, but the new one is a whole lot nicer. I'm glad they upgraded.

 

[Mello]

Let me see if I understand this right:

1) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to pay for their new stadiums with PSLs

2) Fans hate hate hate when owners force fans to pay full price for pre-season games

3) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up ticket prices

4) Fans hate hate hate when owners jack up parking lot spaces

5) Fans hate hate hate when owners try to get government aid to build new stadiums

Can someone explain exactly *how* owners should pay for new stadiums? I find it hard to understand how PSLs aren't the *least* obnoxious of all of these moves. Essentially, it's having the richest people who most want tickets to pay for new stadiums. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Stadiums cost a billion dollars -- how should they be paid for?

How about this: Don't pay for new stadiums unless you can afford them. There was nothing wrong with the Meadowlands, for example, other than that the owners didn't have as many ways to skim off revenue from games played there.

How frequently should teams build stadiums? I understand that there's rarely a "need" for a new stadium in any given year, but eventually, you have to rebuild those things. Fans prefer new stadiums to older ones, and new stadiums help attract non-NFL events, too.The old Meadowlands was okay, but the new one is a whole lot nicer. I'm glad they upgraded.

IMO, when fans stop attending games due to the stadium's condition. Fans preferring a new stadium or not is meaningless if they are still selling out the stadium they hate. The real reason owners are building new stadiums is to make more money. The want to create more and fancier luxury type boxes and fit in more fans. That's a valid reason, but I'm not going to cry if an owner can't afford to build a new stadium for his own best interest. Perhaps if this is an issue, the owners could get together, form a stadium rebuilding project plan and devote shared revenues to specific teams over years to build new stadiums. Oh wait, that would require the owners to agree on how to share their revenue and they can't. Much easier to try to grab the money from the players.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The old Meadowlands was okay, but the new one is a whole lot nicer. I'm glad they upgraded.

Actually I'm not at all impressed with the New Meadowlands Stadium. There are a lot of things I preferred about the old stadium - although in fairness it is more modern.

 

[RUSF18]

The old Meadowlands was okay, but the new one is a whole lot nicer. I'm glad they upgraded.

Actually I'm not at all impressed with the New Meadowlands Stadium. There are a lot of things I preferred about the old stadium - although in fairness it is more modern.

Went there four times last year. What a waste of money. Only bright spot (shockingly) are the scoreboard suites.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The old Meadowlands was okay, but the new one is a whole lot nicer. I'm glad they upgraded.

Actually I'm not at all impressed with the New Meadowlands Stadium. There are a lot of things I preferred about the old stadium - although in fairness it is more modern.

Went there four times last year. What a waste of money. Only bright spot (shockingly) are the scoreboard suites.

I can't beleive they paid 2 billion dollars for that thing. Aesthetically, from the oustide it looks like a giant air conditioner filter, inside its very generic right down to the solid grey seats throughout the entire stadium. No character at all.Scoreboards aren't all that impressive, other than now there is 4 instead of 2. It's a nightmare logistically getting in an out (something that was not a problem in the old stadium).The only appealing thing seems to be the "club seats" where you can walk out onto a section of the field and at $25K PSLs and $800 a pop for those tickers, I don't see myself getting to take advantage of that.