Skins sell ticket straight to scalpers

For the season and with two seats. I always sit in the lower level when i go and really do not know much about the club level. Im just fishing for feedback before i shell out $1400 for seats.

221 is good section..right on the 50 it looks like. Not sure what those run but 1400 seems pretty good for two seats. Check to make sure they aren't obstructed.

221 is good section..right on the 50 it looks like. Not sure what those run but 1400 seems pretty good for two seats. Check to make sure they aren't obstructed.

Too me it seems like you get more blue collar football fans in the lower level then you would in the club seating. I'll probaly buy them if i can't find anything in the lowers. Thanks for the help.

The Skins should take a lesson from the Cubs, another storied organization plauged with recent mediocrity, yet with a loyal and affluent fan base. The cubs sell all or most of their seat for certain non-season ticket sections, through a website, but it is open access.

Anyone can get online, wait in a lottery, and if you get picked you can buy tickets for any game/any section available, up to a certain limit on the number of tickets. With this approach, the brokers can bid, but are limited on the number of tickets, and true fans know they can get in the online lottery and have a great shot at getting a couple of seats to a game.

The team wins because they actually sell more tickets this way than forcing bundled tickets on people. The Redskins approach is similar to what Enron was doing in the energy sector, they are hiding the true demand by creating an opaque market. The fact they tell you that there is a huge waiting list is just a way to artificially bolster demand in order to coerce folks into buying bundled tickets.

What is interesting is that I think the strategy is actually counter productive. There are a ton of folks out there who would gladly pay the team to see a game who stay home due to the difficulty in procuring single game tickets. Its money left on the table that they could be getting. Instead they have to sell to brokers who really don't want all the tickets they have to buy and end up offloading many at less than face value, or not at all. Notice that for most home games there are many many seats unoccupied, yet the team claims a sellout?!?!? Those are tickets that got sold to a broker but not to a fan...if a fan's butt ain't in the seat, it isn't a sell out.

between EBAY and STUBHUB .. isn't everything scalped these daysMy thoughts, exactly.

The Skins should take a lesson from the Cubs, another storied organization plauged with recent mediocrity, yet with a loyal and affluent fan base. The cubs sell all or most of their seat for certain non-season ticket sections, through a website, but it is open access.

Anyone can get online, wait in a lottery, and if you get picked you can buy tickets for any game/any section available, up to a certain limit on the number of tickets. With this approach, the brokers can bid, but are limited on the number of tickets, and true fans know they can get in the online lottery and have a great shot at getting a couple of seats to a game.

The team wins because they actually sell more tickets this way than forcing bundled tickets on people. The Redskins approach is similar to what Enron was doing in the energy sector, they are hiding the true demand by creating an opaque market. The fact they tell you that there is a huge waiting list is just a way to artificially bolster demand in order to coerce folks into buying bundled tickets.

What is interesting is that I think the strategy is actually counter productive. There are a ton of folks out there who would gladly pay the team to see a game who stay home due to the difficulty in procuring single game tickets. Its money left on the table that they could be getting. Instead they have to sell to brokers who really don't want all the tickets they have to buy and end up offloading many at less than face value, or not at all. Notice that for most home games there are many many seats unoccupied, yet the team claims a sellout?!?!? Those are tickets that got sold to a broker but not to a fan...if a fan's butt ain't in the seat, it isn't a sell out.
Well if the demand is so dam high for single game tickets why could I not sell the tickets to games I did not want to go to for my cost? The demand is not what people say it is and I think its because they have been just 50/50 for so long. Heck I had to sell a couple for about half what I paid and thats one of the reason I gave them up because I could not sell my extra tickets. I know this was true for a bunch of people because we have discussed it here several times. My seats were in the upper deck about 10 rows up on the 45 yard lines and I thought they where great seats. So its not like I was stuck in bad seating.

Redskins take initiative on report regarding ticket lawsuits (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/02/redskins-take-initiative-on-report-regarding-ticket-lawsuits/)

In our view, the fact that most of the suite and club seat holders didn't default is irrelevant to whether the Redskins ultimately chose to file lawsuits against those who did. The reality is that the Redskins have an apparent business practice of filing suit to enforce the contracts, when legal action is deemed necessary. The fact that the Redskins don't have to do it very often in relation to the entire ticket base is irrelevant.

Does anyone think that this is an odd statement? Doesn't every business at least reserve the right to file a lawsuit to enforce legal contracts, especially when legal action is deemed necessary. If they deem legal action necessary, would not filing a lawsuit be a reasonable step towards starting that legal action.

Are we to think that only the Redskins would be so crass as to file a lawsuit against someone who is broaching their legal obligation?

And PFT says it is a non-issue that only 20-30 of these lawsuits are filed in a given year, but doesn't that mean that maybe 1 in 10,000 corporate entities face this threat.

Sorry this is a ridiculous story.

221 is good section..right on the 50 it looks like. Not sure what those run but 1400 seems pretty good for two seats. Check to make sure they aren't obstructed.

I'm not entirely sure but I think any seats beyond row 12-14 of the 200 level might be obstructed because of the beams supporting the upper deck. If it's not that it's something similar.

Does anyone think that this is an odd statement? Doesn't every business at least reserve the right to file a lawsuit to enforce legal contracts, especially when legal action is deemed necessary. If they deem legal action necessary, would not filing a lawsuit be a reasonable step towards starting that legal action.

Are we to think that only the Redskins would be so crass as to file a lawsuit against someone who is broaching their legal obligation?

And PFT says it is a non-issue that only 20-30 of these lawsuits are filed in a given year, but doesn't that mean that maybe 1 in 10,000 corporate entities face this threat.

Sorry this is a ridiculous story.
I'm with you. It seems the Post is really reaching for a story hear. I'm not even sure what i should be so called upset over. They made the appropriate actions to fix the problem. Plus i hear this happened months ago so why are we just hearing about it now? We need to support this team not try to find ways to tear it down. HTTR!

Washington Redskins React to Fans' Tough Luck With Tough Love - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203887.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009090104025)

If you want your loyalty tested, read this article.

I love my team however the owner and his heartless business practices disgust me. I hope he is proud of himself and how he has treated the regular people who support the team which became great under someone else's watch.

Dan Snyder, you are a rich man but the end of the day, you are piece of shit. Congratulations on cursing people's lives with the football team that gave them so much joy when you weren't around.