Monday, February 7, 2011

Monday Morning Question of the Day

Due to safety reasons 400 people who had tickets to the Super Bowl did not have seats to watch the game.  They fought the traffic, stood in super long lines, and then found out they would have to watch the game from a club area.  They were given papers stating that they would be reimbursed 3 times the cost of their tickets. 

Do you think this is fair compensation for
 not getting to watch the game? 

If not, what do you think would be fair? 


  1. ok, so if my husband bought tickets and i went with him and our tickets were among those who did not have seats ... i would GLADLY take the reimbursement and high-tail it outta there. GLADLY. but that's just me.
    i'm sure some of those people where less than thrilled.

  2. I would take the money, but it really is bad to sell something you didn't have and could not make happen. In this economy a lot of people made a choice and it goes well beyond the tickets. Airfare, hotel, rental cars, meals, souvenirs, etc. Now they had no game. I would be peeved, of course. I do think that the people selling the tickets should have done a better job.

  3. Yeah, I'd be tickled to death to get three times the amount of money I paid originally. (I read somewhere that parking passes alone for the Super Bowl were $1,000.) If I would have known it would happen that way, I would have bought a ticket or two. What a great return on the initial investment! That's better than a savings bond, CD, or 401k!

    I could care less about the NFL. Now, on the other hand... if it was a K-State championship bowl game or something, then I'd be ticked. Just kidding - I'd still rather triple my money! :)