2019 Schedule Thread

[Shwafta]

I thought that meant that you can trade in a bunch of tickets, combine the value and get pitchside or something...

That’s what i thought.

It is, and btw, it was another one of my suggestions during the focus group.

Nope,
"You will receive the variable value to use for the match you're trading out of, so you’ll be able to trade out of a match for more tickets in a match of equal value, or you’ll be able to pool your tickets to trade into matches of higher value or to get upgrades in matches of equal or lesser value."

straight from here: https://www.nycfc.com/2019

 

[hatt91]

Nope,
"You will receive the variable value to use for the match you're trading out of, so you’ll be able to trade out of a match for more tickets in a match of equal value, or you’ll be able to pool your tickets to trade into matches of higher value or to get upgrades in matches of equal or lesser value."

straight from here: https://www.nycfc.com/2019

Ah, i see it now. Clear as mud.

 

[Shwafta]

Ah, i see it now. Clear as mud.

also just as dirty as mud, if you ask 99% of this forum

 

[SoupInNYC]

Nope,
"You will receive the variable value to use for the match you're trading out of, so you’ll be able to trade out of a match for more tickets in a match of equal value, or you’ll be able to pool your tickets to trade into matches of higher value or to get upgrades in matches of equal or lesser value."

straight from here: https://www.nycfc.com/2019

I think this makes sense to me. I couldn't go to the second RB home game last year and it was worth more for me to sell it on Stubhub than it was for me to trade in on the ticket exchange.

 

[Shwafta]

I think this makes sense to me. I couldn't go to the second RB home game last year and it was worth more for me to sell it on Stubhub than it was for me to trade in on the ticket exchange.

the problem will come when they sell ATL on a weekday for $30 and ORL on a weekend for $40 and people get screwed.

 

[SoupInNYC]

the problem will come when they sell ATL on a weekday for $30 and ORL on a weekend for $40 and people get screwed.

Why would people be getting screwed? I guess the room for error here is messing up the valuation of games, but I would imagine weekend games would generally sell for more than weekday games because the demand is going to be higher.

 

[Shwafta]

Why would people be getting screwed? I guess the room for error here is messing up the valuation of games, but I would imagine weekend games would generally sell for more than weekday games because the demand is going to be higher.

I'd prefer to go see ATL midweek over ORL weekend personally, and I'd think ATL should be rater higher, but won't be bc it's midweek? idk

 

[SoupInNYC]

I'd prefer to go see ATL midweek over ORL weekend personally, and I'd think ATL should be rater higher, but won't be bc it's midweek? idk

Ok, but I'm still failing to see how people are getting screwed.

I guess the only way people would be getting "screwed" with this is if their personal valuation of games are not in line with the way the club values them. In the case you note here, let's say you value Atlanta higher than Orlando and the club is reverse. For argument's sake, I'll put $20 for the low game and $30 for the high game. And $25 for all games under an even method.

1) You value the Atlanta game higher but cannot make it, so you trade it in and get $20 in game credit for the trade-in program. You are able to make the Orlando game and would like an extra ticket there, but you need $10 to make up the difference now. Now, one way to help against this is if the resell market agrees with you that the Atlanta game is in more demand and you can resell your ticket there. The problem we do currently have is tickets being resold on secondary markets, depending on the game and type of ticket, may go for less than face (likely will).

2) But now say that you cannot make the Orlando game but can make the Atlanta game. Now this works in your favor as you can trade in the Orlando ticket and get an Atlanta ticket and an additional $10 in game credit.

3) If you can make both, but want extra tickets to both, and the club valued the midweek Atlanta game low and the weekend Orlando game higher, but the resell market does not, you could trade in your Orlando ticket for the Atlanta game, get an additional $10 in game credit to use elsewhere, and then buy 2 secondary market tickets for the Orlando game. Now, perhaps less people will now be willing to sell their Orlando tickets on the secondary market, since they realize they could get more value with the trade-in program (as you would be doing in this scenario).

Now in the "even method":
1) You trade in your Atlanta game ticket for the Orlando ticket and are even. It does not cost you $10 more as in the scenario above.
2) You trade in the Orlando game ticket for the Atlanta game ticket and do not have the extra $10 in credit you have above.
3) You have to buy extra tickets to both games at secondary market values.

The club will have every incentive to value each game based on the anticipated demand for the game. That means, the Saturday HRD game will be super high, whereas the Wednesday game against Chicago will be super low. I would imagine a weekday game against Atlanta will also be fairly high (similar to last year's mid-week HRD).

If the club gets the values wrong, they present the opportunity for individuals to game the system and giving away too much value for games that don't deserve it (the Orlando game in the above scenario). In this same scenario, you would have been willing to "pay" more for the Atlanta game and "receive" less for the Orlando game.

The one thing that's hard to account for here, is the ability to accomodate trade-ins. If we were to take the scenario above in a vacuum, more individuals would try to trade in for the Atlanta game (assuming everyone values that one higher), but the club wouldn't be able to accommodate everyone.

The reason I like this, is if I am unable to make the Saturday HRD game, I could trade it in for a higher value than normal. Since this is the premier game of the year, I could also see what tickets are going for on the secondary market to see if its advantageous for me to sell there if they are going for higher (one of the few instances this may happen).

If I am unable to make the Wednesday Chicago game, I would be trading it in for a lower value than normal, yes. But I would imagine that difference would also be reflected in the secondary market. Nobody is going to want to buy my Chicago midweek ticket.

I honestly think this is the best way to implement a trade-in program, to basically try to have it mirror what the secondary market would show. That seems to be, IMO, the way to provide the appropriate value to fans for the games they are unable (or unwilling) to attend.

Sorry, I feel like the above is quite a disorganized post on it all, but those are kind of my thoughts on it.

 

[Shwafta]

Ok, but I'm still failing to see how people are getting screwed.

I guess the only way people would be getting "screwed" with this is if their personal valuation of games are not in line with the way the club values them. In the case you note here, let's say you value Atlanta higher than Orlando and the club is reverse. For argument's sake, I'll put $20 for the low game and $30 for the high game. And $25 for all games under an even method.

1) You value the Atlanta game higher but cannot make it, so you trade it in and get $20 in game credit for the trade-in program. You are able to make the Orlando game and would like an extra ticket there, but you need $10 to make up the difference now. Now, one way to help against this is if the resell market agrees with you that the Atlanta game is in more demand and you can resell your ticket there. The problem we do currently have is tickets being resold on secondary markets, depending on the game and type of ticket, may go for less than face (likely will).

2) But now say that you cannot make the Orlando game but can make the Atlanta game. Now this works in your favor as you can trade in the Orlando ticket and get an Atlanta ticket and an additional $10 in game credit.

3) If you can make both, but want extra tickets to both, and the club valued the midweek Atlanta game low and the weekend Orlando game higher, but the resell market does not, you could trade in your Orlando ticket for the Atlanta game, get an additional $10 in game credit to use elsewhere, and then buy 2 secondary market tickets for the Orlando game. Now, perhaps less people will now be willing to sell their Orlando tickets on the secondary market, since they realize they could get more value with the trade-in program (as you would be doing in this scenario).

Now in the "even method":
1) You trade in your Atlanta game ticket for the Orlando ticket and are even. It does not cost you $10 more as in the scenario above.
2) You trade in the Orlando game ticket for the Atlanta game ticket and do not have the extra $10 in credit you have above.
3) You have to buy extra tickets to both games at secondary market values.

The club will have every incentive to value each game based on the anticipated demand for the game. That means, the Saturday HRD game will be super high, whereas the Wednesday game against Chicago will be super low. I would imagine a weekday game against Atlanta will also be fairly high (similar to last year's mid-week HRD).

If the club gets the values wrong, they present the opportunity for individuals to game the system and giving away too much value for games that don't deserve it (the Orlando game in the above scenario). In this same scenario, you would have been willing to "pay" more for the Atlanta game and "receive" less for the Orlando game.

The one thing that's hard to account for here, is the ability to accomodate trade-ins. If we were to take the scenario above in a vacuum, more individuals would try to trade in for the Atlanta game (assuming everyone values that one higher), but the club wouldn't be able to accommodate everyone.

The reason I like this, is if I am unable to make the Saturday HRD game, I could trade it in for a higher value than normal. Since this is the premier game of the year, I could also see what tickets are going for on the secondary market to see if its advantageous for me to sell there if they are going for higher (one of the few instances this may happen).

If I am unable to make the Wednesday Chicago game, I would be trading it in for a lower value than normal, yes. But I would imagine that difference would also be reflected in the secondary market. Nobody is going to want to buy my Chicago midweek ticket.

I honestly think this is the best way to implement a trade-in program, to basically try to have it mirror what the secondary market would show. That seems to be, IMO, the way to provide the appropriate value to fans for the games they are unable (or unwilling) to attend.

Sorry, I feel like the above is quite a disorganized post on it all, but those are kind of my thoughts on it.

I do see your point, but in order to see how accurate your post is, we'll have to see how this actually plays out this season, and how the club actually values games. Will it be very drastic? We don't know, so it's hard to say either way.

 

[FredMertz]

Ok, but I'm still failing to see how people are getting screwed.

I guess the only way people would be getting "screwed" with this is if their personal valuation of games are not in line with the way the club values them. In the case you note here, let's say you value Atlanta higher than Orlando and the club is reverse. For argument's sake, I'll put $20 for the low game and $30 for the high game. And $25 for all games under an even method.

1) You value the Atlanta game higher but cannot make it, so you trade it in and get $20 in game credit for the trade-in program. You are able to make the Orlando game and would like an extra ticket there, but you need $10 to make up the difference now. Now, one way to help against this is if the resell market agrees with you that the Atlanta game is in more demand and you can resell your ticket there. The problem we do currently have is tickets being resold on secondary markets, depending on the game and type of ticket, may go for less than face (likely will).

2) But now say that you cannot make the Orlando game but can make the Atlanta game. Now this works in your favor as you can trade in the Orlando ticket and get an Atlanta ticket and an additional $10 in game credit.

3) If you can make both, but want extra tickets to both, and the club valued the midweek Atlanta game low and the weekend Orlando game higher, but the resell market does not, you could trade in your Orlando ticket for the Atlanta game, get an additional $10 in game credit to use elsewhere, and then buy 2 secondary market tickets for the Orlando game. Now, perhaps less people will now be willing to sell their Orlando tickets on the secondary market, since they realize they could get more value with the trade-in program (as you would be doing in this scenario).

Now in the "even method":
1) You trade in your Atlanta game ticket for the Orlando ticket and are even. It does not cost you $10 more as in the scenario above.
2) You trade in the Orlando game ticket for the Atlanta game ticket and do not have the extra $10 in credit you have above.
3) You have to buy extra tickets to both games at secondary market values.

The club will have every incentive to value each game based on the anticipated demand for the game. That means, the Saturday HRD game will be super high, whereas the Wednesday game against Chicago will be super low. I would imagine a weekday game against Atlanta will also be fairly high (similar to last year's mid-week HRD).

If the club gets the values wrong, they present the opportunity for individuals to game the system and giving away too much value for games that don't deserve it (the Orlando game in the above scenario). In this same scenario, you would have been willing to "pay" more for the Atlanta game and "receive" less for the Orlando game.

The one thing that's hard to account for here, is the ability to accomodate trade-ins. If we were to take the scenario above in a vacuum, more individuals would try to trade in for the Atlanta game (assuming everyone values that one higher), but the club wouldn't be able to accommodate everyone.

The reason I like this, is if I am unable to make the Saturday HRD game, I could trade it in for a higher value than normal. Since this is the premier game of the year, I could also see what tickets are going for on the secondary market to see if its advantageous for me to sell there if they are going for higher (one of the few instances this may happen).

If I am unable to make the Wednesday Chicago game, I would be trading it in for a lower value than normal, yes. But I would imagine that difference would also be reflected in the secondary market. Nobody is going to want to buy my Chicago midweek ticket.

I honestly think this is the best way to implement a trade-in program, to basically try to have it mirror what the secondary market would show. That seems to be, IMO, the way to provide the appropriate value to fans for the games they are unable (or unwilling) to attend.

Sorry, I feel like the above is quite a disorganized post on it all, but those are kind of my thoughts on it.

You've made this too complicated. If you trade from a low-tier game to a mid or high, you will have to pay cash to "upgrade" your seat. It's a surcharge to season ticket holders to switch out of less desirable games that did not exist last year.

How is that better from even exchanges all around? How is secondary market relevant? You're not getting cash and what is the likelihood that at the end of the year your excess balance (if you trade down) will be zero? And if it is zero, you've ended up exactly where you would have been with even exchanges.

Like I said, best-case-scenario is same as last year, worst case scenario is you have to go out of pocket.

I guess maybe best-case-scenario is you skip half the season to upgrade to Pitchside, but even then you're unlikely to have a zero balance in your account.

 

[SoupInNYC]

If you trade from a low-tier game to a mid or high, you will have to pay cash to "upgrade" your seat. It's a surcharge to season ticket holders to switch out of less desirable games that did not exist last year.

You could call it a surcharge, I call it paying for a more desirable game. Supply and Demand. Again, if you trade from a high-tier game to a low or mid, you will have a surplus. More on this below.

How is that better from even exchanges all around?

This level sets the internal prices based on what you would expect from a supply and demand perspective. Would you pay more for an extra ticket for the Saturday night game against NJ or for the Wednesday game against Chicago? The internal ticket prices now better reflect that. Remember that the first year they instituted the trade-in program there were games which you were not allowed to trade into. Last year, they changed and did away with it. This year, they changed it to attempt to reflect market prices. I'm guessing we wouldn't be upset about this new method had they not changed it from the first year's rules to last year's.

How is secondary market relevant? You're not getting cash and what is the likelihood that at the end of the year your excess balance (if you trade down) will be zero? And if it is zero, you've ended up exactly where you would have been with even exchanges.

Like I said, best-case-scenario is same as last year, worst case scenario is you have to go out of pocket.

Secondary market is relevant because it affects your decision. If you cannot attend the RB game, perhaps you look to trade them in. But take a peek on Stubhub and perhaps you could sell them for more than what your trade-in value would be. Well now the trade-in value would be higher and may reflect that of the secondary market. I did this twice last year. Sold tickets to games I was unable to attend at higher than face value (Sunday RB and Saturday Atlanta). If the trade-in value was higher, perhaps I trade-in instead of sell.

Regarding the end-of-year balance, you bring up a good point. I would assume (which, with this club, probably isn't smart), that your balance would carry over and you could apply that to next season's tickets (season or single-game). Now, this would mean you wouldn't get that benefit unless you buy season tickets again, or attend another game, but it would still be there. I want to be clear here that I don't know if this is what they're doing, but I think it makes sense and if it is in place, would mitigate that concern. This is worth a rep follow up.

Ultimately, IMO, it comes down to supply/demand. As I noted, last year I was unable to attend the Sunday RB game and Saturday Atlanta game. If I were buying single game tickets, I would expect to pay more for those two games.

 

[adam]

Just do what I

You could call it a surcharge, I call it paying for a more desirable game. Supply and Demand. Again, if you trade from a high-tier game to a low or mid, you will have a surplus. More on this below.

This level sets the internal prices based on what you would expect from a supply and demand perspective. Would you pay more for an extra ticket for the Saturday night game against NJ or for the Wednesday game against Chicago? The internal ticket prices now better reflect that. Remember that the first year they instituted the trade-in program there were games which you were not allowed to trade into. Last year, they changed and did away with it. This year, they changed it to attempt to reflect market prices. I'm guessing we wouldn't be upset about this new method had they not changed it from the first year's rules to last year's.

Secondary market is relevant because it affects your decision. If you cannot attend the RB game, perhaps you look to trade them in. But take a peek on Stubhub and perhaps you could sell them for more than what your trade-in value would be. Well now the trade-in value would be higher and may reflect that of the secondary market. I did this twice last year. Sold tickets to games I was unable to attend at higher than face value (Sunday RB and Saturday Atlanta). If the trade-in value was higher, perhaps I trade-in instead of sell.

Regarding the end-of-year balance, you bring up a good point. I would assume (which, with this club, probably isn't smart), that your balance would carry over and you could apply that to next season's tickets (season or single-game). Now, this would mean you wouldn't get that benefit unless you buy season tickets again, or attend another game, but it would still be there. I want to be clear here that I don't know if this is what they're doing, but I think it makes sense and if it is in place, would mitigate that concern. This is worth a rep follow up.

Ultimately, IMO, it comes down to supply/demand. As I noted, last year I was unable to attend the Sunday RB game and Saturday Atlanta game. If I were buying single game tickets, I would expect to pay more for those two games.

Wait. If you sell your tickets you’re only charged the same amortized amount per ticket? But if you trade it in the fluctuating pricing kicks in?

Or, when you sell, you make less of a profit on a marquee game because your base price is higher, even if sale price is higher too?

 

[SoupInNYC]

Just do what I


Wait. If you sell your tickets you’re only charged the same amortized amount per ticket? But if you trade it in the fluctuating pricing kicks in?

Or, when you sell, you make less of a profit on a marquee game because your base price is higher, even if sale price is higher too?

I'm not sure I'm completely understanding what your question is.

If you trade in, the fluctuating price is in place, depending on the game. If you sell it, you can try to sell it for whatever you want.

The point I was making, is the club is trying to determine what the most desirable and least desirable games are and "assigning" those games a cost that reflects that.

So maybe my Chicago ticket "price" is $20 and my NJ ticket "price" is $40. Either way, I've already paid for all of them.

I sure as hell can't sell my Chicago ticket for $40, and perhaps not even $20. But I could trade it in for a $20 value. I could probably sell my NJ ticket for $40, and hell, maybe even higher.

 

[adam]

I'm not sure I'm completely understanding what your question is.

If you trade in, the fluctuating price is in place, depending on the game. If you sell it, you can try to sell it for whatever you want.

The point I was making, is the club is trying to determine what the most desirable and least desirable games are and "assigning" those games a cost that reflects that.

So maybe my Chicago ticket "price" is $20 and my NJ ticket "price" is $40. Either way, I've already paid for all of them.

I sure as hell can't sell my Chicago ticket for $40, and perhaps not even $20. But I could trade it in for a $20 value. I could probably sell my NJ ticket for $40, and hell, maybe even higher.

Ex. Amortized price per game = $25. Orlando match = $30 on trade in with fluctuating pricing. When you sell on SH, is your cost basis $30+fees, or $25+fees?

 

[SoupInNYC]

Ex. Amortized price per game = $25. Orlando match = $30 on trade in with fluctuating pricing. When you sell on SH, is your cost basis $30+fees, or $25+fees?

Well, the accountant in me says you can assign whatever cost basis you want to it. But I would think the $30 trade-in value would be a decent barometer for a cost basis as it is designed to reflect market rates and supply/demand. As noted in my previous example (inherently, not specifically), I would consider selling my Red Bull tickets at $25 a loss, though it could reflect amortized price per game. I would consider selling my Chicago ticket at $25 as a gain.

ETA: If you sold all of your tickets at the trade-in value, you could decide to look at it as breaking even on every sale, or a large combination of gains, losses, and break-evens.

 

[FredMertz]

You could call it a surcharge, I call it paying for a more desirable game. Supply and Demand. Again, if you trade from a high-tier game to a low or mid, you will have a surplus. More on this below.

This level sets the internal prices based on what you would expect from a supply and demand perspective. Would you pay more for an extra ticket for the Saturday night game against NJ or for the Wednesday game against Chicago? The internal ticket prices now better reflect that. Remember that the first year they instituted the trade-in program there were games which you were not allowed to trade into. Last year, they changed and did away with it. This year, they changed it to attempt to reflect market prices. I'm guessing we wouldn't be upset about this new method had they not changed it from the first year's rules to last year's.

Secondary market is relevant because it affects your decision. If you cannot attend the RB game, perhaps you look to trade them in. But take a peek on Stubhub and perhaps you could sell them for more than what your trade-in value would be. Well now the trade-in value would be higher and may reflect that of the secondary market. I did this twice last year. Sold tickets to games I was unable to attend at higher than face value (Sunday RB and Saturday Atlanta). If the trade-in value was higher, perhaps I trade-in instead of sell.

Regarding the end-of-year balance, you bring up a good point. I would assume (which, with this club, probably isn't smart), that your balance would carry over and you could apply that to next season's tickets (season or single-game). Now, this would mean you wouldn't get that benefit unless you buy season tickets again, or attend another game, but it would still be there. I want to be clear here that I don't know if this is what they're doing, but I think it makes sense and if it is in place, would mitigate that concern. This is worth a rep follow up.

Ultimately, IMO, it comes down to supply/demand. As I noted, last year I was unable to attend the Sunday RB game and Saturday Atlanta game. If I were buying single game tickets, I would expect to pay more for those two games.

I understand all of the things you are saying and don't disagree with any of it, but I can't tie them together in to a compelling reason why this benefits us. Maybe your point is that it's better than not having any program (agreed), but I don't see how it is an improvement over last year's program. Getting the trade-in price is definitely better than taking a loss on sale in the open market (which I did for virtually every game I sold on Stubhub last year with 1st-row main level seats), but if you have to pay the surcharge or premium, it's not better than last year's even trades. Maybe the lower face value will let us go lower with our Stubhub listings and minimize the chances of no sale, but that's not much to write home about.

Part of the benefit of being a STH is not being subject to supply and demand for the games you go to. This system lets them charge lower prices for the crappy games (thus competing better with secondary market listings) and hypothetically raises the floor for the better games -- but we're season ticket holders who are more likely than not to go to all the better games!

 

[adam]

Well, the accountant in me says you can assign whatever cost basis you want to it. But I would think the $30 trade-in value would be a decent barometer for a cost basis as it is designed to reflect market rates and supply/demand. As noted in my previous example (inherently, not specifically), I would consider selling my Red Bull tickets at $25 a loss, though it could reflect amortized price per game. I would consider selling my Chicago ticket at $25 as a gain.

ETA: If you sold all of your tickets at the trade-in value, you could decide to look at it as breaking even on every sale, or a large combination of gains, losses, and break-evens.

Ok. That’s for our personal accounting and later conversation with the IRS. But what is the team charging us when we sell each match? The amortized amount or the fluctuating price? Do we know?

 

[ManhattanValley]

Me buying a season ticket before reading this last page:

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯

Me buying a season ticket after reading this last page:

 

[mgarbowski]

Ok. That’s for our personal accounting and later conversation with the IRS. But what is the team charging us when we sell each match? The amortized amount or the fluctuating price? Do we know?

They don't charge anything when you sell a match. You're "charged" when you buy season tickets and the money is deducted monthly.

 

[adam]

They don't charge anything when you sell a match. You're "charged" when you buy season tickets and the money is deducted monthly.

Duh. I’m on a roll tonight.