[St. Loser Fan]

Per game?

http://stubhubcenter.production.carbonh ... 9eea22.pdf

$100 for everything close. $40 for remote lots.

[Rams the Legends live on]

I wouldn't cry too hard for the owners.

GB reported $441 million in revenue for last year.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 417355001/

And then there's the whole asset appreciation thing which is going pretty good...

Asset appreciation is nice if any of them chose to sell until then it could serve to borrow against.

Which I also don't believe anyone is crying for the owners. However the fact remains saying 14 billion does give a false picture because it is the overall. Players are paid well and I would venture to say their percentage of cost for labor is higher than the norm in most businesses. Unless of course we get into agrarian ventures which will have high labor cost as well since it labor intensive.

If I recall labor statistics show if a employee is making 70k a year owners typically pay out 88k a year for that employee not only for his wages but mandated government programs, half of Social Security and medicare and to also include other gov mandates.

Owners carry the majority of the cost they have to pay the travel expenses and last I was reading LA is the most expensive town for a visiting team they have to pay out $441 dollars a night per person for anyone who makes the trip with the team.

Fact is they are profiting and the last time a owner didn't she moved the team to St. Louey. So they are profiting is just we as fans on boards like this when we say they made 14 billion or 13 billion it paints a false image of what is actually going into their pockets.

The capitol appreciation really came up meaningless during the latest move when we watched Stan be able to push his plan because he had actual cash rather just on paper value like SD and Oak.

Which he we all know actually made his billions and has companies continuing to do so vs the other two owners who inherited.

Personally I would rather be the largest shareholder of Walmart and make my money passively and not have any of the headache or over head. Or hold shares in any good company that pays good distributions and the generous tax breaks uncle Sam allows by making money this way.

So I agree I don't believe the owners are hurting but I do believe their is a gap among the owners. The self made are in a better position than the inheritors. I would venture to say Arthur Blank makes more from what he owns of Home Depot than he ever will off the Falcons. Which I also believe that holds true for owners like him in that position.

So are they hurting, no. Do they and will they pass on any additional cost to us fans, yes. Does this mean that many fans can't afford the game day experience, again yes.

Which I was reading the delay in the Inglewood stadium is gonna cost Stan 150 million a year in lost revenue for each year. Which the delay they assume will also mean higher cost of building. So I was reading that some PSL's could cost as much as 175k -225k for the honor to buy a $400 dollar seat. That of course for now is all speculation. However when all is said and done I do believe LA will set the record for the cost of a PSL.

[Rams the Legends live on]

That last sentence is funny.

It's popular but too expensive for a lot of folks. The other reasons I mentioned before have a lot to do with it to. The combo effect is what we have.
It must not be as popular as it once was since the stadiums aren't filling up. Or is it just the live game day experience isn't as popular?

I have been to one game in my lifetime Hack and for me is not the cost that keeps me from going but the speed of the game.

I am a Cards fan so most years if I have the time I catch the Cards when they play the Rockies. I prefer to watch baseball at the stadium because I can follow it. Football I don't enjoy as much there because I do end up missing stuff and while they may replay some plays. I found at home I do have the best seat and can rewind and watch over anything I missed.

I know some folks have mentioned on here they go and also record the game so they can go back and watch what they missed. So not sure what the percentage of fans like me would be and how it affects filling the seats. I just know I will go watch baseball but stay home for football and is all because of the speed of the game and how much my senses can keep up with.

[Elvis]

So are they hurting, no. Do they and will they pass on any additional cost to us fans, yes. Does this mean that many fans can't afford the game day experience, again yes.

Which I was reading the delay in the Inglewood stadium is gonna cost Stan 150 million a year in lost revenue for each year. Which the delay they assume will also mean higher cost of building. So I was reading that some PSL's could cost as much as 175k -225k for the honor to buy a $400 dollar seat. That of course for now is all speculation. However when all is said and done I do believe LA will set the record for the cost of a PSL.

This part i disagree with. The market sets prices. Costs determine profitability. Why would anyone charge less and make less money if they could charge more and make more? Kroenke will raises as much money as he can with PSL's regardless of stadium costs, same for naming rights...

[dieterbrock]

I turn down tickets to the giants/jets all the time. Even if the tickets are free.
Going to a game to me means missing a whole day with my family.
Not worth it.
Of course my favorite team plays in LA and I don't want to miss their game either...

[St. Loser Fan]

You just know the owners have dollar signs in their eyes at the thought of Amazon, Apple and/or Google entering in as main line exclusive bidders for TV rights.

I'm not talking about the current Thursday night model but a world where the only place you can watch a game is via your Apple TV or Amazon Fire.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ights.html

They'll have to put a bib on Jerry Jones because he'll be drooling so much.

[Rams the Legends live on]

This part i disagree with. The market sets prices. Costs determine profitability. Why would anyone charge less and make less money if they could charge more and make more? Kroenke will raises as much money as he can with PSL's regardless of stadium costs, same for naming rights...

Oh I very much agree the market will set prices. I believe it does now to a degree. However in a normal market you have competition at every conceivable point. We don't have that here. Like a cartel that has split up the territory amongst it's lords that is what the NFL has done.

Absent competition they keep raising prices until they finally see enough push back or they price their users out. So it is not so much the market conditions setting the price here but how much are ya willing to pay.

Normal markets ya have someone always wiling to do it for less. We don't have that here. We have a monopoly where they are pricing your need for a fix to how much money you can possibly shell out.

[dieterbrock]

If they could accurately account for streaming, red zone, internet scanning etc, I guarantee viewership is up, way up.

[Hacksaw]

In Los Angeles, what is the average total cost for a man to take his son to the game?

It depends on which team and where you sit but the parking can be up to $100, tickets up to $200 for Rams premium seats (at face value), I've heard up to $750 for Chargers premium seats, food and drink around $25, and this is before the PSL discussion.

The cheap seats, bringing your own snacks and water and staying out of the parking lots makes it far more reasonable of course.

Going 1st rate is doable but prohibitive for many budgets.

[Hacksaw]

I don't get think the wealth of the owners has anything to do with it. Do people stop buying iPhones because Tim Cook is a billionaire? Do people stop using Google because Sergey Brin and Larry Page are super wealthy?

I also don't think that player salaries bother people. Sometimes in unique situations but not in general.

I think that the hyper partisan environment is exacerbated by certain individuals interjecting politics where it shouldn't belong. The same thing is happening to Hollywood right now. Look at their business which is also declining. Businesses can't take sides without understanding the impact on their revenue from the side they didn't pick. The NFL "hardcore" fans likely are mostly patriotic and don't appreciate the on field antics. The NFL, by allowing it, has taken a side.

Combine all of this with the fact that people cannot get their faces out of their mobile screens and you have a trend.

Just MHO.

I also believe the big screen, total access, cold ones in your own box caters to the aging hardcore fan. It's nice to stay home and watch. Saving bucks in the process.
The cost of the game is always a factor. The point about big salaries is a contributing factor,, not the sole reason.

As dieter pointed out, I too don't think the game is less popular, it's just going to games and paying big bucks has lost some of it's luster for many. Not me though.

The protesting activism of some of the players and subsequent support of the league has definitely soured many on football. At the local high school there were even some kids mimicking Kaepernick's movement. 1/2 the Browns team did the 'SSBanner' protest. That is getting out of hand and imo has no place on the field.