A way around the waiting list!

[fumbrunner]

I got free season tix, and the right to re-buy. Here's how I did it.

If you own your own business, or are decently high up in a company, you should be able to do it. Bank of America has their "patriots visa" credit card, with pats rewards. Once you run 400k through it, you get season tix, as long as you do it in a 3 year timespan. There are other tempting prizes, but hold out for the seasons.
I ran every bill I paid for my business through my card. Just paid with the card, and paid that amount in a check to myself. I would instantly send the check out to pay off the card. Little more work for the accountant, but not too much. After a few months of just dumping money through it, they raised my limit, and kept doing so until the limit on my card reached twenty thousand. At that point, it was easy to rack up 400 thousand.
My tix are nosebleed, but they are on the forty and on the pats sideline. Not bad for nuthin, and no waiting list.

Just figured I'd share in case anyone was unaware of this.

Hey, if you can pull it off, more power to ya! I have a card that allows me to collect frequent flier miles, and using the expenses from my small business allowed me to make it down to Boston for the AFC Championship game last year. The rewards are there to be used.

 

[cartmen]

I got my season tix in February, 1994 after getting up at 3 a.m. to park in the Foxboro Stadium lot so I could be in line when they went on sale. The web site for my business is progressionmagazine.com.

Just because I used the word tactics doesn't mean it was underhanded. You earned your tix so did he he just went about it a different way than you. Also in 94 it was much easier to get tix than it is today, not downgrading your effort just desperate times call for deeper thinking. he didnt cheat anyone out of anything they were a goal his credit card company offered and he achieved said goal. If the CC company didnt want it to be used for ordering biz materials they would specify and I would have to assume before they turn over such valuable prizes like tix they would investigate your purchases. He did nothing wrong and anyone here bad mouthing him is jealous. Like I said originally I prob wouldn't be able to do this but I aint gonna **** on him

 

[Tunescribe]

Just because I used the word tactics doesn't mean it was underhanded. You earned your tix so did he he just went about it a different way than you. Also in 94 it was much easier to get tix than it is today, not downgrading your effort just desperate times call for deeper thinking. he didnt cheat anyone out of anything they were a goal his credit card company offered and he achieved said goal. If the CC company didnt want it to be used for ordering biz materials they would specify and I would have to assume before they turn over such valuable prizes like tix they would investigate your purchases. He did nothing wrong and anyone here bad mouthing him is jealous. Like I said originally I prob wouldn't be able to do this but I aint gonna **** on him

My point is purely an idealistic one, I'm certainly not accusing anyone of wrongdoing.

 

[Ring 6]

First of all, your use of the term "these tactics" is pretty telling. There's already a system in place for getting season tickets, and it's called the waiting list. Why should it be considered well and good to resort to "tactics"? And I made no reference to a "huge, privately owned business" having trouble getting tickets to games. All they have to do is buy club seats or a luxury box. The OP's example makes it pretty clear there are folks with the capability and intention of employing "tactics" to get something they want.

I got my season tix in February, 1994 after getting up at 3 a.m. to park in the Foxboro Stadium lot so I could be in line when they went on sale. The web site for my business is progressionmagazine.com.

I dont understand why you must be critical of the op's action. It appears that you would not feel comfortable taking advantage of a means to get season tickets that is neither illegal, deceitful, or manipulative. The credit card company offers to reward people for paying for things by using their card. The credit card does not put restrictions on the program. It appears that the credit card company wants their card used, and whether it is immediately paid off appears to not be part of their concern. You said the credit card company intended the cards to be used by individuals??????? How do you know that? Didnt the issue one to the op's business account? Isn't their reward based on charges to the account? I doubt they care whether they were done by a business, person or other entity.

 

[Tunescribe]

I dont understand why you must be critical of the op's action. It appears that you would not feel comfortable taking advantage of a means to get season tickets that is neither illegal, deceitful, or manipulative. The credit card company offers to reward people for paying for things by using their card. The credit card does not put restrictions on the program. It appears that the credit card company wants their card used, and whether it is immediately paid off appears to not be part of their concern. You said the credit card company intended the cards to be used by individuals??????? How do you know that? Didnt the issue one to the op's business account? Isn't their reward based on charges to the account? I doubt they care whether they were done by a business, person or other entity.

I made my point in post #57. It's the way I see it, fine if you disagree. You'll have to ask the OP whether the card was issued to his business account or his personal account, but that's really moot, especially if it's a sole proprietorship. As noted earlier, I've been to Pats games where these cards are hawked for T-shirts, towels, etc., and the low initial credit line suggests they're intended for personal use. It'll be interesting to see if the rewards are changed as more people follow the OP's example.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

First, i cannot imagine how it is a public policy question.
It is a credit card company offering a perk for you to use their service. It's like saying when the grocery store has spam for buy one get one free, if Walmarty bought every employee a can of spam for Christmas, its a matter of public policy that they got so many free cans of spam.

The other HUGE flaw with your argument centers around the idea that there is something improper going on.
First you say Privately held, but list pubilcly held corporations. Since you listed Walmart and Fidelity, I will assume you meant to say publicly held, since both of those companys are owned by shareholders and traded on the NYSE.

The impropriety you seem to be inferring here is the age old "businesses make money at the expense of people" a version of the tax cuts for corporations are bad moves and indicative of corruption.
This is the most butchered concept in American history.
First, those corporations provide 'Joe Lunchbucket' with his livelihood' so what benefits the corporation also benefits the little guy.
Im sure that could be argued indefinitely over who gets how much of the benefit and so forth. And I'm sure your attitude would be along the lines of Joe Lunchbucket wont get more money if you give a corporate tax break, the big corporations will get it.

Herein lies the flaw. If the corporation gets the money from the tax breaks, perks, etc, WHO IS THE CORPORATION?
Corporations are owned by stock holders. Over 60% of the stock in American corporations are held by INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, meaning 401ks, pensions and mutual funds(of which most investment is by middle income people in investment vehicles).
The other 40%? By industrius people who have put themselves into a position through hard work and savings to be able to invest in the stock market. A very small precentage is owned by the executives of the coroporation, and the purpose for that is that they benefit if they produce gains for their shareholders.
So, when XYZ Corporation is given a 100 million tax break, and the politcal disinformation is that 'we give money to the big corporations, at the expense of the little guy' understand that this 100million first had a purpose (the tax break was an incentive for something) second very likely kept thousands of Americans working, and 3rd created additional profit for the 'owners of XYZ' which turn out to be YOU AND I.

The Public Policy issue is simple: a privately held company enjoys (as it should) the benefit of being able to use its legitimate expenses as legitimate deductions to lower the taxes it pays. Since that company pays less taxes as a result of being able to deduct those legitimate expenses, the tax burden, in the form of regulations, IRS rulings or tax rates, is shifted to other corporate and individual members of society. The issue it raises, to my mind, is whether it is appropriate for a company owner to manage the payment of the monies that result in that benefit to receive an additional personal reward, unrelated to his business. The issue is whether the expenses which he is deducting and which, by lowering his taxes, thereby shift the tax burden to other taxpayers, should be adjusted to reflect the benefit he has used those expenses to gain.

The impact of $400,000 worth of expenses on the tax line of a company, assuming a marginal corporate tax rate of 36%, is around $144,000. That's a significant benefit for a small business owner. Turning around and using those expenses to garner an additional personal benefit that is not, but perhaps should be, taxed raises a couple of interesting questions. That's all I was saying. I'm not trying to be moralistic or say that I wouldn't do something like this myself even. I'm just saying it raises an interesting question.

(and just on a couple of facts: i purposely restricted my example to privately held companies owned by families or tight groups of individual shareholders, not widely held and traded companies.)

 

[ShrewBeer]

It'll be interesting to see if the rewards are changed as more people follow the OP's example.

I see your point. But here is how it works;
there is an allotment of season tickets per year for the rewards. once the allotment is reached, you are SOL and have to either wait until next year or spend your points on something else. The krafts have a deal in place that in no way interferes with the waiting list and how long one must wait.

 

[Tunescribe]

I see your point. But here is how it works;
there is an allotment of season tickets per year for the rewards. once the allotment is reached, you are SOL and have to either wait until next year or spend your points on something else. The krafts have a deal in place that in no way interferes with the waiting list and how long one must wait.

That's good to know. How did you find this out?

 

[alamo]

The impact of $400,000 worth of expenses on the tax line of a company, assuming a marginal corporate tax rate of 36%, is around $144,000. That's a significant benefit for a small business owner.

You lose me completely by calling expense deduction a "benefit", because it's not a benefit, it's a recognition that the owner spent those $$$ in order to generate the profit on which he does pay taxes.

An analogy: If I buy a stock for $100 a share and sell it for $101, is the fact that I only pay taxes on the $1 gain a "benefit"? It sounds like you think there are some cases where I should actually pay taxes on the full $101 sale price! Now, I don't actually believe you think that, but it seems to me to be a similar situation to deductible expenses where you do believe the deduction for costs incurred isn't always justified.

 

[patchick]

No, the OP did nothing technically wrong; however, I'll venture that the WAY he went about it was not how the Patriots perks program was intended. That is, funneling high volumes of business dough through a credit card program designed for personal use over a relatively short period of time with sole intent of collecting the prize.

...

Folks bemoaning the continuing "corporatization" of football at the expense of the common joe might see this as another small example of money trumping fan loyalty -- in this case, to the detriment of folks who've languished on the list for years with the team at its peak.

I agree with the statement in bold, but I think you're making a mistake in laying any of that at the feet of the OP. The choice to have money trump fan loyalty was made by the New England Patriots.

The team made the choice to take a chunk of tickets out of the season ticket pool, make them unavailable to the loyal wait-list line, and instead allocate them to whomever spent the most money on their credit cards. They dangled those seats as carrots to encourage fans to funnel as much money as possible through the cards, because they get a cut of every dollar spent. The OP acted exactly as they intended; I really don't think he violated the spirit of the card program at all. As to what the Patriots violated (or what these kickback programs violate in the economy at large), that's a different matter.

 

[ShrewBeer]

That's good to know. How did you find this out?

when you go to shop with your points it tells you what is sold out, and how many are left. pretty much everything big has a limit per year. there were trips with the team, trips with the cheerleaders to a photo shoot, individual tickets, and everything had a limit on how many were available.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

when you go to shop with your points it tells you what is sold out, and how many are left. pretty much everything big has a limit per year. there were trips with the team, trips with the cheerleaders to a photo shoot, individual tickets, and everything had a limit on how many were available.

NOW you tell us!

 

[ShrewBeer]

NOW you tell us!

it was tempting