The 2007 Red Sox season was just underway when a group of professional ticket brokers held an unusual meeting in a private room at the Baseball Tavern, the storied bar in the shadows of Fenway Park. The main item on their agenda: How to persuade Massachusetts officials to keep ticket-resale profits rolling.
One man was there with an offer of help. He was not a broker, had no known experience as a political strategist, and has never registered as a State House lobbyist.
But Richard Vitale had something that the two dozen brokers came to believe was even more important to their cause – a close personal and professional relationship with Salvatore F. DiMasi, the speaker of the Massachusetts House. Vitale told the group that he could “do things a registered lobbyist couldn't do – behind the scenes,” according to one ticket seller in attendance who asked that his name not be used.
…If Vitale was paid more than $5,000 to influence lawmakers – and several brokers briefed on his fee arrangements said he most certainly was – he would have had to register as a lobbyist. And if he was working as a lobbyist, his ongoing financial relationship with DiMasi – namely, the loan -would have run afoul of state conflict of interest laws that prohibit lobbyists from granting anything of value to a public official.
Vitale was taking money from the ticket sellers, but wasn't a registered lobbyist. Oops. The scalpers ticket sellers ought to have known the rules; Vitale definitely ought to have known the rules; and DiMasi ought to have known the rules. At the very least, looks terrible.
However, the truth lies between Vitale and DiMasi, who each deny there was lobbying; Vitale's spokesman says he was a “strategist” for the ticket sellers. (I leave it to our esteemed readership to decide whether all that is credible.) “Lobbying”, i.e. specific conversations about that legislation, would be hard to prove, but is that even necessary? Frankly, if all that's required is two parties agreeing, “nope, no lobbying happened here,” then lobbying rules are pretty toothless indeed.
And after all that, the public gets really outrageously expensive Red Sox tickets. Yet another example where the public get hosed by non-transparent insider deals; this one just doesn't even seem to be legal.
Outraged Liberal (always a must-read) has more.
This guy has to go the way of Finneran and Bulger, i.e., elsewhere, sooner rather than later.
You want to sell a ticket for more than face value? Go ahead. Just know that if you sell one pair of tickets every few years because you can’t go to the game or if you push through 100s of tickets a week, you have to follow exactly the same rules.
<
p>If the state says you can’t re-sell a ticket for more than $x or y% over face value, than make everyone follow that rule. No commissions, no extra fees, no postage and handling above and beyond what the 3rd party shipping agent [UPS, USPS, Fed-Ex, etc] charges.
<
p>I don’t mind that there are scalpers. I just mind that there are two sets of rules — and the “average Joe” buyer and the “average Joe” seller get hosed.
More meticulous, blow-by-blow coverage of all things Red Sox in the Globe. It’s awesome that our paper is so invested (wink wink) in the Olde Towne Team. Why, they’re so upset that they forget to include the disclaimer that the Globe is owned by a concern that has a large stake in the Sawx.
I don’t think the NYT’s part ownership of the Red Sox was the primary mover behind this piece. The Sox sell out every game as is, at face value. Where would the Globe’s pressing financial interest be in taking DiMasi to task on this?
Well, the Red Sox do have their own marketplace for season ticket holders to offer their tickets for resale. Not exactly sure how it works, but I’m positive they take cut. A lot of sports teams try to control the resale of tickets to maximize their profits, plus the high prices and constant demand will drive up the auction prices for the Monster seats. It’s also a good way to raise ticket prices every year, as people get used to paying higher prices, the $5/seat hit every year isn’t as noticeable.
<
p>If the Sox are doing the same thing, then it benefits the NYT and the Globe and I would think there should be some kind of disclosure.
<
p>Also, can’t imagine the Sox didn’t lobby the legislature on the bill too. Since the Globe/NYT own the Sox, how much did they spend and what side were they on?
So they’ve been scalping their own tickets all along, eh? Pretty weenie, if you ask me.
By the recent Major League Baseball – Stubhub agreement, which designates Stubby as the official reseller of tickets for MLB. The Red Sox are the only MLB team not to participate in this arrangement, although they have some arrangement with Ace Tickets as a preferred reseller, though not an official one, I believe, as that would violate the MLB agreement.
<
p>The old “Replay” program did assess a fee to buyers, though for cheaper tickets, such as LF Grandstands, the lower price for season ticket holders of these tickets balanced out the fees and was well worth the $50 annual investment.
Is the replay program not around anymore? I never joined, but I just assumed it was still in operation.
all that’s left is a “Ticket Toss” option for season ticket holders (STHs) to pass on their tickets to others, but there’s no vehicle for the Sox to advertise tickets that STHs want to sell, nor can they make any money on it, thus “competing” with Stubhub.
<
p>members also got a few purchase opportunities, for the annual concert at Fenway, for example. probably pass this year anyway.