I find it interesting that the Oiler team, based In Canada, that consistently portrays itself as a community minded team has a lower pricing rung that ensures that it keeps the vast majority of the community out. Oiler pricing for years now has defined a select well heeled local market and does so at its own peril in a *small market*.
That's odd, I see it the other way.
I find that a team would be excluding more of the base community by offering 500 $6 seats and then have the average price hover at $100. I'd rather see a team have the average price at $40 - it may mean less games per year and the poorest segment of the community still might not partake, but it still keeps it affordable for the common fan.
I worked a night job as a janitor for a machine shop through University, paid my own tuition and rent and still was able to make 3-4 games (although that might say more about my priorities than the affordability of the games )
Also, Edmonton is one of the smallest arenas in the league. I'm wondering what the cheapest ticket is at Edmonton's capacity (i.e. if Rexall's capacity for hockey is 16,839, then look at the 16,839th most expensive ticket in every other arena)
Far as Nashville I don't like the team, I don't like the product, but they fared better than us last year and I also had major doubts about the team the Oil put on the ice in the last season.
Did you like how they fared in the seasons before 03/04? Its always nice to pick out the most successful seasons that a small market team has and hold them up as the model for success.
I don't understand your interpretation of supply and demand as explained to spaz. To me, supply and demand works by maximizing revenue through a combination of increasing prices and maintaining a customer base, while trying to keep inventory at or near 0.
If the Oilers have 16,839 seats to sell, they are going to pick a series of price points that will maximize revenue but not leave a single seat empty. I really don't see it as dropping prices until there is an EXCESS demand, with fans lining up out the door.
My sister is an occupational therapist in Edmonton who works with sick kids and troubled youths, she's told me lots of stories where the team not only is involved with charitable donations, but she's been to about a dozen games in the past three years, accompanying groups of kids. These tickets were donated by the team or by their sponsors through the team. I'm sure she's not the only one that has benefited this way, and its not like she has any "ins"... she despises hockey and the people around it.
Hey, I can understand some skepticism and a critical eye... these are traits that are sorely lacking around here at times. But its statements like these that diverge dramatically from what you're suggesting to ID:
Not sure why you think that in regards to this point. I'm not talking rebellion as in burning the bastille but a "little resistance" from the ticket buying public that would effect a price reduction. Build, not destroy. I find it very interesting that right as we speak Laforge has been making many comments publicly about staying the course on ticket pricing. I'd bet you he's testing for echo. If the sum response to that is full of choice invectives then guess what? Ticket prices go down. I wish there was a little more choice public response is all. this "its all good" response potentially loads content complacency as much as anything. I do worry about that in this org.
Quote:
I'm all for knowing where the money goes when I buy a ticket; joint PA/NHL audits; and making the game affordable to the common fan... but you've suggested a lot more in your posts.
Yeah, point taken. Somewhere on the way to attempting to weave a brilliant tapestry I at times sidetrack into random rant mode. I'm working on it. I know it confuses the overall message and detracts from the quality of the argument but...
Quote:
From my understanding, it appears that you feel the Oilers' management is scamming the ticket-buying public. However, you haven't put any proof forward to that effect.
The revenue #'s are iffy. I've yet to see some detailed info where the the total revenue, total expenses, jives with the % of revenues spent on payroll. Its quite clear that the Oil are not spending 75% on payroll and never have. This has been questioned throughout and continues even today in another thread.
Its easy for you to say prove it! But its a bit harder to obtain the accurate financial records right? But does this fincancial record obfuscation mean I shouldn't question anything? Of course not. Shady dealings typically occur in the shade, just saying.
If theres nothing strange than just show us the books! Damn, now I sound like a player rep
I do feel that the scamming is going on in the form of the margin of profit stated.
Its odd at best that in 2003-2004, a year in which we had a much improved Dollar, the Heritage classic, and a low payscale, that our profit was said to be the same as the year before. IIRC the Oil are the last # of years consistently reporting a barely profit operation.
That's odd, I see it the other way.
I find that a team would be excluding more of the base community by offering 500 $6 seats and then have the average price hover at $100. I'd rather see a team have the average price at $40 - it may mean less games per year and the poorest segment of the community still might not partake, but it still keeps it affordable for the common fan.
In this area, and province, average or common can be quite a misnomer. While the average family income hovers aroudn $56,000 IIRC (don't quote this ol brain) the Median, or middle point income would be far less and I've consistently seen it reported in the $30,000-40,000 range. how this huge descrepancy occurs is due to large skewing by the $80,000/yr - VERY RICH earners. Your off the mark if you think even the median or common family can really afford the game presently.
Quote:
I worked a night job as a janitor for a machine shop through University, paid my own tuition and rent and still was able to make 3-4 games (although that might say more about my priorities than the affordability of the games )
You raise an interesting point and the Oil do benefit from some middle age season ticket holders that are just hanging on. These would be people that got used to having seasons tickets in the 80's or 90's and held on through the gradual escalation in pricing and have cut corners elsewhere. Some of the corner cutting looks unpleasant though and involves such things as not saving anything for retirement or a rainy day. To each his own of course but theres kids involved in some of these families too and I've seen some fathers that still go to games solo while the family makes do. Thats the most unpleasant picture of all.
Quote:
Also, Edmonton is one of the smallest arenas in the league. I'm wondering what the cheapest ticket is at Edmonton's capacity (i.e. if Rexall's capacity for hockey is 16,839, then look at the 16,839th most expensive ticket in every other arena)
Yes, capacity attendance is intimately involved in this. But I still don't think that present attendance precludes a bit more radical pricing inclusion.
Did you like how they fared in the seasons before 03/04? Its always nice to pick out the most successful seasons that a small market team has and hold them up as the model for success.
I don't understand your interpretation of supply and demand as explained to spaz. To me, supply and demand works by maximizing revenue through a combination of increasing prices and maintaining a customer base, while trying to keep inventory at or near 0.
If the Oilers have 16,839 seats to sell, they are going to pick a series of price points that will maximize revenue but not leave a single seat empty. I really don't see it as dropping prices until there is an EXCESS demand, with fans lining up out the door.
.
Overall I think the team has done well to survive given the out of control spending. Ironically though in the last couple of seasons this survival mode has been translated into things like: Lets try to play a whole season without a bonafid # 1 centre or with Salo... I think they went to far in the conservative direction and have started to milk a tidy quiet profit. Remember, none of these guys in EIG are in this to make a huge buck, they were putting back into the community what they already made from the community. This business model was about saving NHL hockey for Edmonton and that this was a goodwill gesture on the part of these businessman. Has the profit started to look too good?
The supply and demand characteristics I described are usually involved in ability to increase prices. That the OIL don't have this is one of the reasons I'm calling foul. The fact that they are not decreasing at all with the luxury of the 24% payroll rollback will arguably translate into a pretty healthy profit margin. (If you've read me much you'll know I'm still not convinced they will be spending more than 30M this season.)
A healthy business model is to price point effectively to increase over demand for product and then to pricepoint gradually higher up while maintianing the over demand that helps ensure the smooth revenue stream.
The pricepointing you describe is more chaotic as its much more given to consumer unrest and if you loose some customers it immediately effects the bottom line. Demand exceeding supply is a safer model. years of not providing a lower rung affordable price has resulted in the team not expanding their potential bases of paying fans and growing their market. The oil in this communtiy have a fixed market of paying consumers and not much more than that. Their very exposed to disgruntled customers immedialtely leaing to empty seats. One bad year spells trouble in this system. I worry because this is the year of judgement. What if the team on the ice for some reason fails this year?
While you raise some interesting points none of them are connected at all with what I've defined in this thread which is "Ticket to ride" in effect just getting in. I haven't misrepresented as my stated premise has throughout been a focus on the cheapest tickets. Why? Because its the least expensive seats that defines exclusion or inclusion. High priced tickets don't do that, middle priced tickets don't do that. Only cheap ones let people that otherwise wouldn't be able to into the game. Thats important!
I find it quite interesting that in the US, the wellspring of free market capitalism, the teams almost universally seem to make a nice nod to providing a range of pricing that allows inclusion. Allows less wealthy people to go. Allows families, KIDS to go.
I find it interesting that the Oiler team, based In Canada, that consistently portrays itself as a community minded team has a lower pricing rung that ensures that it keeps the vast majority of the community out. Oiler pricing for years now has defined a select well heeled local market and does so at its own peril in a *small market*. Such pricing simply doesn't grow the market, doesn't extend the market, or allow a larger population of fans to experience the product. Thats a very risky business model and the consequences are potentially that sudden ticket buying dropoff can occur.
Yes but YOU started with the premise that we in Edmonton ARE being jipped. They are a small section ABOVE the 300 section and thus are worse seats then they are in Edmonton. So really they should be cheaper! Also did you look at how few of those cheap seats there are in Chicago. They are above the 300 seats and it is a VERY small section. So it is interesting how you talk about how Edmonton is only letting a small minority section go BUT ignore how small of a section that cheap seating was for an example that you actually used. You are either a hypocrite or didn't do any research on the examples you quoted. Very few people in Chicago can actually take advanage of those seats.
Very few fans can actually get in at 15.00 a seat (you were very generous with the decimal point and it was actually 14.80). For a BETTER seat in Edmonton that are not so limited the amount is 23.00 Funny in how you averaged down for the Chicago seats by .80 cents but tacked on 1.20 for the Edmonton average. Do you always use decimals this way?
Mark Twain had it right there is no bigger lie than statistics!!
Last edited by hockeyaddict101: 07-24-2005 at 09:20 PM.
Yes but YOU started with the premise that we in Edmonton ARE being jipped. Again using Chicago as an example those cheap seats you are referring are very limited, They are a small section ABOVE the 300 section and thus are worse seats then they are in Edmonton. So really they should be cheaper!
I can only use myself as an example and I am an average season ticket holder. I am not being jipped because to go to a game in Chicago would cost a lot more than my seat in Edmonton. There is no way I want to sit in a seat that is worse than the worst seat in Edmonton. IN FACT, I could by Gold Seats in Edmonton for the same price I would pay in Chicago for a seat exactly like mine.
So as an average ticket holder you have NOT convinced me that I am being overcharged. On the contrary I saw how little I am really paying and I thank you that!!
My statement of "we're being ripped" was in the context of a total focus on comparitive pricing of cheap seats. The we, then, in this instance, should be clear to you as in people that would buy cheap tickets. Show me how I'm wrong on that premise. Just because it doesn't fit your particular circumstance doesn't mean it isn't bang on in its stated intent of cheapest seats analysis which I was careful enough to be very clear on.
The logical problem you're having here is that I started out, in a thread started and defined by me with a certain premise, and you've responded with another which might be concluive in another thread but isn't here.
In logical essense I stated "Oranges are Orange" and you reponded with "But hold on, Apples are Red!!"
We're clearly talking about different entities. You can of course introduce a new sub argument into a thread which you've done but it doesn't logically follow that the unconnected argument automatically denounces, in any way, my initial premise.
My statement of "we're being ripped" was in the context of a total focus on comparitive pricing of cheap seats. The we, then, in this instance, should be clear to you as in people that would buy cheap tickets. Show me how I'm wrong on that premise. Just because it doesn't fit your particular circumstance doesn't mean it isn't bang on in its stated intent of cheapest seats analysis which I was careful enough to be very clear on.
The logical problem you're having here is that I started out, in a thread started and defined by me with a certain premise, and you've responded with another which might be concluive in another thread but isn't here.
In logical essense I stated "Oranges are Orange" and you reponded with "But hold on, Apples are Red!!"
We're clearly talking about different entities. You can of course introduce a new sub argument into a thread which you've done but it doesn't logically follow that the unconnected argument automatically denounces, in any way, my initial premise.
No you are using information that fits what you are trying to prove. I am using similar data to what fits the EDMONTON rink which you were using. Remember your point was we were being jipped. You now have change your premise when it was pointed out to you that ONLY A SMALL portion of actual season ticket holder MAY be paying more. You certainly NEVER specified in your opening post that only people paying in the cheap seats were being jipped.
Why don't we go back to Chicago and compare their 300 seats with Edmonton's 300 seats, Again Edmonton doesn't have a limited section ABOVE their 300 seats that they can sell as loss leaders.
So for the same type of cheap seat in Chicago that you would find in Edmonton.
607.50, no such seat in Edmonton, they do not break their 300 tickets into three price points. You will pay the same price in the lower 300 bowl and the higher 300 bowl.
The second tier of those of the 300 seats in Chicago 1012.50, in Edmonton 1026.40 The third tier in chicago is now 1620, this would be similar to the Collonaide section in Edmonton and I would pay 1551.00.. So you are correct that if I want to sit in the highest 2 point in Chicago stadium I will save money, but I will also in most cases sitting in a worst seat.
If I want to sit almost ANYWHERE else in Chicago I will pay MUCH more than I do in Edmonton.
Sorry in this case you have not proven to me that I am getting cheated, again you have proven to me how lucky I am to be a season ticket holder in Edmonton in ANY price range.
Last edited by hockeyaddict101: 07-24-2005 at 09:56 PM.
I do feel that the scamming is going on in the form of the margin of profit stated.
Its odd at best that in 2003-2004, a year in which we had a much improved Dollar, the Heritage classic, and a low payscale, that our profit was said to be the same as the year before. IIRC the Oil are the last # of years consistently reporting a barely profit operation.
I'm not going to reply to the other aspects of your posts, as I think I'll just be rehashing old material... but I appreciate your points & will continue to respectfully disagree.
However, on this last point... expeditures grew from $27,932,500 in 02/03 to $33,375,000 in 03/04. That represents an increase of 19.5% and your right, the profit was reported to be about the same as the year before. That tells me that the team is spending increased revenues on payroll... I personally have no problems with that.
Where that money is being spent is a completely separate issue.
=spaz44]Yes but YOU started with the premise that we in Edmonton ARE being jipped.
No. You, for some reason, are inferring and again concluding that's what I said. I've since clarified and let you know exactly what the pronoun was modifying.
You've responded by some how omnisciently telling me what the pronoun, and sentence, was saying in a sentence that I wrote, in the context of a post I wrote, and a thread I started. I defined the context very clearly in my Thread title and in my first post. No mystery. The entire, and exclusive, and only thing, I was talking about in that post was getting in, ticket to ride, cheapo seats.
In a response to injectilo I carefully described why that was my context..i.e. cheap seats is what defines who can afford to go. Inclusion vs exclusion. Thats my issue.
Let me give you another analogy. If I started a thread called Cheapest air tickets to Hawaii and comparatively detailed 23 different city quoted, cheapest, lowest cost, tickets to Hawaii from the North American continent and determined in that list that cheapest prices from Edmonton were among the highest and towards the end made the remark "We're getting jipped" would you then infer I was talking about your business or first class tickets?
Quote:
They are a small section ABOVE the 300 section and thus are worse seats then they are in Edmonton. So really they should be cheaper! Also did you look at how few of those cheap seats there are in Chicago. They are above the 300 seats and it is a VERY small section. So it is interesting how you talk about how Edmonton is only letting a small minority section go BUT ignore how small of a section that cheap seating was for an example that you actually used. You are either a hypocrite or didn't do any research on the examples you quoted. Very few people in Chicago can actually take advanage of those seats.
I honestly don't know what you are saying here. There are quite a lot of $15 tickets in the United Centre. Heres the seating plan. Note that with the exception of sec 315-320 the cheap seats wrap around entirely. For 14 sections there are 10 rows in each section at that price. Theres another 14 sections that offer 5 rows at that price.
Heres the Rexall seating plan. Note that there are only 6 sections of rows that go 42+ IIRC the top is 54 so theres maybe 13 rows and a nother 4 smaller sections with less rows.
Very few fans can actually get in at 15.00 a seat (you were very generous with the decimal point and it was actually 14.80). For a BETTER seat in Edmonton that are not so limited the amount is 23.00 Funny in how you averaged down for the Chicago seats by .80 cents but tacked on 1.20 for the Edmonton average. Do you always use decimals this way?
Mark Twain had it right there is no bigger lie than statistics!!
Again I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I do note that you are hinting that I may have lied through stats ( I didn't to the best of my knowledge) and that I am either a hypocrite or that I didn't do any research on the examples. I don't agree with these assertions either.
Finally, I don't discount that YOU may have a good deal and I think thats great but it wasn't the focus of this thread.
Last edited by Replacement: 07-25-2005 at 09:30 AM.
I'm not going to reply to the other aspects of your posts, as I think I'll just be rehashing old material... but I appreciate your points & will continue to respectfully disagree.
However, on this last point... expeditures grew from $27,932,500 in 02/03 to $33,375,000 in 03/04. That represents an increase of 19.5% and your right, the profit was reported to be about the same as the year before. That tells me that the team is spending increased revenues on payroll... I personally have no problems with that.
Where that money is being spent is a completely separate issue.
Thanks for your contributions and for you taking the time. Just one thing did you follow what I meant when I said Laforge was testing for Echo? I note with great interest that the Oil is the only team I researched that doesn't have this seasons prices up yet. I had to go on 2003-2004?? This is either because:
1)They havent completely decided yet.
2) They are slowest to respond due to some due dilligence problems. Seems poor form to not have everything up and running online if people are wanting to buy tickets all ready. Make hay as soon as you can should be the motto.
I hope its 1 because 2 could spell further trouble.
Thanks for your contributions and for you taking the time. Just one thing did you follow what I meant when I said Laforge was testing for Echo? I note with great interest that the Oil is the only team I researched that doesn't have this seasons prices up yet. I had to go on 2003-2004??
I followed the testing for echo point.
On the 03/04 pricing... did the first point in this thread compare the 03/04 Oiler pricing against the 05/06 pricing for the rest of the league? Or were you just stating that you couldn't find the Oilers' pricing in your research?
From my understanding, they'd already reduced pricing by 5% for 04/05 and they were looking to maintain that.
My conclusions were based on studying 20 teams yesterday.
Some caveats are that Americans have very different ideas on what they consider "prime seats" at a hockey game.
In almost every case their first row and sometimes up to the first 3 rows are very prime and can go from 10,000 to 12,000 US Funds.
Many of the "prime or club locations" are actually on the second tier as this is where the restaurants and clubs are.
In many cases the rinks are very cavernous compared to Rexall place so their "value pricing" was seating that was usually limited to a very small section and very high so do NOT compare with the Edmonton seats.
So to compare a cheap seat to the same cheap seat in another rink was difficult. In replacements idea he was only concerned that these people could get in cheaper.
To me this is misleading for the following reasons.
1. The seats that are offered at a value rate are not as good as the Edmonton seats, because their rinks are so big they are usually a few rows in the top section.
2. Once you get past that limited section the prices increase and become higher than Edmonton's and for worst seat. So if you are the lucky few people that can actually take advantage of those seats than you can save money but bring your binoculars because you are not going to see much.
3. Consumers do not just look at price when shopping. They look at the quality of the product. If I have to sit in the 4th tier and the top row this does NOT compare to a 300 level seat in Edmonton than I am saving money but not getting the same quality. Also if those few seats are sold out, they are going to sell me the next price point which was almost always more expensive in Edmonton and again was a worse seat.
So in my opinon when I looked at what was important. Price, quality, and availability Edmonton was a better buy.
My conclusions were based on studying 20 teams yesterday.
Some caveats are that Americans have very different ideas on what they consider "prime seats" at a hockey game.
In almost every case their first row and sometimes up to the first 3 rows are very prime and can go from 10,000 to 12,000 US Funds.
This must be the wanna hear the boards rattling crowd. Really weird because it's impossible to watch a hockey game from in that close.
Quote:
Many of the "prime or club locations" are actually on the second tier as this is where the restaurants and clubs are.
In many cases the rinks are very cavernous compared to Rexall place so their "value pricing" was seating that was usually limited to a very small section and very high so do NOT compare with the Edmonton seats.
So to compare a cheap seat to the same cheap seat in another rink was difficult. In replacements idea he was only concerned that these people could get in cheaper.
To me this is misleading for the following reasons.
1. The seats that are offered at a value rate are not as good as the Edmonton seats, because their rinks are so big they are usually a few rows in the top section.
2. Once you get past that limited section the prices increase and become higher than Edmonton's and for worst seat. So if you are the lucky few people that can actually take advantage of those seats than you can save money but bring your binoculars because you are not going to see much.
3. Consumers do not just look at price when shopping. They look at the quality of the product. If I have to sit in the 4th tier and the top row this does NOT compare to a 300 level seat in Edmonton than I am saving money but not getting the same quality. Also if those few seats are sold out, they are going to sell me the next price point which was almost always more expensive in Edmonton and again was a worse seat.
So in my opinon when I looked at what was important. Price, quality, and availability Edmonton was a better buy.
To each his own as far as preference. I prefer cheap seats and just getting in. Some of my best Oiler experiences were in the row 40somethings Including Stanley Cup final game 7 in 87. To me it doesn't matter where you sit as long as you get in. That said its clear that everybody has different preferences and its why theres an assortment of seats and prices.
Anyhow I don't really see it the same way that higher up seats are poor product unless they are obstructed. Give me a clear line of sit and no problems. FTR I've been really high up at Saddledome (To see Vancouver beat them in the playoffs 94 hehe and a couple other times) and I didn't mind the seats but did mind people wearing ten gallon Stetsons in front of me....
As far as limited # that seems to vary from as low as 500(now quickly becoming 1000, LA, Montreal) to a few thousand loss leaders. Thats not a terrible supply.
Gallery in Edmonton is perfect loss leader territory IMO. Maybe at least the 4 smaller sections.
Finally for 10bucks USD I'd gladly sit in row 80 to watch an NHL game. Pretty good bang for the buck if you ask me. It is possible to watch a game from a distance without binoculars and not really any different than watching a football game or the Heritage Classic. I think you're overstating for effect how much of a difference 25-50 ft from ice surface makes. But I think you're far from alone in thinking that where you sit makes all the difference.
Frankly with that in mind I could never figure out why people sitting 20 rows below me want to be paying 3-4 times as much. I'd rather attend 4 games for the same price as some other guy is paying for 1. ( Not saying you just to be clear)
Finally pt 2. I will try to be more careful in the future as the "We're getting jipped" comment regardless of context was too strongly worded and I think you found it offensive so my sincere apologies for that. Thanks for the replies and I do realize you have good tickets at a relatively good price and hopefully even 5% better.
On the 03/04 pricing... did the first point in this thread compare the 03/04 Oiler pricing against the 05/06 pricing for the rest of the league? Or were you just stating that you couldn't find the Oilers' pricing in your research?
Unfortunately this is the case. The Oil haven't made the current prices known yet for 2005-06. I could've considered the 5% in the comparison but it really doesn't change the picture significantly.
Anyhow I'm using their straggling on setting prices to advantage by quickly lobbying them for cheaper gallery seats before they finalize #'s. No response yet. I don't give up easy, so we'll see. If this works I might be in for some free beer from the gallery crowd.
Quote:
From my understanding, they'd already reduced pricing by 5% for 04/05 and they were looking to maintain that.
and thats good, every little bit helps, but I don't think 10% would be out of the question or would at all interfere with the competitive team mission statement.
Perhaps they'll throw you a bone and price 100 seats at $10 for each home game against Minnesota. However, you still might have to take a day off work to snap one up before they sell out.
Perhaps they'll throw you a bone and price 100 seats at $10 for each home game against Minnesota. However, you still might have to take a day off work to snap one up before they sell out.
All this time I thought tickets to Minnesota and Nashville were free judging from friends calling up and: "so do you wanna go to the game tonight? I've got these tickets I'm not using....."
Anyhow I'm using their straggling on setting prices to advantage by quickly lobbying them for cheaper gallery seats before they finalize #'s. No response yet. I don't give up easy, so we'll see. If this works I might be in for some free beer from the gallery crowd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMackey
lol. I see that.
Perhaps they'll throw you a bone and price 100 seats at $10 for each home game against Minnesota. However, you still might have to take a day off work to snap one up before they sell out.
heh, Just wanted to bump the thread. FTR I lobbied the Oil on the 10 buck tickets offered by other teams mercilessly.
Not sure if that had the effect but Looks like we did get the 15 buck ticket bone.
Right On! Wish they woulda let me know in correspondence so I coulda leaked the news!
Figured I'd bump the thread one more time now that people have their great, fantastic, 15buck tickets in hand! I got good nosebleed tickets for 8 games and I can't wait!!!
)
I'm working on it. I know it confuses the overall message and detracts from the quality of the argument but...
I think they went to far in the conservative direction and have started to milk a tidy quiet profit. Remember, none of these guys in EIG are in this to make a huge buck, they were putting back into the community what they already made from the community. This business model was about saving NHL hockey for Edmonton and that this was a goodwill gesture on the part of these businessman. Has the profit started to look too good?
To me it doesn't matter where you sit as long as you get in. That said its clear that everybody has different preferences and its why theres an assortment of seats and prices. 
All this time I thought tickets to Minnesota and Nashville were free judging from friends calling up and: "so do you wanna go to the game tonight? I've got these tickets I'm not using....."
