If you have any sack whatsoever...send The Ninja an e mail........

[Shining Beacon]

I'm sure you hate The Grove along with most MSU fans, however, this sounds eerily similar to the decision made in the early 90's to ban vehicles from The Grove. Most of the fans, especially those who'd grown up parking in The Grove thought it would RUIN the tradition.

Traditions can be improved, and the fact is the ONLY redeeming qualities of the current LFL is the tradition aspect. Compared to the modern facilities being erected across the conference, it's really silly.

 

[Ivehadbetter]

and it really isn't that important to me at this point in life because I don't have any money.

I, personally, wouldn't want a bunch of random drunk idiots (and I was a drunk idiot in college, particularly in the LFL) and rushees on my rig.

I do understand the <span style="text-decoration:line-through">well-constructed</span> area over in right field.

Because I would like to have the opportunity to buy a spot when I do finally make some money, and because I think the Ath Dept is missing out on revenue, I am in favor of increasing the prices for LFL. One of my main arguements for the fraternities is that on week nights, the fraternity rigs make up the vast majority of the fans in the outfield (speaking from my college days of 2001-2006).

 

[zerocooldog]

I'm sure you hate The Grove along with most MSU fans, however, this sounds eerily similar to the decision made in the early 90's to ban vehicles from The Grove. Most of the fans, especially those who'd grown up parking in The Grove thought it would RUIN the tradition.

Traditions can be improved, and the fact is the ONLY redeeming qualities of the current LFL is the tradition aspect. Compared to the modern facilities being erected across the conference, it's really silly.

<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal">I disagree that most MSU alumni hate the grove, we just don't like your fans.

"The ONLY redeeming quality of LFL is its tradition," you've obviously never been invited to a LFL, redeeming qualities include various adult libations, an unparallel atmosphere, solid baseball (soon to be great) and a pretty damn good seat, not to mention it is the most unique experience in college baseball. </p>

 

[AssEndDawg]

First, did a family trust or something buy the tickets or something like that? Otherwise, it would appear to me that some one or some people in your family bought the seats. Now, I know that might be a little nitpicky. But, here's another question. As long as someone in your blood lineage continues to buy those tickets, you guys get them? That's pretty unbelievable. I have chairbacks, and I didn't know that was the deal.

And the reason I ask is because of what happened at the hump. Those were lifetime seats, if anything. But, family members of deceased seat holders continued to buy the tickets, as it would appear your post says. There is a differenence in lifetime seats and "my family gets to keep buying them."

Lifetime means that whoever made the original buy gets to keep buying them until they die. Not your spouse once you die, if you didn't write a joint check and put them in both names. Not your kids, not your grandkids, not your dog. Just YOU.

I know I seem like I am on a rant here. But, this is a pretty important point for seating.

They were paid for by a business and that business has since gone away. The seats moved to my fathers business partner, then years later to my father, and now to me. I have been assured every step of the way that the seats will remain mine as long as I keep buying the tickets each year and I can't see why I couldn't pass them down when the time is right. I'm honestly not sure of the rule, and I was over-reacting to make fun of the original poster, but I'm not worried because even if they re-seat I shouldn't have a problem remaining where I am.

I doubt they will re-seat baseball though. Just doesn't seem to be worth it. I think they do need to do something about the outfield. Maybe not over-turn the apple cart but if the price is as low as I have heard that is crazy and if they find someone buying more than one spot and renting out the space they should lose all spots. I don't have real good answers there because the last thing I want to do is kill off such a great tradition.

 

[AssEndDawg]

...it's really silly.

Which is why Ole Miss has done everything in their power to try to build something of value in the left field. Silly my ***, you guys would kill to have the amount of baseball tradition stuffed into one LFL trailer.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

ill will toward you or your family. However, I think that line of ownership is an example of exactly what creates problems with these lifetime seats. We have clearly gone past the lifetime of the orginal purchaser. I mean the thing keeps going on and on. I'm sure you are a good fan and probably a good bulldog club member and that is going to serve you well, not an entitlement to the benefits of the original purchaser.

Over time, people assume someone else's lifetime benefit and just sort of start to feel like it was always theirs. And it just isn't.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

I wouldn't care about people who don't have a spot either. But, you should care about the athletic department, which is constantly looking for ways to raise money, taking it on the proverbial revenue chin out there. Large numbers of those rigs are held by folks that haven't been there in years and let someone else use the spot, sometimes for a profit. Most of the people out there realize they are getting a deal and are willing to pay more. The only people that give a damn about the price going up are the freeloaders on the university's athletic budget dime.

 

[graddawg]

And the reason <span style="font-weight: bold;">I ask is because of what happened at the hump</span>. Those were lifetime seats, if anything. But, family members of deceased seat holders continued to buy the tickets, as it would appear your post says. There is a differenence in lifetime seats and "my family gets to keep buying them."

It has always been my understanding that the original purchasers at DNF have a written contract and the Hump agreements were verbal, which makes all the difference.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

contract being a "beyond lifetime" contract. Damn, that would have been stupid. But, maybe that is what it says.

I can tell you that not all chairback owners have a written contract.

 

[bsquared24]

This conversation always intrigues me, some people are all about the money, some are all about the tradition, some are all about the past, some are all about loyalty and standing by previous agreements. There is no easy choice here for the ninja as any direction will be criticized.

 

[Xenomorph]

And cb, I thought I saw one time that you actually agreed with that.

He agreed with re-seating the Hump because he didn't h have good seats. He doesn't agree with having to pay more to keep his LFL spot.

 

[cowbell9]

nm

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

1. All prior written agreements should be honored. No matter what. But, they should be honored to the letter of the written agreement, not what someone's understanding of that agreement might be.
2. If prior written agreements were stupid, I think the parties are free to negotiate an end to them if both parties are willing to do so.
3. If verbal agreements are generally verifiable, those should be honored as the written agreements. In other words, if they are widely known to be true by members of the athletic adminstration, they should be treated as written agreements. If not, they should be ignored. Again, these should only be honored to the extent of the agreement.
4. MSU's traditions should be honored, to the extent practical. The AD gets to decide that is practical, but should be guided by a sense of respect for institutional tradition.
5. Revenue should be maximized. All matters not subject to a deep sense of institutional tradition should be up for bid to the highest bidders in order to maximize revenue in order to help our AD compete in the country's most competitive athletic conference. "Institutional Tradition" is the key here, not individual tradition.

There's no way to make it cut and dried. But, that's a good set of rules, in my book.

 

[titus.sixpack]

I may be wrong, but I understand that the lower level seatholders at the Hump were simply told that they could keep their seats as long as they kept buying season tickets. There was no cash donation (consideration) involved....therefore no contract existed. When the baseball stadium was expanded, it was funded by sales of chairback seats and the purchasers were told they could keep the seats as long as they bought season tickets. There was consideration and a contract exists. I don't think that you can will your ownership of the seat. You can, however, transfer your Bulldog Club points to someone.

Not an attorney, but battle them all the time.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

that is about 4 removed from the original purchaser and is still gettting the seats.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[AssEndDawg]

that is about 4 removed from the original purchaser and is still gettting the seats.

And therein lies the problem.

As long as you keep selling out the seats? I somewhat understand what you are saying but what makes baseball so different is that you get to be around the same people year-after-year. Everyone in our section has been there as long as I can remember and it's one of the things I really enjoy about baseball.

I did a little more checking and a poster above was right. This was not the case of being "assigned" a seat and it being passed down. This is the case that they couldn't afford to build that stadium. In order to build it they SOLD the seats, as in we paid a lump sum to cover the cost of building that seat (or those four seats to be more precise). Part of the sale was a written contract that as long as we keep buying the tickets we own the seats and there is a provision for transfer. I haven't seen the contract but it sounds like there is no wiggle room to change baseball short of building another stadium. You can argue the contract was stupid, and I would probably back you on that, but it's done.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

it depends on what the contract says and how "we" from your post is defined.

Does "we" mean that as long as someone in the lineage keeps buying the tickets? I'm just skeptical that it says that, although I certainly admit that it could say that. And your lineage is pretty shaky, to be honest -- business, to one owner, to the other owner, to the other owner's son.

I guess the measure shouldn't be "well the seats are sold", so all is fine. It could be that there is someone who is now making a large contribution to the university who can't get seats. And I understand that has happened, although not very frequently.

And I also understand the point that the University was desperate, and these people came financially to the rescue, and for that reason a contract was inked that might not make sense today. Well, as I have stated, we should honor that written contract, whatever it says, and no matter how stupid it sounds now. But, I am just skeptical that the written contract guarantees those seats for not only the life of the purchaser, but essentially anyone the original purchaser wants to pass that right to. That could be the case, again. I'm just skeptical. </p>

 

[patdog]

So you don't have a contract with the university for anything. The person who did pay for those seats has not continued to purchase season tickets, so he no longer has a contract with the university. They could (and probably should) take those seats from you any time they want to and resell them to someone else.</p>

 

[VinceVega70]

but it would be the ideal and best solution for the athletic dept. It was a stupid decision for LT to make when he made the legacy offer. The fact that he was allowed to hang around and run our AD into the ground for so long is regrettable. Many poor decisions. So people could donate minimally and benefit maximally. The winner is you. The loser is the athletic program and the university.

 

[AROB44]

Hell....I think they should rent the spaces in the Junction. The ninja is really missing out on some $$$$ here.

 

[AssEndDawg]

and again I haven't seen the exact language but from what dear old dad is telling me as long as it stays in the family and the season tickets are purchased every year then the seat stays. I was also told that when the seats were transferred from his former business partner to him we had to work through the school to get the ownership issue corrected. This makes me think that it is restricted to immediate family.

In any event, I just don't see this being a issue for Baseball. If you want to go to a game you can get a ticket. There are so many games it's just not as big of a problem. i thnk what this boils down to is some bitter basketball ticket holders who want the baseball folks to suffer the same way they did. Whiners.

 

[AssEndDawg]

So you don't have a contract with the university for anything. The person who did pay for those seats has not continued to purchase season tickets, so he no longer has a contract with the university. They could (and probably should) take those seats from you any time they want to and resell them to someone else.</p>

because it's the same priority that has always paid for the seats. I got handed the BC priority and the tickets. The school doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

 

[jb.sixpack]

I thought that once the fee was paid for the original chairbacks that the person who bought was allowed 1 chance to pass them down to someone else once they either died or no longer bought tickets, once that 2nd person stopped buying they were supposedly back on the market.

 

[lawdawg02]

for consideration. however, the money paid for the tickets each year would be consideration.

the difference between this situation and a normal contract is that this is a unilateral contract. the school is the only party making a promise - "if you buy the tickets every year, you can have seats x,y , and z." the ticket buyer has not promised anything.

without seeing the actual contract (assuming there is one), it doesn't do much good to speculate as to whether it could be enforced by either party.</p>

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

Because all of us can be well intentioned and verbally inarticulate at the same time.

Actually, I don't really care about chairbacks. I have chairbacks, and I think it is boring as **** sitting there. I like the outfield.

It probably isn't a big deal right now, although I can see it being an issue at some point, just like it used not to be a problem at the Hump.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

It's an entirely different thing.