If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   Walking to the Superbowl? No. Tailgating? No. What?   (extramustard.si.com) divider line 103
    More: Asinine, NFL, Super Bowl, New Jersey, Uber, New Jersey Transit, corporate lawyer, closed systems, Roger Goodell  
•       •       •

2585 clicks; posted to Sports » on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:17 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-29 12:45:52 PM

AdamK: bearcats1983: I've always said I'd go if the Bengals made it (lol, I know I know ), however, it's to the point where the expense outweighs the experience. Sure, I could spend $5k-$10k on a weekend for the game OR I could watch the game with friends/family and then go take an awesome weeks long vacation with that same budget. The decision kind of makes itself there.

yep, even if my team ever made it to the super bowl again, i wouldn't go


I'm a lifelong Seahawks fan and I've only been to 4 games in my life and only paid for one of them myself (2011 Wildcard round game vs. NOLA). Even being a huge fan, I can't justify dropping upwards of $50/person for a shiatty seat. Not to mention concessions and the hassle of getting to/from games in downtown Seattle. Sucks when I could go to 5-10 Mariners games for the price of 1 Seahawks game.
 
2014-01-29 12:46:12 PM

Wadded Beef: Yep. Imagine paying out the wazoo for the experience and your team loses. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a positive, bucket-list experience, but given the costs was it really worth it?


Honestly, I want someone to define for me what the "Super Bowl experience" is to the fan. To me, over 90% of it is just the game itself.

Ok, so, you have some free (or at least I think some of them are) concerts in the area during the lead up. After that, I really draw a blank other than just "explore the host city". I like traveling, but if I'm dropping close to $10k just to get tickets and lodging, the rest of my time is going to be a fun game of "how cheaply can I eat and drink until gameday".
 
2014-01-29 12:46:42 PM

nekom: NickelP: i really don't care. if you are paying thousands for your ticket that is a minor fee. the super bowl has been out of the reach of the average fan for a good while.

Not literally out of reach, just more than the average person would spend
.  If I had wanted to, I could be there.  I could part with 5 grand, I just won't for that purpose.  Not worth it to me, even if my team were in it.


No, it's actually out of reach.  If you could part with 5 grand for anything including major medical expenses where of farking course you would spend it, then you are doing better than the majority of the country.  You are above average.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
 
2014-01-29 12:49:50 PM

Killer Cars: Honestly, I want someone to define for me what the "Super Bowl experience" is to the fan. To me, over 90% of it is just the game itself.


The Super Bowl experience to me is sitting in a living room with a dozen or so of my best friends eating greasy food an drinking beer and having a great time. As well as playing catch in the street before the game and at halftime.

/I know that's not what you meant
//At least there is shiat to do in NYC on the days around the game. I can't imagine what people were doing in Jacksonville a few years ago (besides the usual strippers, hookers, drugs, booze)
 
2014-01-29 12:53:09 PM

Shame Us: I can't imagine what people were doing in Jacksonville a few years ago (besides the usual strippers, hookers, drugs, booze)


The funny thing is, to me, even though NYC is otherwise fun as hell, the prohibitive ticket costs to the Super Bowl in the first place means if I were ever to go, I'd probably rather go to a place like Jacksonville.

Sure, Jax is boring with not much to do (comparatively) but at least you can get drunk with other fans leading up the game pretty cheaply.
 
2014-01-29 12:53:45 PM

Shame Us: Sucks when I could go to 5-10 Mariners games for the price of 1 Seahawks game.


Since they have 10x the games, that seems reasonable.

/and you'd probably see as many wins by the home team in one Seahawks game compared to 5-10 Mariners games
 
2014-01-29 01:04:41 PM

Killer Cars: Wadded Beef: Yep. Imagine paying out the wazoo for the experience and your team loses. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a positive, bucket-list experience, but given the costs was it really worth it?

Honestly, I want someone to define for me what the "Super Bowl experience" is to the fan. To me, over 90% of it is just the game itself.

Ok, so, you have some free (or at least I think some of them are) concerts in the area during the lead up. After that, I really draw a blank other than just "explore the host city". I like traveling, but if I'm dropping close to $10k just to get tickets and lodging, the rest of my time is going to be a fun game of "how cheaply can I eat and drink until gameday".


Well said. My experience with free concerts is you get what you pay for. Nothing against the performers, I'm just not sure who's going to stay long to watch "New Country Music Star Du Jour" or Right Said Fred.
 
2014-01-29 01:10:35 PM
I'd go to the SB, as long as someone else was footing the bill.  Otherwise, home is where the beer is colder and cheaper, the TV is bigger and the loo is mere feet away.

Staying home in the cave because fark you Roger Goodell, that's why.
 
2014-01-29 01:14:56 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Watch The Damned United for some attractive football.


Oh, it's not on Netflix streaming... I'll see if my local library has it the next time I'm there.
 
2014-01-29 01:16:19 PM

FrancoFile: I think that's a regionalism. "any more" = "nowadays" to some people.


It is indeed. You are correct.
 
2014-01-29 01:17:29 PM
The NFL is noon-profit after they pay Roger Goodell $30 million a year right?
 
2014-01-29 01:19:39 PM

Killer Cars: Shame Us: I can't imagine what people were doing in Jacksonville a few years ago (besides the usual strippers, hookers, drugs, booze)

The funny thing is, to me, even though NYC is otherwise fun as hell, the prohibitive ticket costs to the Super Bowl in the first place means if I were ever to go, I'd probably rather go to a place like Jacksonville.

Sure, Jax is boring with not much to do (comparatively) but at least you can get drunk with other fans leading up the game pretty cheaply.


Went to NOLA a couple of years ago for the Final Four and that was a blast.  To me that was a real fan experience.  Seeing all the fans in thier colors and getting shiat faced in the French Quarter.  And holy shiat walking to and back from the game.  What a concept!

I'm a block away from "Super Bowl Boulevard" here in Manhattan and I have yet to see one Seahawk/Bronco jersey or hat.  The area is too big, and too spread out.

Just hold the damn thing in NOLA  every year.
 
2014-01-29 01:20:26 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: All this despite the fact that taxpayers have paid for a ridiculous, stupefying, unbelievable 68% of NFL stadium construction costs since 1923-a number that has risen astronomically in recent years despite a crippling recession and bankrupt state governments.


That's one of the reasons why I won't be watching the Super Bowl on Sunday. I'm done with a bunch of billionaires who don't mind players having their knees completely torn out (Bowman) but refuse to pay for the buildings those athletes get crippled in.

Fark the NFL. The owners and league are so worried about player health, they're going to add more games and more playoff games. Wheeeeeeeeee!

Enjoy the game. I hope you beat the spread. Me? I'm gonna watch some Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube and do some heavy duty cooking.


Thank you for the interesting rage quit of football. Does this also mean that you wont post in football threads, or does it just mean you will never watch football again?
 
2014-01-29 01:46:51 PM
Attendance is not mandatory, right?

So don't go.  Sounds like someone has a misconception about who makes the rules for their own event.

Entitled much?
 
2014-01-29 01:47:42 PM

nekom: NickelP: i really don't care. if you are paying thousands for your ticket that is a minor fee. the super bowl has been out of the reach of the average fan for a good while.

Not literally out of reach, just more than the average person would spend.  If I had wanted to, I could be there.  I could part with 5 grand, I just won't for that purpose.  Not worth it to me, even if my team were in it.


Which team do you own?
 
2014-01-29 01:50:16 PM

mikaloyd: TheShavingofOccam123: All this despite the fact that taxpayers have paid for a ridiculous, stupefying, unbelievable 68% of NFL stadium construction costs since 1923-a number that has risen astronomically in recent years despite a crippling recession and bankrupt state governments.


That's one of the reasons why I won't be watching the Super Bowl on Sunday. I'm done with a bunch of billionaires who don't mind players having their knees completely torn out (Bowman) but refuse to pay for the buildings those athletes get crippled in.

Fark the NFL. The owners and league are so worried about player health, they're going to add more games and more playoff games. Wheeeeeeeeee!

Enjoy the game. I hope you beat the spread. Me? I'm gonna watch some Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube and do some heavy duty cooking.

Thank you for the interesting rage quit of football. Does this also mean that you wont post in football threads, or does it just mean you will never watch football again?


Oh, I'll come back. When the season is reduced to protect players health, when tickets are affordable, when ESPN doesn't cherry-pick the best games for cable, when the Cardinals field a team that can make the playoffs (that might actually happen next year but the semi-annual second-squad opponent inflation might have played a factor on the Cards's late season performance) and when players aren't toted off the field regularly with career ending injuries due to lax enforcement of inadequate safety measures.

It's going to be a long long wait. Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube...
 
2014-01-29 01:51:01 PM

asmodeus224: Entitled much?


Who let that chick from Clueless in here?
 
2014-01-29 01:56:16 PM
My best friend and I have always said if the Vikings get back to the Super Bowl we'd go to the game, no questions asked. We recently amended this to "lets travel to the host city and hang out for the weekend" but only if it's in warm weather, preferably New Orleans.
 
2014-01-29 02:01:49 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Oh, I'll come back. When the season is reduced to protect players health, when tickets are affordable, when ESPN doesn't cherry-pick the best games for cable, when the Cardinals field a team that can make the playoffs (that might actually happen next year but the semi-annual second-squad opponent inflation might have played a factor on the Cards's late season performance) and when players aren't toted off the field regularly with career ending injuries due to lax enforcement of inadequate safety measures.


Enjoy your hiatus. Its a good thing netflix has so many titles, it might be awhile before that list is fixed.
 
2014-01-29 02:04:41 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: All this despite the fact that taxpayers have paid for a ridiculous, stupefying, unbelievable 68% of NFL stadium construction costs since 1923-a number that has risen astronomically in recent years despite a crippling recession and bankrupt state governments.


Well, I have not gone as far as you have but I appreciate you pointing that out. The absurdity of public dollars funding ANY of the costs for privately owned for profit professional sports has been a stick in my craw for a really long time. And I'm a huge NFL fan.
 
2014-01-29 02:13:44 PM

JohnBigBootay: TheShavingofOccam123: All this despite the fact that taxpayers have paid for a ridiculous, stupefying, unbelievable 68% of NFL stadium construction costs since 1923-a number that has risen astronomically in recent years despite a crippling recession and bankrupt state governments.

Well, I have not gone as far as you have but I appreciate you pointing that out. The absurdity of public dollars funding ANY of the costs for privately owned for profit professional sports has been a stick in my craw for a really long time. And I'm a huge NFL fan.


And the Bidwills threatened to leave Arizona if they didn't get a new stadium instead of having to play in Arizona State University stadium. So we built them a brand new stadium, gave them enormous concessions on income and taxes, then they sold the naming rights to the University of Phoenix. I was all for waving buh-bye and letting another team move here.
 
2014-01-29 02:18:28 PM

king of vegas: The NFL is noon-profit after they pay Roger Goodell $30 million a year right?


No, because the games don't start until 1PM.
 
2014-01-29 02:27:07 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: And the Bidwills threatened to leave Arizona if they didn't get a new stadium instead of having to play in Arizona State University stadium. So we built them a brand new stadium, gave them enormous concessions on income and taxes, then they sold the naming rights to the University of Phoenix. I was all for waving buh-bye and letting another team move here.


Every big city has their story. In Seattle the 4th (or whatever he is now) richest man in the world is seen as generous for kicking in a quarter of the construction budget on the stadium the city leases back to him for less than a million bucks a year. At least the city gets to keep the ticket, parking and concessions revenue. Oh, wait - no they don't. I'm not just picking on the locals - I'm a huge steeler fan. And If I lived in Pittsburgh I'd say the same thing to the rooneys. There's something really rotten about one of the most profitable entertainment franchises on the planet getting a subsidy for the facilities in which they stage their product. And like I always say, if it's so profitable for the city and great for the community and such a magnificent investment, why don't the rich guys build it themselves and keep all the money?
 
2014-01-29 02:31:53 PM

JohnBigBootay: TheShavingofOccam123: And the Bidwills threatened to leave Arizona if they didn't get a new stadium instead of having to play in Arizona State University stadium. So we built them a brand new stadium, gave them enormous concessions on income and taxes, then they sold the naming rights to the University of Phoenix. I was all for waving buh-bye and letting another team move here.

Every big city has their story. In Seattle the 4th (or whatever he is now) richest man in the world is seen as generous for kicking in a quarter of the construction budget on the stadium the city leases back to him for less than a million bucks a year. At least the city gets to keep the ticket, parking and concessions revenue. Oh, wait - no they don't. I'm not just picking on the locals - I'm a huge steeler fan. And If I lived in Pittsburgh I'd say the same thing to the rooneys. There's something really rotten about one of the most profitable entertainment franchises on the planet getting a subsidy for the facilities in which they stage their product. And like I always say, if it's so profitable for the city and great for the community and such a magnificent investment, why don't the rich guys build it themselves and keep all the money?


This is why the Sonics situation didn't work out. Seattle was sick of paying for stadiums after Safeco and CenturyLink (Seahawks Stadium at the time) and Stern and Bennett [spits] showed up and wanted an arena that wasn't even 20 years old completely replaced with a very minimal amount of cash coming from ownership. Both knew that it wouldn't happen and made ourageous demands for a deal so that the city/state would balk and they could say they moved the team from an inhospitable environment. So yeah...that's what happens when you go toe-to-toe with the pro leagues and refuse to cough up hundred of millions of dollars.
 
2014-01-29 02:37:22 PM

Shame Us: JohnBigBootay: TheShavingofOccam123: And the Bidwills threatened to leave Arizona if they didn't get a new stadium instead of having to play in Arizona State University stadium. So we built them a brand new stadium, gave them enormous concessions on income and taxes, then they sold the naming rights to the University of Phoenix. I was all for waving buh-bye and letting another team move here.

Every big city has their story. In Seattle the 4th (or whatever he is now) richest man in the world is seen as generous for kicking in a quarter of the construction budget on the stadium the city leases back to him for less than a million bucks a year. At least the city gets to keep the ticket, parking and concessions revenue. Oh, wait - no they don't. I'm not just picking on the locals - I'm a huge steeler fan. And If I lived in Pittsburgh I'd say the same thing to the rooneys. There's something really rotten about one of the most profitable entertainment franchises on the planet getting a subsidy for the facilities in which they stage their product. And like I always say, if it's so profitable for the city and great for the community and such a magnificent investment, why don't the rich guys build it themselves and keep all the money?

This is why the Sonics situation didn't work out. Seattle was sick of paying for stadiums after Safeco and CenturyLink (Seahawks Stadium at the time) and Stern and Bennett [spits] showed up and wanted an arena that wasn't even 20 years old completely replaced with a very minimal amount of cash coming from ownership. Both knew that it wouldn't happen and made ourageous demands for a deal so that the city/state would balk and they could say they moved the team from an inhospitable environment. So yeah...that's what happens when you go toe-to-toe with the pro leagues and refuse to cough up hundred of millions of dollars.


Isn't that sorta what Modell pulled in Cleveland?  He saw the Indians get a new stadium, the Cavs get a new arena, and the Rock and Roll all of Fame get built and said "where's mine?"
 
2014-01-29 02:37:33 PM

TeamEd: Ignore churches, because that's something else. After expenses non-profit colleges don't make profit. They may spend money on things we don't think are educational but the government does, but that's not profit.



I work for a 501(c)3 and we most certainly take in more in revenue than we spend in expenses. As our CEO is fond of saying, "Not for profit means that we do not distribute profits to an owner or shareholders, it does NOT mean we are not allowed to make more than we spend." Hell, we need it to get over the bad years, Any non-profit that operates as you suggest is one bad quarter away from dissolution.
 
2014-01-29 02:40:29 PM

BobCumbers: /sold our $75.00 face value tickets for $550.00, sunck in and made it back to Chicago with more money than we left with.


So you "snuck" in to a Super Bowl after scalping your tickets?

I smell burning pants.
 
2014-01-29 02:40:53 PM

Shame Us: This is why the Sonics situation didn't work out. Seattle was sick of paying for stadiums after Safeco and CenturyLink (Seahawks Stadium at the time) and Stern and Bennett [spits] showed up and wanted an arena that wasn't even 20 years old completely replaced with a very minimal amount of cash coming from ownership. Both knew that it wouldn't happen and made ourageous demands for a deal so that the city/state would balk and they could say they moved the team from an inhospitable environment. So yeah...that's what happens when you go toe-to-toe with the pro leagues and refuse to cough up hundred of millions of dollars.


That's why everyone should stand up and end this horseshiat. In 1995 David Stern called that 100 million dollar renovation 'state of the art'. fark those guys - they screw us because we let them screw us. I'd love to have the sonics back. But I don't think the city could pay one thin dime for the privilege. The day a rich guy comes in here and funds his own arena is the day I buy season tickets and donate the whole package to the boys and girls club up the street - feel absolutely free to call me on that if it comes to pass because I'd truly enjoy doing it. Until then they can all go fark themselves - I ain't paying to go to see live sports.
 
2014-01-29 02:45:46 PM

JohnBigBootay: Shame Us: This is why the Sonics situation didn't work out. Seattle was sick of paying for stadiums after Safeco and CenturyLink (Seahawks Stadium at the time) and Stern and Bennett [spits] showed up and wanted an arena that wasn't even 20 years old completely replaced with a very minimal amount of cash coming from ownership. Both knew that it wouldn't happen and made ourageous demands for a deal so that the city/state would balk and they could say they moved the team from an inhospitable environment. So yeah...that's what happens when you go toe-to-toe with the pro leagues and refuse to cough up hundred of millions of dollars.

That's why everyone should stand up and end this horseshiat. In 1995 David Stern called that 100 million dollar renovation 'state of the art'. fark those guys - they screw us because we let them screw us. I'd love to have the sonics back. But I don't think the city could pay one thin dime for the privilege. The day a rich guy comes in here and funds his own arena is the day I buy season tickets and donate the whole package to the boys and girls club up the street - feel absolutely free to call me on that if it comes to pass because I'd truly enjoy doing it. Until then they can all go fark themselves - I ain't paying to go to see live sports.


The kids at the boys & girls club would be as excited to go see a minor-league team or a college team, if not more. Especially because they could probably sit closer and wouldn't be slammed by the 140 decibel beer commercials.  Just sayin'.
 
2014-01-29 03:00:03 PM

under a mountain: Shame Us: JohnBigBootay: TheShavingofOccam123: And the Bidwills threatened to leave Arizona if they didn't get a new stadium instead of having to play in Arizona State University stadium. So we built them a brand new stadium, gave them enormous concessions on income and taxes, then they sold the naming rights to the University of Phoenix. I was all for waving buh-bye and letting another team move here.

Every big city has their story. In Seattle the 4th (or whatever he is now) richest man in the world is seen as generous for kicking in a quarter of the construction budget on the stadium the city leases back to him for less than a million bucks a year. At least the city gets to keep the ticket, parking and concessions revenue. Oh, wait - no they don't. I'm not just picking on the locals - I'm a huge steeler fan. And If I lived in Pittsburgh I'd say the same thing to the rooneys. There's something really rotten about one of the most profitable entertainment franchises on the planet getting a subsidy for the facilities in which they stage their product. And like I always say, if it's so profitable for the city and great for the community and such a magnificent investment, why don't the rich guys build it themselves and keep all the money?

This is why the Sonics situation didn't work out. Seattle was sick of paying for stadiums after Safeco and CenturyLink (Seahawks Stadium at the time) and Stern and Bennett [spits] showed up and wanted an arena that wasn't even 20 years old completely replaced with a very minimal amount of cash coming from ownership. Both knew that it wouldn't happen and made ourageous demands for a deal so that the city/state would balk and they could say they moved the team from an inhospitable environment. So yeah...that's what happens when you go toe-to-toe with the pro leagues and refuse to cough up hundred of millions of dollars.

Isn't that sorta what Modell pulled in Cleveland?  He saw the Indians get a new stadium, the Cavs get a new arena, a ...


Not quite.  IIRC, when the city got it in its head to build a new stadium, they went to Modell first and asked if he'd be the primary tenant.  He said no, because it would have meant that he could no longer sub-lease to the Indians like he had been doing for years; they would have been co-tenants or something like that.  So the city went down the hall to the Indians, who happily moved down E. 9th Street to their current baseball-only digs.
 
2014-01-29 03:01:55 PM

FrancoFile: The kids at the boys & girls club would be as excited to go see a minor-league team or a college team, if not more. Especially because they could probably sit closer and wouldn't be slammed by the 140 decibel beer commercials. Just sayin'.


Nice sentiment and the minors and small colleges are very fun outings in their own right... but no, I do not believe most would prefer it over MLB, NBA, NFL.
 
2014-01-29 03:08:18 PM
Where the fark are you going to walk FROM? Paramus Park mall?

If you're going to the game, you can take the train from Secaucus for $20... of course, the one and only parking lot there is ridiculously tiny and fills up almost every day, so you're going to have to park at another station... none of which have anything that resembles adequate parking for thousands of people.

Best bet is to park a Newark Airport and hop the train from there.

Actually, the best bet is to stay the fark home and watch the game on the teevee.
 
2014-01-29 03:11:01 PM

JohnBigBootay: The day a rich guy comes in here and funds his own arena is the day I buy season tickets and donate the whole package to the boys and girls club up the street - feel absolutely free to call me on that if it comes to pass because I'd truly enjoy doing it.


Well, they're unlikely to buy their own arena but they'll use an existing one - chances are decent that Seattle will have an AFL team within the next couple of years.

/tickets won't be as ridiculously cheap as Pittsburgh's are this year
//2 season tickets for $99 and they give you more stuff on top of that. That's $5.50/game! (9 games)
 
2014-01-29 03:16:52 PM

Chelle82: /Sold my Super Bowl tickets because there's no way I'm dealing with the mess at the stadium on Sunday.


At this point you couldn't give me Super Bowl tickets, and my team is playing in it.
 
2014-01-29 03:21:18 PM

Killer Cars: Granted, it's been awhile since I've been around there, but the Meadowlands area never struck me as a particularly walkable paradise.


It was lovely when the redskins played there.
 
2014-01-29 03:33:00 PM

CheatCommando: TeamEd: Ignore churches, because that's something else. After expenses non-profit colleges don't make profit. They may spend money on things we don't think are educational but the government does, but that's not profit.


I work for a 501(c)3 and we most certainly take in more in revenue than we spend in expenses. As our CEO is fond of saying, "Not for profit means that we do not distribute profits to an owner or shareholders, it does NOT mean we are not allowed to make more than we spend." Hell, we need it to get over the bad years, Any non-profit that operates as you suggest is one bad quarter away from dissolution.


Ya, i get that. It's just that "profit" means a specific thing. It becomes a much more complicated explanation to include all the ways non-profits can spend money or keep cash on hand without actually collecting profits. At the end of the day, it's still an accounting balancing act where revenues (and other forms of income) - expenses and cash on hand (and other liabilities) = 0.
The surplus revenue of a non-profit still must be spent on allowable expenses. Just because there's money left over, doesn't mean that money is profit.

/ A good way to think of the NFL is as a corporation with the teams in the role of trustees. When a normal corporation makes profit, the money is distributed to its trustees. Since this happens within the corporation, it makes sense that it is taxed there too.
When the league collects revenue in excess of expenses it distributes that money externally to the teams, which are separate entities. No profit is made by any internal parties, so no tax.
And, since the teams themselves are taxed there's not really an avoidance issue.
 
2014-01-29 03:34:58 PM
If the stars align and the 49ers make Super Bowl L, I'll see if I can make a couple of tickets work and go, but only because I could drive to the game* and not having to double or triple the expenses by paying for a hotel and travel expenses. Outside of that, I'm quite aware that I'll never go to a Super Bowl.

*: or whatever designated parking area they set up for the plebs to catch a shuttle to the stadium.

/Now, if the A's manage to get past Justin F'ing Verlander and get to the World Series...
 
2014-01-29 03:41:25 PM
Author really dislikes kale.
 
2014-01-29 03:48:17 PM
I'm having trouble generating any outrage. The Owl isn't for regular people.
 
2014-01-29 03:55:12 PM

nekom: NickelP: i really don't care. if you are paying thousands for your ticket that is a minor fee. the super bowl has been out of the reach of the average fan for a good while.

Not literally out of reach, just more than the average person would spend.  If I had wanted to, I could be there.  I could part with 5 grand, I just won't for that purpose.  Not worth it to me, even if my team were in it.


For the average fan it has been out of reach, now the rich fan sure they have not been affected at all.

But most NFL fans lean towards lower middle class and the NFL has left them behind years ago for luxury boxes and corporate partners.
 
2014-01-29 04:01:41 PM

nekom: NickelP:
plus about 5k in travel, lodging etc. not saying lots of folks can't drop 10k on this, just for most people a 10k vacation is probably a once in a lifetime event if that. anyhow my point was more that tacking $50 onto that pretty much means nothing.

Especially when 10K can buy you a HELL of a better vacation than New Jersey to watch a single football game.  Christ you could probably sail to Europe and back on that.


This topic actually came up during a drunken conversation this weekend.  We found that a round trip cruise to Europe (28 days sailing) actually can run you as little as 2k/person.
 
2014-01-29 04:22:17 PM

IAmRight: Well, they're unlikely to buy their own arena but they'll use an existing one - chances are decent that Seattle will have an AFL team within the next couple of years.


Seriously? I am all over that. I would absolutely love to go see some arena ball. I've been to plenty of major league sports but if I'm honest with myself as far as attending live events goes, I much prefer minor leagues and small colleges and even high school.

/please be in seattle and not on the east side...
 
2014-01-29 04:27:08 PM

JohnBigBootay: IAmRight: Well, they're unlikely to buy their own arena but they'll use an existing one - chances are decent that Seattle will have an AFL team within the next couple of years.

Seriously? I am all over that. I would absolutely love to go see some arena ball. I've been to plenty of major league sports but if I'm honest with myself as far as attending live events goes, I much prefer minor leagues and small colleges and even high school.

/please be in seattle and not on the east side...


I would definitely hit up an arena game or two for those prices.

I've had a hell of a lot of fun at minor league games and the beer is usually far more affordable.
 
2014-01-29 04:38:00 PM

Shame Us: JohnBigBootay: IAmRight: Well, they're unlikely to buy their own arena but they'll use an existing one - chances are decent that Seattle will have an AFL team within the next couple of years.

Seriously? I am all over that. I would absolutely love to go see some arena ball. I've been to plenty of major league sports but if I'm honest with myself as far as attending live events goes, I much prefer minor leagues and small colleges and even high school.

/please be in seattle and not on the east side...

I would definitely hit up an arena game or two for those prices.

I've had a hell of a lot of fun at minor league games and the beer is usually far more affordable.


I just like being able to park nearby, not spend my whole paycheck, get in and out quickly, and have some reasonable expectation of being fairly close to the action. I don't have crowd fear so to speak but I'm much more likely to want to go to a bluegrass festival with a couple thousand people than I am Lollapalooza or some horseshiat like that. Same thing. I'm much more likely to want to go see a band at a little bar than I am a giant theater. Same thing again.

Pro sports are awesome. On tv where they belong. I'm sort of wondering why they haven't just started staging all the games in airplane hangars in Nevada as it is. When  you look at how much revenue is tv-based it sort of makes you wonder why they don't just ditch the venues.
 
2014-01-29 04:48:37 PM

TeamEd: It becomes a much more complicated explanation to include all the ways non-profits can spend money or keep cash on hand without actually collecting profits. At the end of the day, it's still an accounting balancing act where revenues (and other forms of income) - expenses and cash on hand (and other liabilities) = 0.


Not quite. Emphasis mine.

Let's take as an example a group called Friends of the Library, Inc. It's a 501(c)(3) nonprofit (which means it has a federal tax exemption), organized to encourage the appreciation of literature and to raise money for the support and improvement of the local public library. It makes a profit from a lecture series featuring famous authors and from an annual volunteer-run sale of donated books.
Because these activities are educational and literary in nature, they do not jeopardize the group's tax-exempt status, and the proceeds from them are not taxable. The organization may use this income for its own operating expenses (including salaries for officers and staff) or for the benefit of the local library. What it cannot do is distribute any of the income to the nonprofit's officers, directors, or others connected with Friends of the Library.


A non-profit can make millions off mission-related activities and not pay taxes on it, as long as it keeps the money inside the organization. The key definition is whether or not the profit is distributed to officers, directors, or others connected with Friends of the Library, although even in that case the IRS has some rules allowing for performance bonuses for employees that help generate that profit. The P and L statement has nothing to do at all with whether or not you maintain your exempt status.
 
2014-01-29 04:51:14 PM

under a mountain: Just hold the damn thing in NOLA  every year.


That's what I keep saying. New Orleans handles a Super Bowl without even breaking a sweat. About the only problem is the exodus that Monday at the airport.
 
2014-01-29 04:51:53 PM

mjohnson71: under a mountain: Just hold the damn thing in NOLA  every year.

That's what I keep saying. New Orleans handles a Super Bowl without even breaking a sweat. About the only problem is the exodus that Monday at the airport.


EDIT: just fix the power grid at the Superdome.
 
2014-01-29 05:22:37 PM

CheatCommando: TeamEd: It becomes a much more complicated explanation to include all the ways non-profits can spend money or keep cash on hand without actually collecting profits. At the end of the day, it's still an accounting balancing act where revenues (and other forms of income) - expenses and cash on hand (and other liabilities) = 0.

Not quite. Emphasis mine.

Let's take as an example a group called Friends of the Library, Inc. It's a 501(c)(3) nonprofit (which means it has a federal tax exemption), organized to encourage the appreciation of literature and to raise money for the support and improvement of the local public library. It makes a profit from a lecture series featuring famous authors and from an annual volunteer-run sale of donated books.
Because these activities are educational and literary in nature, they do not jeopardize the group's tax-exempt status, and the proceeds from them are not taxable. The organization may use this income for its own operating expenses (including salaries for officers and staff) or for the benefit of the local library. What it cannot do is distribute any of the income to the nonprofit's officers, directors, or others connected with Friends of the Library.

A non-profit can make millions off mission-related activities and not pay taxes on it, as long as it keeps the money inside the organization. The key definition is whether or not the profit is distributed to officers, directors, or others connected with Friends of the Library, although even in that case the IRS has some rules allowing for performance bonuses for employees that help generate that profit. The P and L statement has nothing to do at all with whether or not you maintain your exempt status.


Yeah, I'm trying to say exactly what you said, but I'm rusty.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the argument against the NFL being non-profit ignores that the league doesn't take any profits to tax (and likely wouldn't even if it were a for-profit entity). Surpluses are not "profits" when you can't distribute them to benefit internal trustees.

And, since the NFL distributes its surpluses *externally* to the teams that money *is* taxed anyway.
 
2014-01-29 07:39:10 PM
Why would anyone walk to the Meadowlands? It's not exactly the most feasible thing to do even under normal circumstances.
 
2014-01-29 07:59:44 PM

Demetrius: NFL needs to lose their damn tax exemption. Fast.

Hey, Congress...you keep biatchin' about needing extra cash....


More appropriately, they need to lose their antitrust exemption
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report