Originally Posted by Cowperson
The Redskins are suing for nine years of tickets - even if you believe they're at a discount - then turning around and re-selling the same tickets to others.
They're double-dipping.
In that sense, you can't help but believe in a sold out stadium that suing fans could be a profit centre if done on a limited, quiet basis.
The article details many other stories besides the one of the lady I quoted above, including accusations of altering documents to extend the number of years committed.
The Post story also contained this information:
Donovan said other teams sue their fans. "I don't know of any pro football team that doesn't," he said.
But spokesmen for the following National Football League teams said they do not sue their fans over season ticket contracts: Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Green Bay Packers, Houston Texans, Jacksonville Jaguars, New York Giants and Jets, Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans.
The New England Patriots have sued multiyear premium ticket holders. A Chicago Bears spokesman said, "In rare instances, we have sued."
Officials with the Arizona Cardinals, Denver Broncos, Minnesota Vikings, Dallas Cowboys, Miami Dolphins, San Francisco 49ers and Indianapolis Colts declined to comment on the query. Other teams did not respond.
Officials of most Washington area sports franchises that have season ticket accounts said they generally avoid such lawsuits. Nate Ewell, spokesman for the National Hockey League's Washington Capitals, said he could not think of a reason to sue a ticket holder. When a season ticket holder fails to make payments, the team cancels the tickets and resells them.
Generally, I would think if you were a Flames season ticket holder making monthly pre-authorized payments and you ceased payment let's say in November, with payments to April still due . . . . . . how would they react?
A popular Flames team with a lengthy waiting list could re-distribute those tickets immediately.
An unpopular Flames team with a half-empty building might sue but probably wouldn't.
Generally, the Redskins seem to be suing people who do not have the means to pay rather than disaffected fans.
You can be legally right while being morally wrong. And it just gives off a bad vibe in any event.
Lastly, I would remark that anyone has to be a little crazy to sign a ten year contract for the monies we're talking about for a sports team . . . . . that just seems ludicrous in any event, although great for the team.
I'm sure the Flames could get away with it right now just as they wouldn't have had a hope as late as the summer of 2003.
Cowperson
|