collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 01:02:54 AM]


45 minutes ago at the Dallas Westin by MuggsyB
[Today at 12:19:24 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 12:10:57 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by CountryRoads
[Today at 12:05:42 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Don_Kojis
[Today at 12:04:21 AM]


Where is Marquette? by marqfan22
[March 28, 2024, 09:29:52 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Daniel
[March 28, 2024, 08:47:22 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Reseating...  (Read 88250 times)

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2016, 11:47:25 AM »
Wrong.  MU would still ask for the donation and the bill would be the same as Rocky points out.  Just would not be deductible for state tax purposes for STH's, though still deductible for Federal tax return.

If Marquette attaches a donation to tickets, they have to do annual reseating.

Are you suggesting they drop prices to the non-donation level and count on the goodness of STHs hearts to recoup those donations?

I feel there is a disconnect here. The law is pretty simple, so I'm sure I'm not understanding your suggestion.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2016, 12:07:50 PM »
If Marquette attaches a donation to tickets, they have to do annual reseating.

Are you suggesting they drop prices to the non-donation level and count on the goodness of STHs hearts to recoup those donations?

I feel there is a disconnect here. The law is pretty simple, so I'm sure I'm not understanding your suggestion.

I think his suggestion is to keep prices and donation levels just where they are...and MU will get just as much revenue as they currently do.  That's because people buy tix because they want to go to the games, not for the tax break.  And they would still get the federal deduction, which is much more significant than the WI deduction anyhow.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2016, 12:22:34 PM »
I am also wondering if the BC gets a percentage of the ticket revenue.  If that is the case, it is possible that the "donation" does not count as ticket revenue, and therefore, if they rolled it into the ticket price, the BC would get a piece of that as well.

Both Brew and Chick are correct. The donation classification of the ticket cost does three things: shelter the money from the BC, shelter MU's take from taxation, and provide a tax credit for the donator. If the donation portion were to just become ticket cost the following would happen: STH's effective cost would go up in the form of tax output relative to ticket cost, MU total "revenue" would go do because both the government and BC would take a cut.

For MU to maintain the same level of revenue and provide the "convenience" of not reseating every year ticket prices would have to go up, on average, 6.5% a year. (Seems weird to have to call this out, but this is scoop. This is an average and estimate as there are tax brackets and the BC cut varies based on section that would vary the required price increase STH to STH).
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2016, 12:24:02 PM »
I think his suggestion is to keep prices and donation levels just where they are...and MU will get just as much revenue as they currently do.  That's because people buy tix because they want to go to the games, not for the tax break.  And they would still get the federal deduction, which is much more significant than the WI deduction anyhow.

This is untrue.....if they don't reseat every year it is no longer a donation, no matter what you call it and then is taxable for MU and not a deduction for the STH
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2016, 12:25:51 PM »
One other thing to keep in mind. 14% of the MU alumni donate to the university, one of the lowest, if not the lowest, donation rates for a private university in the country.....and that includes all basketball related donations. If you eliminate basketball related donations that number could drop to single digit percentages.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Sir Lawrence

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2016, 12:27:18 PM »
Riddle me this:  with the annual reseating letter comes a chart titled "Priority Points Section Breakdown."  This year it is dated March 21, 2016.
Last year it was dated February 9, 2015, so it's not quite a fruit to fruit comparison.  I looked at four different sections, just to see if there are any trends.

2/9/15 section 215  rows J-T average points 311
3/21/16 same section and rows average points 372        a 19.6% increase

2/9/15 section 200 rows J-T average points 425
3/21/16 same same average points 401           a -5.6% decrease in a section that is dead center mid-court.

2/9/15 section 213 rows D-H average points 680
3/21/16 same same average points 1095         a 61% increase

If I'm reading the point system stuff correctly, it's $100/point  for donations to the Blue & Gold Fund and $250/point for donations to other MU funds. 

I'm surprised that the increase for some sections is that much, given the down years and craptacular non conference games.   And, I'm surprised that the average increase in donations in, for example, section 215 is $6,100 (if all to the B&G fund). 
Ludum habemus.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2016, 12:31:48 PM »
Riddle me this:  with the annual reseating letter comes a chart titled "Priority Points Section Breakdown."  This year it is dated March 21, 2016.
Last year it was dated February 9, 2015, so it's not quite a fruit to fruit comparison.  I looked at four different sections, just to see if there are any trends.

2/9/15 section 215  rows J-T average points 311
3/21/16 same section and rows average points 372        a 19.6% increase

2/9/15 section 200 rows J-T average points 425
3/21/16 same same average points 401           a -5.6% decrease in a section that is dead center mid-court.

2/9/15 section 213 rows D-H average points 680
3/21/16 same same average points 1095         a 61% increase

If I'm reading the point system stuff correctly, it's $100/point  for donations to the Blue & Gold Fund and $250/point for donations to other MU funds. 

I'm surprised that the increase for some sections is that much, given the down years and craptacular non conference games.   And, I'm surprised that the average increase in donations in, for example, section 215 is $6,100 (if all to the B&G fund).

I suspect it ties into perceived value of a seat. The cost differential in seats is probably out of whack so people are trading "down" in seat to a better price value (much lower cost but not too much worse view or whatever).
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2016, 12:36:05 PM »
This is untrue.....if they don't reseat every year it is no longer a donation, no matter what you call it and then is taxable for MU and not a deduction for the STH

When I called the ticket office, I was told that the yearly requirement was specific to the WI Department of Revenue, not the IRS.  Was this explained incorrectly?  Does the IRS require annual reseating now?

Sir Lawrence

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2016, 12:37:45 PM »
Oh, and the fourth section I looked at is Section 216 rows A-H.   Only a two point difference (decrease) this year over last.
Ludum habemus.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2016, 12:42:11 PM »
When I called the ticket office, I was told that the yearly requirement was specific to the WI Department of Revenue, not the IRS.  Was this explained incorrectly?  Does the IRS require annual reseating now?

No, it's specific to the state. If part of the price of the ticket is a required donation, so the buyer is effectively getting a benefit for their donation, then the reseating has to be annual. It has nothing to do with the IRS. However, if there's a donation, it can be written off on both. You can't separate the ticket donation to a "counts for federal but not for state" level.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2016, 12:46:31 PM »
No, it's specific to the state. If part of the price of the ticket is a required donation, so the buyer is effectively getting a benefit for their donation, then the reseating has to be annual. It has nothing to do with the IRS. However, if there's a donation, it can be written off on both. You can't separate the ticket donation to a "counts for federal but not for state" level.

Fair enough.  I still stick by my original point - people buy season tix because they want to go to the games, not for the tax benefit.  I think they could keep prices exactly where they are, and it would have no impact.  The impact comes from whether the team is good or not, and whether the schedule includes enough compelling games....

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2016, 12:50:06 PM »
Fair enough.  I still stick by my original point - people buy season tix because they want to go to the games, not for the tax benefit.  I think they could keep prices exactly where they are, and it would have no impact.  The impact comes from whether the team is good or not, and whether the schedule includes enough compelling games....

Your plan gives the customer an opportunity to reconsider their purchase no matter what because there is by default a change in real purchase price. All so people don't have to log into a website once a year for 14 minutes?

I contend if yearly reseating is the hot button issue for STH, we must be out of problems as an alumni base and as a human race  ;D
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2016, 12:52:57 PM »
I suspect it ties into perceived value of a seat. The cost differential in seats is probably out of whack so people are trading "down" in seat to a better price value (much lower cost but not too much worse view or whatever).

I will let you in on a secret: I believe at least some of those point totals are on the high side.  Glow and I have never had trouble getting seats reasonably equivalent to what we had the prior year, and the estimated point totals for that section was always higher than that.

I think that may be done for two reasons:

1.To incentivize people to donate more before the deadline.

2. To prevent Joe True from fielding hundreds of angry phone calls along the lines of, "What the Hell!  The list said I had enough points to get into section 207!"

Have some patience, FFS.

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2016, 12:55:25 PM »
No, it's specific to the state. If part of the price of the ticket is a required donation, so the buyer is effectively getting a benefit for their donation, then the reseating has to be annual. It has nothing to do with the IRS. However, if there's a donation, it can be written off on both. You can't separate the ticket donation to a "counts for federal but not for state" level.
That is true.  The state is really the bad guy here putting the screws to MU and others by having the re-seating requirement.  In WI, charitable contributions per the Federal return are eligible for a Wisconsin 5% Itemized Deduction Credit.  There is no provision in the state tax code to reduce the eligible amount by athletic donations such as at MU.  So, the Department of Revenue created an off-line provision to have the re-seating requirement.  Its really silly and causes a lot of work for the athletic department and some hassles for STH's.  Its really a crazy vicious cycle.  Why not just allow the re-upping of season tix as the re-seating does not really benefit the State in any way.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2016, 12:57:25 PM »
That is true.  The state is really the bad guy here putting the screws to MU and others by having the re-seating requirement.  In WI, charitable contributions per the Federal return are eligible for a Wisconsin 5% Itemized Deduction Credit.  There is no provision in the state tax code to reduce the eligible amount by athletic donations such as at MU.  So, the Department of Revenue created an off-line provision to have the re-seating requirement.  Its really silly and causes a lot of work for the athletic department and some hassles for STH's.  Its really a crazy vicious cycle.  Why not just allow the re-upping of season tix as the re-seating does not really benefit the State in any way.


So Wisconsin doesn't have the equivalent of an 80/20 rule like the IRS has.  Is that the jist of it?

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2016, 12:58:45 PM »
Fair enough.  I still stick by my original point - people buy season tix because they want to go to the games, not for the tax benefit.  I think they could keep prices exactly where they are, and it would have no impact.  The impact comes from whether the team is good or not, and whether the schedule includes enough compelling games....

I agree that no one is buying tickets for the tax write off. However the donation is part of the price because, as both mu03eng and I stated, it keeps the cost of the ticket down and maximizes Marquette's revenue.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2016, 01:03:07 PM »
I agree that no one is buying tickets for the tax write off. However the donation is part of the price because, as both mu03eng and I stated, it keeps the cost of the ticket down and maximizes Marquette's revenue.

So if you agree that no one is buying the tix for the tax write off, why not keep it revenue neutral for MU by making them mandatory nondeductible donations?  Keeps it out of the ticket price, gets the money to MU, and eliminates the largely irrelevant question of tax breaks.

Edit:  FWIW - many (most?) pro sports teams require nondeductible donations.  They just call them seat licenses.  Not tax deductible, and not (directly) considered part of the ticket price.  People pay because they want season tix - not for a tax deduction.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 01:13:15 PM by GooooMarquette »

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2016, 01:14:04 PM »
So if you agree that no one is buying the tix for the tax write off, why not keep it revenue neutral for MU by making them mandatory nondeductible donations?  Keeps it out of the ticket price, gets the money to MU, and eliminates the largely irrelevant question of tax breaks.

Okay...here's how I believe it works. Let's take for example seats in sections 200, 201, 213, 214, 215, and 227. Right now, those seats carry a price tag of $620 per seat with a $700 donation for an actual price of $1,320.

These aren't exact figures, but let's say that on the actual price tag ($620) Marquette gets 40%, the Bradley Center gets 40%, and the government gets 20%. So currently, the breakdown is as follows when you factor in the full cost of the seat:

Bradley Center: $248
Goverment: $124
Marquette: $948

If you took the donation out, Marquette would need to charge $2,370 in order for their 40% take to equal what they currently charge without a donation. If you're a STH that usually buys 4 seats, your bill just went from $5,280 to $9,480. How many STHs would keep their seats if the cost of said seats doubled?

Now granted, the purple and light blue seats would have lower incremental increases, but the bottom line is we would all need to spend more for Marquette to take the same out. That also is assuming Marquette isn't taxed on any of the $948 they would be getting back, because currently they are definitely not being taxed on the $700 seat donation cost. If the government is taking money on the front end and the back end (wouldn't be the first time they did that) then Marquette would need to increase prices even more.

I get why people don't like reseating, and it's definitely the state of Wisconsin putting the screws to university season tickets, but the inconvenience of reseating every year is the price we pay to keep ticket prices low and Marquette's donations high.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2016, 01:18:04 PM »
Okay...here's how I believe it works. Let's take for example seats in sections 200, 201, 213, 214, 215, and 227. Right now, those seats carry a price tag of $620 per seat with a $700 donation for an actual price of $1,320.

These aren't exact figures, but let's say that on the actual price tag ($620) Marquette gets 40%, the Bradley Center gets 40%, and the government gets 20%. So currently, the breakdown is as follows when you factor in the full cost of the seat:

Bradley Center: $248
Goverment: $124
Marquette: $948

If you took the donation out, Marquette would need to charge $2,370 in order for their 40% take to equal what they currently charge without a donation. If you're a STH that usually buys 4 seats, your bill just went from $5,280 to $9,480. How many STHs would keep their seats if the cost of said seats doubled?

Now granted, the purple and light blue seats would have lower incremental increases, but the bottom line is we would all need to spend more for Marquette to take the same out. That also is assuming Marquette isn't taxed on any of the $948 they would be getting back, because currently they are definitely not being taxed on the $700 seat donation cost. If the government is taking money on the front end and the back end (wouldn't be the first time they did that) then Marquette would need to increase prices even more.

I get why people don't like reseating, and it's definitely the state of Wisconsin putting the screws to university season tickets, but the inconvenience of reseating every year is the price we pay to keep ticket prices low and Marquette's donations high.

Why would Marquette's revenue go down just because the customer can't deduct the license fee? 

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2016, 01:19:56 PM »
I spoke to Joe True at the 2013 Haunted Hoops about reseating. Joe reached out to me because he knew there was an uproar over the changes to the STH process and he knew I could get the word out to the message boards. I bolded what he said about the tax issues and reseating. Here's what I posted then:

I talked to Joe True at Haunted Hoops and asked about a number of questions that had been brought up here and elsewhere and wanted to share his responses with everyone. I didn't keep track of who asked what, so I'll just post the question and the answers I received:

Will there be a continuous update of which rows/seats have been taken?

There will continue to be real-time updates of how many seats are available in each row, however MU will not be able to let us know which exact seats are available. In the past, you would see the exact seats. Now you will simply see the row and how many seats out of 14 are available. In general, aisle seats tend to go first, so consider that when you are picking your seats. Also, for any seats that DO NOT have a minimum donation, you will still see the exact seats in real-time. The changes only apply to those sections with mandatory donations assigned to them.

Would it be possible to simply add sales tax to the value of the seats and allow us to still pick exact seats?

If they did this, it would kill the Blue & Gold fund, which pays for virtually all of the sports scholarships, not just basketball. The only way to keep seat donations (which are the primary source of B&G Fund funding) was to make this switch. In order for Marquette to get those donation values tax-free, a portion of the seat price must be left as a donation. Simply adding sales tax wouldn't work.


Will this also affect Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and Green Bay?

It will not force any change at Milwaukee or Green Bay because they do not require seat donations on any of their seats. Madison has their own seating policy and their own way of conforming to these rules. From what I understand, they do not pick exact seats there either. Wisconsin is a bit different because as a larger school, they are not so reliant on seating donations from football/basketball/hockey to fund their other sports. But they are already compliant with the law that we now must follow.

Has there been any thought of going to a PSL system?

Like the sales tax, this really isn't an option. The PSL system used in Green Bay was only allowed because the state gave an exemption to the Packers (go figure). Otherwise, they would be subject to the exact same rules. But part of the GBP deal allowed the PSLs. However this would have a tremendous impact on the B&G Fund and really isn't a viable option.

How will it work if I want to sit with a friend?

If you have another group of season ticket holders you want to sit with, the time slot will be picked at the lower STH's spot. One STH will be declared "team captain" and will pick all of the seats for the group. Thus, two STHs could pick up to 8 seats at the same time with the captain making the selections.

Will I be able to sit with FaceBook friends?

So far, there has been no action to try to link FB with the reseating process.

When will I know which seats I get?

Marquette is still settling how best to handle this. It sounds like it will most likely be next day as most people won't want to wait until the entire reseating process is done before finding out their exact seats.

If there are 14 seats in a row and the first two selectors take 4 each on the ends, and the third requests 2 seats with a center aisle preference, will I be alerted that picking the remaining 4 seats in this row will be non-sequential?

I asked this mid-conversation. It's something Joe will be bringing back to the table. It sounds like they have the process 80% done and are ironing out final details.

Why make this change so soon after implementing new software?

I'm sure I addressed this before, but MU didn't have a choice. If they had their way, they would much rather we pick our seats bi-annually because them picking them every year is a lot more hassle and work. As mentioned, the old system will still be in place for non-donation seats. Initially, there was discussion of only allowing STHs to pick their section. Marquette is trying to be as transparent as possible by allowing us to select section and row, as well as preferences such as aisle, mid-aisle, or same seats as before. I really get the sense that the B&G Fund is going to do everything in their power to get you the exact seats you want. The new laws from the state aren't making that easy, but Marquette is trying to work within those laws to make the process as smooth and satisfactory as possible.

What about people with the same number of preference points?

Tiebreakers will work the exact same as before. Everyone will still get their slot, and if multiple people have the same number of preference points, tiebreakers will separate them. Nothing is changing in that regard.

Would I be better off just going down to the Al to pick my seats?

Going to the Al will still be an option, but the only advantage is that there will be about a dozen computers there for you to log on to. You still won't see the available seats, though there will be people to help you through any changes. But if you have reliable internet at home, there is no advantage to going to the Al.

What if I have additional questions?

I'd be happy to talk to Joe on anyone's behalf, but I'd also encourage you to call him. His number is listed earlier in this thread, and at least from my perspective, it's very reassuring to hear that MU really is doing everything in their power to make this as easy as possible. In addition, they are planning some Webinars to further explain the process, and may have some live seminars as well.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2016, 01:21:09 PM »
Why would Marquette's revenue go down just because the customer can't deduct the license fee?

Because as soon as it converts from a donation to revenue, everyone else will take a bigger cut and Marquette won't receive the money tax free.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2016, 01:23:15 PM »
Because as soon as it converts from a donation to revenue, everyone else will take a bigger cut and Marquette won't receive the money tax free.

Who is "everyone?"  The BC and state get their cuts as a portion of ticket prices (sales).  I'm talking about a payment that is not part of the ticket price.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #47 on: April 12, 2016, 01:23:30 PM »
I'm sure anyone who wanted to contact Joe True could get more exact figures from him, but we talked at length on the phone and in person about the reseating process. Outside of going to the government and asking the regulations, I couldn't have got my information any more from the horse's mouth than I did. The bottom line is in order to keep prices down and donations up, Marquette has to conduct reseating the way they do. And as the B&G fund uses that money to fund all Marquette sports, not just basketball, taking the donation portion away while keeping the ticket price revenue neutral would kill Marquette Athletics.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2016, 01:26:52 PM »
Okay...here's how I believe it works. Let's take for example seats in sections 200, 201, 213, 214, 215, and 227. Right now, those seats carry a price tag of $620 per seat with a $700 donation for an actual price of $1,320.

These aren't exact figures, but let's say that on the actual price tag ($620) Marquette gets 40%, the Bradley Center gets 40%, and the government gets 20%. So currently, the breakdown is as follows when you factor in the full cost of the seat:

Bradley Center: $248
Goverment: $124
Marquette: $948

If you took the donation out, Marquette would need to charge $2,370 in order for their 40% take to equal what they currently charge without a donation. If you're a STH that usually buys 4 seats, your bill just went from $5,280 to $9,480. How many STHs would keep their seats if the cost of said seats doubled?

Now granted, the purple and light blue seats would have lower incremental increases, but the bottom line is we would all need to spend more for Marquette to take the same out. That also is assuming Marquette isn't taxed on any of the $948 they would be getting back, because currently they are definitely not being taxed on the $700 seat donation cost. If the government is taking money on the front end and the back end (wouldn't be the first time they did that) then Marquette would need to increase prices even more.

I get why people don't like reseating, and it's definitely the state of Wisconsin putting the screws to university season tickets, but the inconvenience of reseating every year is the price we pay to keep ticket prices low and Marquette's donations high.

Good example, but you also need to factor in the loss of the tax benefit when calculating the STH's cost.  Assuming that they are in the second- highest tax bracket (let's assume that the majority down there have less than $325,700 of taxable Wisconsin income), the actual cost of those seats would be $9,480+ ($700 X 4*6.27%) or $9,656.
Have some patience, FFS.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Reseating...
« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2016, 01:27:20 PM »
Why would Marquette's revenue go down just because the customer can't deduct the license fee? 

Who is "everyone?"  The BC and state get their cuts as a portion of ticket prices (sales).  I'm talking about a payment that is not part of the ticket price.


Because you have just increased the cost to the customer.