Redskins sue season ticket holders

[Cowperson]

This looks like amazing arrogance . . . . .

Last year, Hill's real estate sales were hit hard by the housing market crash, and she told the team that she could no longer afford her $5,300-a-year contract for two loge seats behind the end zone. Hill said she asked the Redskins to waive her contract for a year or two.

The sales office declined.

On Oct. 8, the Redskins sued Hill in Prince George's County Circuit Court for backing out of a 10-year ticket-renewal agreement after the first year. The team sought payment for every season through 2017, plus interest, attorneys' fees and court costs.

Hill couldn't afford a lawyer. She did not fight the lawsuit or even respond to it because, she said, she believes that the Bible says that it is morally wrong not to pay your debts. The team won a default judgment of $66,364.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Cowperson

[Jason14h]

The reason a team offers a 10 year season ticket package is to ensure revenue in case there is a downturn in the economy, etc! I'm sure she saved a bunch off the face value of these tickets by entering into such an agreement.

They have every right to sue her. The fact that she didn't even attempt to fight or show up makes me believe she probably didn't take much time to talk to the team and work out another arrangement.

[Bobblehead]

But the Redskins have always stated how they have a mammoth waiting list for season's tickets.

While I don't think they should let anyone ditch their contract, there does need to be some way to make this work for both of them.

And if she is forced to pay this amount she had better get those tickets. If they are resold the 'Skins will be double dipping.

There was also an article today about how some Redskins staffers were redirecting tickets to resellers.

For more than 70 years, the Washington Redskins have boasted that they have sold out every game. Seats are so scarce, the team says, that the waiting list for general admission season tickets has 160,000 names on it.

But the reality is that those who want tickets can often find them online through ticket resellers such as StubHub. And in recent years, the Redskins ticket office itself has sold tickets into this secondary market, making it easier for fans of opposing teams to invade FedEx.

Thousands of general admission tickets were sold to brokers, who resold them on the secondary market, often at higher-than-retail prices, according to interviews and internal Redskin documents. These were often tickets to the very seats that Redskins fans have waited years to get.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The reason a team offers a 10 year season ticket package is to ensure revenue in case there is a downturn in the economy, etc! I'm sure she saved a bunch off the face value of these tickets by entering into such an agreement.

They have every right to sue her. The fact that she didn't even attempt to fight or show up makes me believe she probably didn't take much time to talk to the team and work out another arrangement.

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

[Da_Chief]

They need all the money they can get to pay Haynesworth's contract. Every bit will help.

On a serious note, this is more of a principal issue than the money. If they allow one person to do it than more will line up. Nice to have a wait list and all but in the end what if you dont get all of them to buy in a bad economy.

I can favor her too, they will re-sell the tickets and get double the money.

I just hope this was a show and behind the scenes she didn't have to pay it.

[Bobblehead]

That was kind of why I linked that other story - you would think fans may be able to scalp the tickets and cover their costs. If the team does it I can't see how they would have any moral high ground to prevent the practice. And I realize the 'Skins aren't actually scalping, but they knowingly sold to firms that were selling for higher than face value, and continue to do so.

[burn_baby_burn]

You would think the fans in question could just put the tickets on Stub Hub and even make a little money. Maybe they are unaware that is even an option. Unless they need to pay for the tickets upfront in full?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

You would think the fans in question could just put the tickets on Stub Hub and even make a little money. Maybe they are unaware that is even an option. Unless they need to pay for the tickets upfront in full?

Good points . . . . . although, if they're like the Flames, your monthly payments would start, I think, in June, with the hockey season still months away.

If it's a popular team, you can get away with it.

If it's the 2002-03 Flames, you'd have no hope.

Cowperson

[Dion]

The Redskins claim to have a waiting list of over 160,000 fans waiting for tickets. I don't know how true this is, but it did take me around five years to get offered my tickets.

In case you're wondering, I didn't accept. First off, it felt like signing away my soul to the devil, and second, they wanted a non-refundable $100 deposit per seat (I would need at least two) and then they tell you what seats were available.

So theoretically, I pay my $200 and then I'd get my seats, but what if they were ones I couldn't afford. Then that $200 is gone for nothing. I had always thought if my name came up I wouldn't be able to pass it up. Well, I was wrong. It was quite easy to throw that letter in the garbage, and after reading the Post today, I'm glad.

Now, if the waiting list is so long, why the lawsuits? Just sell them to someone else. D.C. is a football town, and if the Caps and the lowly Nats can resell their lost season tickets, I find it hard to believe the Redskins would have a problem.

The lawsuits bother me and make me sick to my stomach, but what really bothers me is that after Danny Boy wins these suits, he then resells the seats!

Let me write that again: after he wins the suits, he resells the seats!

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...e-you-in-court

[rubecube]

Snyder has been one of, if not THE scumbag owner of the league for a long time.

[valo403]

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

Do oyu have evidence of this double-dipping? Unless this was heard by a judge who didn't go to law school that isn't happening. A basic tenet of contract law is that the result places the parties into the same position they would have been absent breach. This suit would have sought enforcement of the contract, which would be a forced purchase.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by valo403

do oyu have evidence of this double-dipping? Unless this was heard by a judge who didn't go to law school that isn't happening. A basic tenet of contract law is that the result places the parties into the same position they would have been absent breach. This suit would have sought enforcement of the contract, which would be a forced purchase.

rtfa

the post has documented 16 tickets for individual games that were taken from sued fans and resold by the redskins. The tickets, forfeited by five fans, were bought by an online broker, asc ticket co. Of gaithersburg, according to a printout from the redskins ticket system. Some of those sued complained that the redskins had "double-dipped" -- reselling the tickets while obtaining judgments against them for defaulting on the contracts.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

rtfa

Wow, well that's just plain fataed. I'm not sure how a Judge allowed that to take place, it goes against the basic concepts of contract law. It's possible there was a forfeiture clause in the contract, but the resale negates the damages they sued for. Absolutely puzzling.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do oyu have evidence of this double-dipping? Unless this was heard by a judge who didn't go to law school that isn't happening. A basic tenet of contract law is that the result places the parties into the same position they would have been absent breach. This suit would have sought enforcement of the contract, which would be a forced purchase.

Here's something that might interest you.

Richard Glaub submitted this question through The Washington Post's Facebook fan page: I would like to ask, from a legal standpoint, how the Redskins can double-dip? How can they sue people, and win judgments, while at the same time, sell their tickets?

James Grimaldi: Donovan said that it would be absurd to freeze the seats while the litigation is pending.

Germantown, Md.: My question is this. If something signs for 5 years at the club level. Then they default on their contract. The Skins rightfully go after them for that money or whatever. Meanwhile, the Skins sell those seats again under a new contract. Right? Does this mean they "could" make more out of it? Not saying they do. Just saying they could, right?

James Grimaldi: The teams believes it is well within its rights to resell the tickets.

Arlington Va.: Did you get to talk to lawyers about the legality regarding having people pay for tickets that are then resold to others? I know it is a penalty for reneging on the contract, but essentially it is the same thing. I would be interested to know if there are legal issues involved here. It's a similar issue with an apartment lease, and I don't believe you can charge the previous tenant for the lost apartment charges if someone else signs a new lease.

James Grimaldi: The attorney quoted in the story -- Alan Silverberg -- argued just what you are saying, ie, that holding the seats, or the suites, is akin to a landlord-tenant case, regardless of what the contract says. If a tenant fails to pay rent and is evicted, the landlord must try to rent the property to someone else before going after the tenant for the full damages. Silverberg argued that on behalf of his client in pretrial discussions and the Redskins conceded the point. But Donovan said the concession was not and admission -- he said it was prudent rather than spend money to litigate the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090202622.html

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by valo403

Wow, well that's just plain fataed. I'm not sure how a Judge allowed that to take place, it goes against the basic concepts of contract law. It's possible there was a forfeiture clause in the contract, but the resale negates the damages they sued for. Absolutely puzzling.

I agree entirely.

Personally, I think if they are able to re-sell the seats the case should be dropped unless the seats had to be sold for a discount.

I understand that they can't make these sort of contracts and have people breaking them, but it doesn't sound like there is any reasonable sort of escape clause. For a judgement to be the remaining value of the contract and then able to resell the seat seems like an incentive for the 'Redskins to pursue that revenue stream. Especially with the wailing list they purport to have.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Good points . . . . . although, if they're like the Flames, your monthly payments would start, I think, in June, with the hockey season still months away.

If it's a popular team, you can get away with it.

If it's the 2002-03 Flames, you'd have no hope.

Cowperson

No doubt. The 2002 - 2003 Flames you would almost have to pay people to take your tickets. Unless the Oilers, Canucks, Canadiens, or Maple Leafs were in town.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

You would think the fans in question could just put the tickets on Stub Hub and even make a little money. Maybe they are unaware that is even an option. Unless they need to pay for the tickets upfront in full?

The Bible frowns on that..

People and their bibles man...

[mykalberta]

No it doesnt unless you are doing it so to swindle the original seller.

[The Ditch]

I know the Flames allow you to pay monthly but my Seahawks tickets they want all the money for the year up front, so maybe the Redskins are the same?