I'm done supporting Stanford - Printable Version

I'm done supporting Stanford - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: I'm done supporting Stanford (/thread-13356.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Goose - 01-16-2017

(01-16-2017, 09:34 AM)eric link Wrote:maybe the same highly paid consultants that told UCB that they could recover the cost of their stadium upgrade with required donations/seat licenses.....

No, I don't think our AD would pay enough for that kind of talent. It's a lot cheaper to just be wrong on your own. ;)

Re: Tucson:Goose? - Goose - 01-16-2017

(01-16-2017, 11:07 AM)Phogge link Wrote:Disagree totally re Tucson. Plenty to do but you have to like the desert. Plenty to explore around Douglas, Bisbee, Tombstone, Sierra Vista. Some of the world's best birdwatching in and around Portal. Great desert hunting. Lots of places just to take out a .45 or .30-30 and blast away without interference. One of the great Mexican restaurants in Miami. A Tahoe/SF length drive to the mountains around Show Low. Rodeos, plenty of horseback country, elk hunting. Maybe not many good Thai or Chinese restaurants however.

I have always enjoyed my trips there. There are actually quite a few good bars there as well. But, then again, I do love the desert, probably because I am from southern Nevada. Still can't spell Tucson though.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - M T - 01-16-2017

(01-16-2017, 05:20 PM)terry link Wrote:Section 170(l) of the Internal Revenue Code deals with precisely this issue. That subsection says that when somebody donates money to a college or university, and the donor receives "the right to purchase tickets for seating at an athletic event in an athletic stadium of such institution," and the donation otherwise would be a fully deductible charitable donation, then the donor is allowed to deduct 80% of the total amount.

Congress apparently made the somewhat arbitrary decision that 20% of the donation is deemed to have been given in exchange for the right to buy tickets, and therefore is not really a gift. The advantages of the 80/20 rule are that it's easy to apply and it avoids the difficult question of trying to put a fair market value on the right to buy tickets for various sports at various universities.

Thanks!Â It does seem like the restriction to college or university is arbitrary (which is of course how laws are), why couldn't this apply to the 49ers or SF Giants (have to donate $ to XYZ charity to receive a benefit).

What about the state's (and city's) asserting 100% or even 20% is part of the ticket price and so is subject to sales tax?

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - oldalum - 01-16-2017

SF opera does the same thing, but the "required" donation I think is negotiated over the phone, subscriber by subscriber. Maybe they get away with it because it is sub rosa, or is there a special law allowing that too?

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - HisKneeWasDown - 01-16-2017

I had to cool off for a couple days after this post about the "seat tax".:-). I drafted a very heated (and sarcastic :-) email to Muir and Matt Wittig (VP of Development) but did not send it (still busy drafting my band letter to President T-L). Glad to see you all covered many of the same points :-) (excerpts at the end)

A few things to emphasize:
- The TV deal (with the Thu and Fri night traffic and the 5-day notice for Big Game kickoff) was supposed to solve all our financial problems.
- Yes, it's "just" 8 more sections (upper and bowl). By my estimates that's 5,000 seats. And it's your most loyal fans. That's a lot of fans.
- "Charging the median piece" is the wrong goal. "Getting people to come to the games" should be the goal. I'd like to see a system that rewards attendance. Not one that rewards rich patrons who give their tickets away to clients (who know the cheers)
- I also made the point of taking my basketball seat tax out of the University donation.

The two seats next to me have been vacant for all but 1 season since the new stadium was built. I fail to see how charging this seat tax will help sell tickets.

I plan on contacting members of the local media and share the letter, along with this nice picture from David Lombardi of ESPN: https://twitter.com/LombardiESPN/status/789902714536722432

Here are some excerpts from my unsent draft. Still working on my larger letter to President T-L; I will certainly add those to my list of grievances:

Quote:I can only think of a few reasons why this logic might make sense:

1) You have a long waiting list of people willing to pay more and actually show up to the games, so you're raising prices to kick out the deadbeats who have tickets but don't show up
2) You're trying to push the fans out to the other sections, so the stadium looks more full on national TV, since the cameras don't usually show the West sideline
3) You're raising money to build an even smaller, 5,000 seat stadium that will provide a more intimate fan experience than cavernous Stanford Stadium 2.0
4) You need to buy shiny new clean uniforms suitable for the new, squeaky-clean marching band
5) Jed York is the new AD

Tell you what. How about you tell ESPN that for twice the money, you'll play any day of the week, 24/7? Then you won't care at all if anyone actually pays to attend the games! Problem solved!

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Goose - 01-17-2017

(01-16-2017, 11:09 PM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:Tell you what. How about you tell ESPN that for twice the money, you'll play any day of the week, 24/7? Then you won't care at all if anyone actually pays to attend the games! Problem solved!

Please don't send this. The reaction will be "Why didn't we think of this? Give me the phone. And, let's raise ticket prices by 5000% for the ten people who will still show up." ;D

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Leftcoast - 01-17-2017

I'm still aghast at the kind of thinking in the AD department that led to this decision.Â Did the conversation go like this?

"Hmmmh, we need more fans at our games and we need more excitement in the stands-What should we do?Â

I know! Let's raise ticket prices and piss off our most loyal fans. They'll buy more tickets and invite their friends too!

Genius!

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - oldalum - 01-17-2017

This is just price segmentation, pure and simple, in an effort to raise total revenues. More money is the #1 objective. Fan loyalty or attendance or experience seems a priority for the AD only insofar as it serves objective #1. I have just come not to expect more.

What is most frustrating about this is that we fans do not manage our support of Stanford athletics purely from a monetary perspective, so the relationship is asymmetric. For example, I always buy and donate tickets to our away lesser bowl games as a gesture of support for the team and the program. Pretty dumb from a financial standpoint.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Goose - 01-17-2017

(01-17-2017, 01:42 PM)oldalum link Wrote:This is just price segmentation, pure and simple, in an effort to raise total revenues. More money is the #1 objective. Fan loyalty or attendance or experience seems a priority for the AD only insofar as it serves objective #1. I have just come not to expect more.

True. And, from Stanford, I would expect nothing less. The Athletic Department does "good things" by supporting athletes and programs. The financial side of the department facilitates this by maximizing revenue. My problem with the new policy is that I don't see any real analysis that says this policy will maximize revenue. Others have pointed out that it is a common practice. OK, but does Stanford base it's decisions on what other programs do? If we do, we need to start cheating fast! ;D Furthermore, what works at USC and UCLA and/or Oregon may not (I assert probably won't ) work at Stanford. Like it or not, Stanford fans are "different". One can't predict how they will respond based on what happened elsewhere. I just want our AD to show us they actually did some real work here and didn't just follow the crowd over the cliff.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - fullmetal - 01-17-2017

I wonder if Muir has tacit approval from the big money boosters about this.Â Or maybe the big money doesn't care.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - winflop - 01-17-2017

(01-17-2017, 06:21 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I wonder if Muir has tacit approval from the big money boosters about this.Â Or maybe the big money doesn't care.

I don't think the big money donors worry about this stuff.Â They have theirs.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - BurgXXIII - 01-17-2017

A question - last year I opted for easy renew, which is pre-acceptance of seat renewal by credit card. It appears that is continuing, so if I do nothing, I will be paying the mandatory donation. Is this the case?

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - 82lsju - 01-17-2017

received the "pre-renewal" email that has a link to the new pricing for tix and parking passes

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/STM/FB/

note the tabs for various classes of buyers (anyone, alums, young alums, faculty/staff, premium seat buyers)

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - BostonCard - 01-18-2017

Worth noting that for the first time this year, the family plan tickets include Big Game.Â They are probably the best deal in all of sports, even though they cost about 3 times as much as when they were first introduced.Â $412 gets you 2 adult and 2 child general season tickets.Â Yes, they are end zone GA tickets, but still a tremendous deal.

BC