for the purchase and sale season ticket holder rights with an associated fee of thirty percent seller transfer right but not renew wealthy the secondary market allows for the transfer of ownership marketplace he could have done so provided he paid the thirty percent is a thirty percent fee on top mean suppose he gets double the face value for the season tickets is that thirty percent calculated on that or is it calculated in the face value we're here out of motion is this my understanding though is that whatever price the buyer and seller agree to on the secondary market thirty percent of it is started for st at ok so my problem with your theory is trying to leverage from the tw fifteen season tickets over to the twenty six tickets since the tickets say the colts reserve the right dot dot dot to reject any renewal and since the colts have said we can decide not to renew i don't know why you have a right to renu because at the same time you have to interpret when there is a transfer of ownership provision in the secondary market for the transfer of ownership ownership of the the season tickets if you just bought the mot why isn't that the straightforward thing the two thousand and sixteen tickets coupled with the possibility but not the right to renew well so let me take each of those each of those pieces the it's already the case this season ticket holder holder can buy and sell tickets on all markets overnight about individual game tickets no one would think that i should pay thirty percent fee to buy and sell something that i can otherwise sell as to the second point well but you might mean it depends what you can sell them for people probably have reasons all the time who are not brokers to sell the rest of their season tickets who may be there it's a natural difficulty  get the money even with the thirty percent c because of the markup on the secondary market which can be quite considerable or may be you know they're moving away from indianapolis and they think well actually in reality we're not going to fly from san step in that there is no thirty percent fee to the team as a result of that so are our interpretation of it is that that the secondary market is for the purpose of transferring something else and the something else is a renewal right but i don't see profit that the provider of the of the entertainment whether it's a football team or somebody else might have gotten if they had realized that was going to be the market price they're all trying to pull this profit back in so it seems to me the dismiss my stumbling block is the language on the ticket that says we didn't give you a property right to renew until the end of time indianapolis colts tickets we can reject any renewal but if the if the package of things that can be bought and sold on the secondary market are only individual game tickets and the right to request a renewal then there really is a transfer of ownership of anything well sure there is there's the tickets and the right to request the renewal and i bet for single buyers the colts probably are delighted to renu a lot of the time it's the brokers they're after well and that's the reason why somebody would go on a secondary market like this in in pay thirty percent fee in order to acquire season ticket holder status is opposed to just buying all of those additional games and so the problem that we're left with is that if you interpret the ownership provision the way the colts proposed it isn't there really isn't anything that's onan there really isn't anything for which there there enjoying the thirty percent fee versus you do it yes you have the provision that says they can reject renewal so what do you think that provision means i mean according to you means nothing well if you actually can't reject any renewal if it means that the team drafted a contract with two different provisions that can't be reconciled with each other and as the draft or under indiana law that contract has to be construed to go why would you reject second part of the contract language instead of the first because when you have conflicting contractual language the answer is because the colts drafted the contract and so under the doctrine that ambiguity is construed against the drafter then the the provision in favor be economically attractive is that i think lack of economic attractiveness isn't the same thing as ambiguity but we i think you have to look in one of the cases we cite while if it doesn't offer a different set of circumstances you should look at it could it suit commercial people in this setting how would be interpret this why would anybody pay a thirty percent fee to simply acquire individual game tickets that they can already get without paying a thirty percent fee because when they buy the individual game tickets they don't even have a shot at renewal whereas if you know it's just you know you buying a season ticket package for your family and then you go to the colts and say gee i really enjoyed going to twenty fifteen games you know i'd like to ren season is a different question that's not i don't understand why it's your present all because they've already put in the right to reject any order of renewal but they got rid of the secondary market for the next season for example then there will be  marketplace at the colts of created with the fee when they could always just sell their existing tickets whether season tickets or individual tickets without that thirty percent fee no your honor and may it may it please the court marketplace what it does it's a secondary commercial market for the opportunity to put your name as a buyer on an account for tickets that you know where those tickets are going to be if i want to buy tickets in the i want to take my family to the col next year i can stand in the queue and hope that i get i'm not too far from the rafters or can look on this marketplace and i can see whether there are some tickets or some club seats they're going to be more expensive i put my name in the important part in the reason this is not part of the record is because the colts reserve the right to approve any transfer on the s g r marketplace there's three steps in the transfer of us to our marketplace first if i am mr prager and i want to transfer my tickets i can put my name in an account on the s t r market place i list my tickets i list price the coles ticket office looks at that and they can decide whether or not they're going to approve that transfer so so why wouldn't a person such as m avoid that veto power of the colts why wouldn't he just selling the tickets that he already has or tickets for a particular seat in the stadium eyes well because he and i think it all gets down to what he bought he bought tickets for the two thousand and fifteen season there was no economic exchange or bargain for anything beyond that he didn't want just to be clear or use the number ninety four yes we're talking about ninety four sets of season tickets so ninety four packages or whatever it is ten games renewals but there you're saying there's no right renewal because the culture reserves the right to refuse renewal that's right there's so why are you calling it a right to renew when it isn't well the the semantics i think are challenging  because you don't want to obfuscate it well here's the rate that the reality is if you have been if you purchase season tickets you name your name is on an account and then next year if the colts decide to renew because rather than let's say you have tickets that are in a desirable location rather than just her and you can no longer attend the colts games rather than just turn the man there may be some value to having your name on that account and it's the name on that account that is subject to the marketplace that's what's given that that's i believe is the basis for mr topics argument this morning now that i should point out that the district court before he dismissed before judge barnes dismissed he granted fourteen days for them in a complaint to be filed had there been had there been a concern that the s t r marketplace was not adequately identified in the complaint that could have been done well one of the reasons that tawfiq did not file an amended complaint i think one of the reasons might be that if you look at the language on that website it says in clear terms that the colts reserved the right to any transfer tickets so and that this is not a personal seat license so it's clear on that website that the colts have not created a right that this not exist and i think we all understand that a seller can sell nothing more than he or she has in the existence of this marketplace does not create rights that that mr prager did not have in those ninety four tickets i'm happy to answer any questions if not i will sit one had they wanted to try to capitalize on the possibility of renewal and portrayed on the one hand is just a possibility when it when it suits them so they want to they want people to pay for the expectations are going to be renewed but at the same time not actually grant