Originally Posted by SAR I
Why are we even talking about this?
The Jets have sold at least 85% if not 90% of all PSL's and Club seats in the building. The PSL process has been a big success. Jets fans are thrilled to finally have seats that they want, Jets management is happy the building is full of loyal Jets fans willing to pay the price that was necessary. Fans who couldn't afford PSL's have their choice of affordable upper deck seats or very affordable seats off of the aftermarket and StubHub.
The New York Post was looking for a story yesterday. It's nice that they made it look like there's this mass exodus of fans from MetLife Stadium but that's simply not true. Every year since 1985, 1% to 2% of the Jets season ticker holder base churned. What's happening now is no different.
I was just responding to a comment on how stadiums should be financed by a surcharge vs. a PSL.
As you have noted in the past, the PSL is simply a price increase paid by STH as a lump sum rather than over a number of years. While a surcharge might be a "better" option for some fans, it is a horrible option for teams and state agencies building stadiums.
Surcharges would require:
1) Borrowing a huge sum of money;
2) Paying interest on that huge sum of money;
3) Relying on the continued demand for tickets to see the game live and the continued ability of the fans to pay for tickets over the next 15-30 years; and
4) In the event of a work stoppage, the owners are left holding the bag on stadium interest payments.
By forcing STH's to prepay for the stadium with PSL's, the stadium was paid for w/o much debt to the teams or to the state.
Look at the stadium the Florida Marlins play in: that thing is empty and will be empty for years. Can you imagine what their "surcharge" income would be? Would that surcharge income pay for a beer at the stadium?