The person this stiffs is someone that wants to take their kids and sit in the upper deck because it's cheaper. I have no issues with giving the people that bought tickets in advance an upgrade. But, it isn't right to gouge someone who doesn't buy their tickets in advance. This was another assnine money making move for Loria and his cohorts, period. He should just be glad that anyone wants to pay money to see his team. If he were smart, he would keep the upper deck open and sell those tickets for $5 bucks.

 

 

Yeah man, because that person can't be a smart ass and buy Upper Deck tickets on Stub Hub for $5.00 and sit in their mandatory upgraded seats.

I think they reduced the price on some of the lower bowl seating for the games where the upper deck is closed anyway.

The person this stiffs is someone that wants to take their kids and sit in the upper deck because it's cheaper. I have no issues with giving the people that bought tickets in advance an upgrade. But, it isn't right to gouge someone who doesn't buy their tickets in advance. This was another assnine money making move for Loria and his cohorts, period. He should just be glad that anyone wants to pay money to see his team. If he were smart, he would keep the upper deck open and sell those tickets for $5 bucks.

 

 

Gouge? Marlins tickets are not necessary to sustain life, thus there is no price gouging here.

 

Home run porch tickets are less than upper level and still available.

I really don't think we're gonna' see a problem with upgrading the few season or part-season ticket holders from the upper to lower deck. I'd be surprised if there were 1000 even partial season ticket holders up there for weekday games in May.....and as we've seen there's plenty of available seats infield or behind the plate in the lower.

.

I'll be optimistic for now that they do something smart and offer promos in the future instead of throwing in the towel along with hundreds of jobs. At this point I'm more inclined to think that they'll do something dumb and make the weekday close-down season long and maybe even expand it to week-ends. We'll see.

I'm talking about the "psychological effect" you mention. I'd say that closing the upper deck weighs more heavily than discounted seats. That's simply because more teams actually do the latter.

 

And while these promotions might encourage people to buy cheaper seats as opposed to those more expensive, that's not really a concern as long as the promotion brings in more fans to the park overall. In other words, as long as there's a net gain, it doesn't matter if people decided to buy promotional seats instead.

 

Personally I think that it's advantageous for the team to bring as many people to the park as possible, even if they pay little in ticket prices.

 

 

Certainly a net gain is all that matters. Your last sentence seems to be conventional wisdom, and it may indeed be accurate. My original response was to pierremvyp's post, which made is seem like an absolute no-brainer, which I thought was a bit overzealous.

The more I think about this the worse it gets. I won't blame Loria, I'll blame the people who are actually receiving a check each week being employed as the top public relations/marketing people of the franchise. Didn't someone think that it would be better to at least try for awhile to attract folks to the upper deck. Give it to the All-Star Break at least and school is out and summer heat sets in. Money-wise it seems to make sense. Even if you give em' a hot dog and soda for $10 you still make money and they are going to buy beer and other stuff. I'm thinking at least enough money to pay the extra workers and all the concession workers. Even if you break-even overall money wise, you gain fans. At least try, in a new stadium. If you don't see any progress then shut 'er down in July.

 

This is not necessarily true. If you offer a promo like that, some fans who would have bought more expensive seats would substitute the promo seats instead, which could net the team less overall money. Further, while there is some psychological effect from closing the upper deck, there is a psychological effect from selling really cheap seats, sending signals that may imply they are less valuable, which can bother some people.

 

 

Some fans are going to substitute more expensive seats for promo seats? How many is some, in your best estimate? Who/where are these "fans" that are paying full price on a game by game basis that are going to choose the upper deck at $10(including a hot dog and soda coupon) over a heavily discounted lower bowl seat on StubHub or via a coupon in the local pennysaver. The pennysaver for crying out loud. There's coupons for lower level seats midweek buy 1 get 1 free...it works out to $9/seat. I suppose you're right, the franchise gets $1.25 for each hot dog and 37 cents for a soda so they would net 62 cents more. Money wise, is it worth 62 cents on these few marginal fans versus the psychological effect of having a dark upper deck. The dark upper deck cheapens all the lower bowl season/partial season tickets. An upper deck with some activity and noise adds to the value of all the lower bowl seats. Public relations wise...is it worth the loss of all the job hours for the locals?

The more I think about this the worse it gets. I won't blame Loria, I'll blame the people who are actually receiving a check each week being employed as the top public relations/marketing people of the franchise. Didn't someone think that it would be better to at least try for awhile to attract folks to the upper deck. Give it to the All-Star Break at least and school is out and summer heat sets in. Money-wise it seems to make sense. Even if you give em' a hot dog and soda for $10 you still make money and they are going to buy beer and other stuff. I'm thinking at least enough money to pay the extra workers and all the concession workers. Even if you break-even overall money wise, you gain fans. At least try, in a new stadium. If you don't see any progress then shut 'er down in July.

 

This is not necessarily true. If you offer a promo like that, some fans who would have bought more expensive seats would substitute the promo seats instead, which could net the team less overall money. Further, while there is some psychological effect from closing the upper deck, there is a psychological effect from selling really cheap seats, sending signals that may imply they are less valuable, which can bother some people.

 

 

Some fans are going to substitute more expensive seats for promo seats? How many is some, in your best estimate? Who/where are these "fans" that are paying full price on a game by game basis that are going to choose the upper deck at $10(including a hot dog and soda coupon) over a heavily discounted lower bowl seat on StubHub or via a coupon in the local pennysaver. The pennysaver for crying out loud. There's coupons for lower level seats midweek buy 1 get 1 free...it works out to $9/seat. I suppose you're right, the franchise gets $1.25 for each hot dog and 37 cents for a soda so they would net 62 cents more. Money wise, is it worth 62 cents on these few marginal fans versus the psychological effect of having a dark upper deck. The dark upper deck cheapens all the lower bowl season/partial season tickets. An upper deck with some activity and noise adds to the value of all the lower bowl seats. Public relations wise...is it worth the loss of all the job hours for the locals?

 

 

 

Deep breaths. I don't know the exact numbers. I'm just pointing out something to think about and noting that it's not a no-brainer either way. The job-hours is also an interesting consideration.

The more I think about this the worse it gets. I won't blame Loria, I'll blame the people who are actually receiving a check each week being employed as the top public relations/marketing people of the franchise. Didn't someone think that it would be better to at least try for awhile to attract folks to the upper deck. Give it to the All-Star Break at least and school is out and summer heat sets in. Money-wise it seems to make sense. Even if you give em' a hot dog and soda for $10 you still make money and they are going to buy beer and other stuff. I'm thinking at least enough money to pay the extra workers and all the concession workers. Even if you break-even overall money wise, you gain fans. At least try, in a new stadium. If you don't see any progress then shut 'er down in July.

 

This is not necessarily true. If you offer a promo like that, some fans who would have bought more expensive seats would substitute the promo seats instead, which could net the team less overall money. Further, while there is some psychological effect from closing the upper deck, there is a psychological effect from selling really cheap seats, sending signals that may imply they are less valuable, which can bother some people.

Some fans are going to substitute more expensive seats for promo seats? How many is some, in your best estimate? Who/where are these "fans" that are paying full price on a game by game basis that are going to choose the upper deck at $10(including a hot dog and soda coupon) over a heavily discounted lower bowl seat on StubHub or via a coupon in the local pennysaver. The pennysaver for crying out loud. There's coupons for lower level seats midweek buy 1 get 1 free...it works out to $9/seat. I suppose you're right, the franchise gets $1.25 for each hot dog and 37 cents for a soda so they would net 62 cents more. Money wise, is it worth 62 cents on these few marginal fans versus the psychological effect of having a dark upper deck. The dark upper deck cheapens all the lower bowl season/partial season tickets. An upper deck with some activity and noise adds to the value of all the lower bowl seats. Public relations wise...is it worth the loss of all the job hours for the locals?

 

Deep breaths. I don't know the exact numbers. I'm just pointing out something to think about and noting that it's not a no-brainer either way. The job-hours is also an interesting consideration.

 

They already said no one is getting their hours cut. They'll just reassign them to handle the lower bowl stands.

 

Should equal quicker service times overall

The more I think about this the worse it gets. I won't blame Loria, I'll blame the people who are actually receiving a check each week being employed as the top public relations/marketing people of the franchise. Didn't someone think that it would be better to at least try for awhile to attract folks to the upper deck. Give it to the All-Star Break at least and school is out and summer heat sets in. Money-wise it seems to make sense. Even if you give em' a hot dog and soda for $10 you still make money and they are going to buy beer and other stuff. I'm thinking at least enough money to pay the extra workers and all the concession workers. Even if you break-even overall money wise, you gain fans. At least try, in a new stadium. If you don't see any progress then shut 'er down in July.

 

This is not necessarily true. If you offer a promo like that, some fans who would have bought more expensive seats would substitute the promo seats instead, which could net the team less overall money. Further, while there is some psychological effect from closing the upper deck, there is a psychological effect from selling really cheap seats, sending signals that may imply they are less valuable, which can bother some people.Some fans are going to substitute more expensive seats for promo seats? How many is some, in your best estimate? Who/where are these "fans" that are paying full price on a game by game basis that are going to choose the upper deck at $10(including a hot dog and soda coupon) over a heavily discounted lower bowl seat on StubHub or via a coupon in the local pennysaver. The pennysaver for crying out loud. There's coupons for lower level seats midweek buy 1 get 1 free...it works out to $9/seat. I suppose you're right, the franchise gets $1.25 for each hot dog and 37 cents for a soda so they would net 62 cents more. Money wise, is it worth 62 cents on these few marginal fans versus the psychological effect of having a dark upper deck. The dark upper deck cheapens all the lower bowl season/partial season tickets. An upper deck with some activity and noise adds to the value of all the lower bowl seats. Public relations wise...is it worth the loss of all the job hours for the locals?

Deep breaths. I don't know the exact numbers. I'm just pointing out something to think about and noting that it's not a no-brainer either way. The job-hours is also an interesting consideration.

 

They already said no one is getting their hours cut. They'll just reassign them to handle the lower bowl stands.

 

Should equal quicker service times overall

 

 

 

That's good news. I missed that.

I'm sure that's true for the employees who remain...they'll not lose hours.

But, what about the employees who get laid-off? Not to mention the concession employees, local police/deputies on special overtime duty, etc., etc.

I'm curious how the franchise worded it.

Is there a link from Loyello or anyone else within the franchise that I can look at?

They said no jobs will be lost from this.

Did they say that no employees will have their hours reduced? The article I read said that no jobs would be lost but hours would be cut.

Did they say that no employees will have their hours reduced? The article I read said that no jobs would be lost but hours would be cut.

 

 

Same thing I read. Which is corporate talk for hours getting slashed, employees can no longer afford to work there, find other jobs, and quit. Or quit to find another job, which means no unemployment insurance benefits. A win-win for the company.

Did they say that no employees will have their hours reduced? The article I read said that no jobs would be lost but hours would be cut.

 

Same thing I read. Which is corporate talk for hours getting slashed, employees can no longer afford to work there, find other jobs, and quit. Or quit to find another job, which means no unemployment insurance benefits. A win-win for the company.I'll look around for where I read it. Realistically the two stands that were open only had two people working them anyway.

 

Regarding Unenployment Bob, show me a company willing to fire someone and have them get paid to sit at home and I'll show you a company that won't be around much longer. Every company does that, to motivate them to leave on their terms. You think it's a Marlins only problem because you legitimately have a blind hate for Loria and Co.

Obviously, some hours will be cut, otherwise there would be no point to closing anything, even on a selective basis only for certain games.

 

The Marlins are a large enough organization (about 250 non-athlete employees) and have been around long enough to be fully experience-rated when it comes to their state unemployment "insurance" contributions rate (the federal FUTA rate is fixed.) They could lay off dozens and dozens of employees and it would only make a tiny difference to their state rate and that difference would only be seen a year or two down the road after some laid-off employees had made unemployment claims paid by the state fund.

 

In any case, it would be absolute peanuts to an organization with a $175 mill/year budget -- it's a non-factor from a pure budget standpoint.

 

More likely, they will cut a few hours from each of many employees and completely avoid lay-offs to avoid the obvious "Marlins lay-off low income workers" headlines that write themselves for anyone wanting to gratuitously bash Loria and the Marlins.

I wanted to go to that lupus fundraiser game on wednesday for personal reasons but meh reading that people could pretty much get in for free or for a few bucks makes me not want to even go. I'd rather donate it directly or something, if i did decide to.

I wanted to go to that lupus fundraiser game on wednesday for personal reasons but meh reading that people could pretty much get in for free or for a few bucks makes me not want to even go. I'd rather donate it directly or something, if i did decide to.

 

 

Why not do both?

 

 

Especially since Fernandez will be pitching

Obviously, some hours will be cut, otherwise there would be no point to closing anything, even on a selective basis only for certain games.

 

The Marlins are a large enough organization (about 250 non-athlete employees) and have been around long enough to be fully experience-rated when it comes to their state unemployment "insurance" contributions rate (the federal FUTA rate is fixed.) They could lay off dozens and dozens of employees and it would only make a tiny difference to their state rate and that difference would only be seen a year or two down the road after some laid-off employees had made unemployment claims paid by the state fund.

 

In any case, it would be absolute peanuts to an organization with a $175 mill/year budget -- it's a non-factor from a pure budget standpoint.

 

More likely, they will cut a few hours from each of many employees and completely avoid lay-offs to avoid the obvious "Marlins lay-off low income workers" headlines that write themselves for anyone wanting to gratuitously bash Loria and the Marlins.

 

 

It's more than a bit misleading to bring up the 250 "non-athlete employees". Trainers, scouts, front-office secretaries and such. None of these are losing any hours/job. I was thinking more of the part-time stadium workers and the many ancillary folks(concessions/police/, etc., etc.). The ones not part of the "250".

Huh?

 

The purpose of my post was to explain why the Marlins wouldn't be the least bit concerned about any laid-off employees collecting unemployment benefits. In any case, they are cutting hours, not laying anyone off. There was nothing misleading about it.

Did they say that no employees will have their hours reduced? The article I read said that no jobs would be lost but hours would be cut.

 

Same thing I read. Which is corporate talk for hours getting slashed, employees can no longer afford to work there, find other jobs, and quit. Or quit to find another job, which means no unemployment insurance benefits. A win-win for the company.I'll look around for where I read it. Realistically the two stands that were open only had two people working them anyway.

 

Regarding Unenployment Bob, show me a company willing to fire someone and have them get paid to sit at home and I'll show you a company that won't be around much longer. Every company does that, to motivate them to leave on their terms. You think it's a Marlins only problem because you legitimately have a blind hate for Loria and Co.

 

 

 

 

 

And once again you would be wrong. This time on 2 points. First, I have no blind hatred for Loria and company. I have a very strong dislike for Samson. Second, go check out an unemployment office. If you were correct, they would be pretty empty.

 

Employers are paying into Unemployment Insurance (among many other things) for every hour they pay an employee. For an employee that is making $15 per hour the company is actually paying well over $20 per hour for that person. The reason a company would use this tactic is so their insurance premium won't rise. What I consider to be a smart small company will even use a payroll service to offset the higher costs of all related employee benefits. The payroll service is actually the employer and the small company pays them to "lease" their employees. The more employees a company has, the lower those rates will be. And payroll companies have a large "employee" number. The small company is in reality the employer (hire, fire, layoffs, raises, etc...), it's just a legal way around things to keep operating expenses down while offering great employee benefit packages to attract the better qualified people.

Employers are paying into Unemployment Insurance (among many other things) for every hour they pay an employee. For an employee that is making $15 per hour the company is actually paying well over $20 per hour for that person.

 

The Marlins pay FL unemployment taxes on around 250 employees. That's 2.7% (minimum) on the first 8K of each employee's income. 54K total.

 

But 2.7% on a minimum wage employee at 7.25/hr is only 20 cents/hr.

 

Even if they laid off a ton of employees, their rate could only increase to the maximum 5.4%. Over a couple of years. Big deal. Do the Marlins care if their Florida unemployment tax rate doubles? No, because it's peanuts.

 

But the Marlins aren't laying anyone off -- they're cutting hours, as they should. Which makes any discussion of unemployment taxes moot.

 

Employers aren't governed by what happens to their unemployment "insurance" tax costs. Those taxes are trivial in the grand scheme of things -- for any employer, large or small.

 

That's not to say that your point that the TOTAL tax and benefit costs of employees are large is without merit, because that's certainly true. Just that unemployment taxes don't drive decisions and they're not even at issue here.

Employers are paying into Unemployment Insurance (among many other things) for every hour they pay an employee. For an employee that is making $15 per hour the company is actually paying well over $20 per hour for that person.

 

The Marlins pay FL unemployment taxes on around 250 employees. That's 2.7% (minimum) on the first 8K of each employee's income. 54K total.

 

But 2.7% on a minimum wage employee at 7.25/hr is only 20 cents/hr.

 

Even if they laid off a ton of employees, their rate could only increase to the maximum 5.4%. Over a couple of years. Big deal. Do the Marlins care if their Florida unemployment tax rate doubles? No, because it's peanuts.

 

But the Marlins aren't laying anyone off -- they're cutting hours, as they should. Which makes any discussion of unemployment taxes moot.

 

Employers aren't governed by what happens to their unemployment "insurance" tax costs. Those taxes are trivial in the grand scheme of things -- for any employer, large or small.

 

That's not to say that your point that the TOTAL tax and benefit costs of employees are large is without merit, because that's certainly true. Just that unemployment taxes don't drive decisions and they're not even at issue here.

 

 

 

Actually, I was responding to the post that said, "show me a company willing to fire someone and have them get paid to sit at home and I'll show you a company that won't be around much longer." I just got a little long winded in it, and added my own experience of managing payroll. I should have just asked that poster why he obviously thinks it is better to keep an employee around that isn't needed or is not fulfilling his/her obligations is such a better biz decision than letting them go. If someone isn't doing their job to what I feel is the best of their ability, I fire them. If sales dictate someone is no longer needed, at least temporarily, I lay them off. I don't like cutting hours, but I will ask for volunteers to go home early if the situation arises. I find in my line of work that most employees don't like "keep busy" work and will opt for a little extra time off. And yes, I use a payroll company so I can offer prospective top notch employees the very best package affordable. I opened my company in 1991, have been doing things this way almost from the start, and don't see my doors closing any time soon.

 

In this case, I doubt any of it has to do directly with the Marlins. Indirectly, yes. Simple reason is because what you have stated, it would escalate into another media frenzy against the Marlins as Joe Blow off the street probably looks at those people as being Marlins employees. In reality, those people that are having their hours cut aren't Marlins employees. Concession stands and security aren't directly on the Marlins payroll. I don't know if that is a season flat rate the Marlins pay to each company, or if it is a per game as needed. The people that clean up after games could be added to that list. I have no idea how the police/traffic control is handled, but I would imagine it is a flat rate for the season that is a contractual agreement. I'm sure someone will look this up. At least the police part should be public record.

Yeah, the police aspect was a controversy between the city and county as to who would get the cushy security/traffic detail jobs. Don't know how that turned out other than both probably got their piece of the action and were happy.

 

Like you, I have also been responsible for meeting payroll, and hiring and firing. My point was that unemployment taxes were never a factor, as they aren't in this case. Overall employment costs are always a factor.

I'm not a policeman/deputy but in my business I have employed them on what's known as "private detail". Basically, from my experience it's a matter of contacting the local police/sheriff and setting up a "detail". You write a check for $40/hr. or so at the end of each day, week, month...check made out to the city/county...and the specific officer winds up getting their share through the same people who process their regular payroll. I'm not in the Marlins FO, so I don't know how they have things set-up. I'd imagine it's the same. In my case or the Marlins case it's not a contract situation where you lock yourself into x number of hours. It's more fluid, and if there's 4 less or 4 more officers that you need tomorrow you just call and let the detail sargeant know 24 hours in advance.

.

.

****...whoever you are. You call the unemployment tax situation moot. I agree....but it was you who brought up the misleading "250" as non-athlete employees. I pointed out the "250" were likely your normal front office staff, secretaries, assorted trainers, scouts, etc., and a few high level stadium employees. It's moot, because none of these people are facing unemployment or hours being cut. And you know it's moot and misleading to bring up the "250" as you seem to be in the front office yourself. Please let us know who's on the "250" list.

The whole unemployment insurance issue is something you brought up as a diversion...as there's nobody accusing the Marlins of being negligent here in paying in as every business does. I'm sure that they're they're collecting and sending to the state their sales tax as well...also moot.

You call the unemployment tax situation moot. I agree....but it was you who brought up the misleading "250" as non-athlete employees.

 

Nope, not me.

 

It started with post #99 by BroncoBob:

 

"Which is corporate talk for hours getting slashed, employees can no longer afford to work there, find other jobs, and quit. Or quit to find another job, which means no unemployment insurance benefits. A win-win for the company."

 

My point about unemployment benefits was that the Marlins don't and couldn't possibly care about a few claims because the money involved is peanuts. That's where the 250 employees comes into play -- merely pointing out that they're a big outfit.

 

There won't be any claims because they're not laying anyone off.

 

What I brought up wasn't a diversion, just a fact. And, no, I'm not in the FO.

You call the unemployment tax situation moot. I agree....but it was you who brought up the misleading "250" as non-athlete employees.

 

Nope, not me.

 

It started with post #99 by BroncoBob:

 

"Which is corporate talk for hours getting slashed, employees can no longer afford to work there, find other jobs, and quit. Or quit to find another job, which means no unemployment insurance benefits. A win-win for the company."

 

My point about unemployment benefits was that the Marlins don't and couldn't possibly care about a few claims because the money involved is peanuts. That's where the 250 employees comes into play -- merely pointing out that they're a big outfit.

 

There won't be any claims because they're not laying anyone off.

 

What I brought up wasn't a diversion, just a fact. And, no, I'm not in the FO.

 

 

It's the "250" that I called misleading and a diversion. As far as I know it's not public knowledge how many "non-athlete" employees the organization pays unemployment insurance on. If it is "250" then I'm saying it would likely be the front-office staff, secretaries, IT guys, etc., scouts, trainers, coaches, higher-level stadium folks, etc. It wouldn't include the folks in the stadium possibly losing hours or a job. Other big organizations like the concessinaire, janitorial company, etc. would be paying for them.

.

For the third time I'm asking who the "250" are?