HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Coyotes institute parking fees at two lots with reduced price for STH (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1492377)

LadyStanley 09-01-2013 06:40 PM

Coyotes institute parking fees at two lots with reduced price for STH
 
http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/8...-coyotes-games

Closest lot $645/season STH price; farther lot $430/season.

$20-25 or "day of game"/TM pricing for those lots.

Of course some folks are "howling" that they are paying a third or so of their ticket prices for parking.

TheLegend 09-01-2013 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 70710331)
http://www.fiveforhowling.com/2013/8...-coyotes-games

Closest lot $645/season STH price; farther lot $430/season.

$20-25 or "day of game"/TM pricing for those lots.

Of course some folks are "howling" that they are paying a third or so of their ticket prices for parking.


And many more knew it was coming and aren't complaining.

Tinalera 09-01-2013 07:05 PM

I guess this is one part of the puzzle we'll have to see how it pans out over the season.

Season tix/regular buyers probably knew it was coming, certainly. I think it's going to be the "casual'/walk up who RSE is really going to be trying to attract-depending on how much they've followed things, or not-their reactions could be anything from "I guess they had to charge for parking" to "25 dollars a game parking-I thought they were trying to encourage people to come!" (in other words, from completely subdued to completely shocked).

It's the casuals and new fans they are trying to attract that will be the determiners IMO on how much the price of parking affects the attendance.

As was mentioned before in the old thread-between now and 5 years, they are going to start paying a LOT more in parking, raised ticket prices, concessions, ect ect-and it will be seen what effect it has and whether people will start paying said higher prices.

OthmarAmmann 09-01-2013 08:26 PM

Is this the same as announced last week, or was there a change to the policy?

danishh 09-01-2013 08:33 PM

wow, those are downtown parking prices.

we pay $12 in ottawa in a very similar situation to westgate being a suburban arena with minimal public transport.

Whileee 09-01-2013 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann (Post 70712851)
Is this the same as announced last week, or was there a change to the policy?

I don't think there is anything new here.

It's a bit of a shame that the new owners were forced by their new lease agreement into charging a minimum of $10 per car for hockey events, just when they are trying to improve the fan base, etc. I think it was short-sighted on the part of the City of Glendale to insist on this right away. It would have been better to give them a year to build the fan base and some momentum, and then introduce parking fees more slowly starting in the second year. After all, it is in the interests of both the owners and the COG for the Coyotes franchise to turn around and become successful within the next few years.

LPHabsFan 09-01-2013 09:03 PM

http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...nclick_check=1

This was posted earlier in the week and very relevant to the parking situation. Basically it says that the 3000 available parking spots at Westgate, some of which are more convenient than the Coyotes spots, are going to continue to be free and available for parking on game nights.

Along with that, the Arizona Cardinals are also considering opening up spots and charging for them as well. Some of those spots are more convenient than Coyotes spots.

Dirty Old Man 09-01-2013 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whileee (Post 70713397)
I don't think there is anything new here.

This is an accurate assessment.

Whileee 09-01-2013 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LPHabsFan (Post 70713773)
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...nclick_check=1

This was posted earlier in the week and very relevant to the parking situation. Basically it says that the 3000 available parking spots at Westgate, some of which are more convenient than the Coyotes spots, are going to continue to be free and available for parking on game nights.

Along with that, the Arizona Cardinals are also considering opening up spots and charging for them as well. Some of those spots are more convenient than Coyotes spots.

Actually, I think the more the cheap and convenient parking options, the better. Parking is not going to be a big revenue generator for the Coyotes' owners since they can only keep a maximum of $20,000 per game. The rest goes to the City of Glendale. The most important thing is that the parking situation doesn't inhibit the growth of the fan base, and doesn't turn off existing fans. So, the more parking options the better.

Confucius 09-01-2013 09:25 PM

So the income from the first 1,500 vehicles per game will go to RSE
Westgate offering up 3,000 spaces. Cardinals may add more spots. Hmmmmmmm maybe there will be no revenue for the city from the parking stream. Who knew? :laugh:

Whileee 09-01-2013 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon of Styx (Post 70714223)
So the income from the first 1,000 vehicles per game will go to RSE
Westgate offering up 3,000 spaces. Cardinals may add more spots. Hmmmmmmm maybe there will be no revenue for the city from the parking stream. Who knew? :laugh:

Pretty much. At $15 a car, RSE only needs to charge about 1500 cars to get their full profit share (after costs). The rest goes to the COG.

Still, for RSE it's probably more of a headache than anything else.

LPHabsFan 09-01-2013 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whileee (Post 70713873)
Actually, I think the more the cheap and convenient parking options, the better. Parking is not going to be a big revenue generator for the Coyotes' owners since they can only keep a maximum of $20,000 per game. The rest goes to the City of Glendale. The most important thing is that the parking situation doesn't inhibit the growth of the fan base, and doesn't turn off existing fans. So, the more parking options the better.

I have to disagree with that. On the one hand, cheap parking is great for the fans since people like cheap stuff.

But from a business standpoint it's horrible. RSE loses money because there are cheaper options. COG loses money because they are relying on RSE to generate extra dollars to pay for the AMF and therefore have to pay the AMG out of pocket rather than through RSE generated revenues. And according to the documents from the end of June, they were "estimating" that 2.243 million would be generated from parking revenues.

TheLegend 09-01-2013 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whileee (Post 70713873)
Actually, I think the more the cheap and convenient parking options, the better. Parking is not going to be a big revenue generator for the Coyotes' owners since they can only keep a maximum of $20,000 per game. The rest goes to the City of Glendale. The most important thing is that the parking situation doesn't inhibit the growth of the fan base, and doesn't turn off existing fans. So, the more parking options the better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon of Styx (Post 70714223)
So the income from the first 1,500 vehicles per game will go to RSE
Westgate offering up 3,000 spaces. Cardinals may add more spots. Hmmmmmmm maybe there will be no revenue for the city from the parking stream. Who knew? :laugh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whileee (Post 70714291)
Pretty much. At $15 a car, RSE only needs to charge about 1500 cars to get their full profit share (after costs). The rest goes to the COG.

Still, for RSE it's probably more of a headache than anything else.


It was brought up more than once in the megathread that they had been charging $10 to park in Lot G adjacent to the arena for the last two years. Not sure how much revenue was generated for it but it definitely wasn't empty, despite all the other "free" spots at Westgate.

I used to park in Lot B on the other side for game and I can tell you the lots inside of Lot B are usually full on game nights... some is taken up by a private valet parking service for businesses in the arena. The only lots where spots might be readily available are at the north end of Westgate near the theater.

OthmarAmmann 09-01-2013 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whileee (Post 70713397)
I don't think there is anything new here.

It's a bit of a shame that the new owners were forced by their new lease agreement into charging a minimum of $10 per car for hockey events, just when they are trying to improve the fan base, etc. I think it was short-sighted on the part of the City of Glendale to insist on this right away. It would have been better to give them a year to build the fan base and some momentum, and then introduce parking fees more slowly starting in the second year. After all, it is in the interests of both the owners and the COG for the Coyotes franchise to turn around and become successful within the next few years.

Thanks.

There's really no choice on timing though. The hole in funding for the AMF had to come from somewhere... Curiously there was no $100 million consideration paid for the revenue though.

danishh 09-01-2013 10:33 PM

whileee, either the CoG charges coyotes fans through the parking, or they charge all glendale taxpayers through taxes. Either way, the people have to pay, and based on US economics and sensibilities, it seems unfair to charge glendale residents to subsidize the team.

Tackla 09-01-2013 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LPHabsFan (Post 70713773)
http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...nclick_check=1

Basically it says that the 3000 available parking spots at Westgate, some of which are more convenient than the Coyotes spots, are going to continue to be free and available for parking on game nights.

So nobody is going to be paying to park. Those 3,000 spots will more than serve this fanbase. Move along, nothing to see here.

Whileee 09-01-2013 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegend (Post 70715167)
It was brought up more than once in the megathread that they had been charging $10 to park in Lot G adjacent to the arena for the last two years. Not sure how much revenue was generated for it but it definitely wasn't empty, despite all the other "free" spots at Westgate.

I used to park in Lot B on the other side for game and I can tell you the lots inside of Lot B are usually full on game nights... some is taken up by a private valet parking service for businesses in the arena. The only lots where spots might be readily available are at the north end of Westgate near the theater.

Some people are always happy to pay for better parking and other amenities, but the deal with the COG means that the best deal that the Coyotes can possibly offer, even to their best customers (i.e. STHs) is $10 parking. Obviously, that will have to be in the least convenient lots to maintain a sense of proportionality and fairness. My point is that for the Coyotes' owners, it doesn't really matter than much financially if there are other parking options that they don't control, since the revenue is of little consequence compared to the importance of increasing the fan counts and ticket costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann (Post 70715217)
Thanks.

There's really no choice on timing though. The hole in funding for the AMF had to come from somewhere... Curiously there was no $100 million consideration paid for the revenue though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danishh (Post 70715603)
whileee, either the CoG charges coyotes fans through the parking, or they charge all glendale taxpayers through taxes. Either way, the people have to pay, and based on US economics and sensibilities, it seems unfair to charge glendale residents to subsidize the team.

I completely understand. But since the COG has made it clear that they want to retain the Coyotes, even if they need to provide substantial subsidies, it would seem that they would want the new owners to have every opportunity to enhance the fan base. I am pretty sure that introducing a large parking fee would have been fairly low on the "to do" list of a marketing expert, if they had all options open.

GuelphStormer 09-02-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whileee (Post 70716115)
I completely understand. But since the COG has made it clear that they want to retain the Coyotes, even if they need to provide substantial subsidies, it would seem that they would want the new owners to have every opportunity to enhance the fan base. I am pretty sure that introducing a large parking fee would have been fairly low on the "to do" list of a marketing expert, if they had all options open.

sherwood may have fooled himself and the mayor into thinking this, but the rest of council has aptly demonstrated they do not possess the intellectual capacity to even begin to understand the numbers here. they were deceptively fed overly optimistic figures regarding the lease shortfall payback revenue streams and they believed them.

IA is gonna have to step it up on all front here. and it that means having to both increase prices on everything while simultaneously trying to broaden appeal and put more butts in the seats, then so be it. frankly, there is simply no time to sit back and take anyhting easy. it's been a mistake not to increase ticket prices this year. it would have been stunningly foolish to also not raise parking prices as well. nobody said this was gonna be easy.

cbcwpg 09-02-2013 11:07 AM

This is all to do with the parking fees and the Coyotes, but how about non hockey events? Has there been any announcements for that or will those prices be set on an event by event basis?

Whileee 09-02-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LPHabsFan (Post 70714899)
I have to disagree with that. On the one hand, cheap parking is great for the fans since people like cheap stuff.

But from a business standpoint it's horrible. RSE loses money because there are cheaper options. COG loses money because they are relying on RSE to generate extra dollars to pay for the AMF and therefore have to pay the AMG out of pocket rather than through RSE generated revenues. And according to the documents from the end of June, they were "estimating" that 2.243 million would be generated from parking revenues.

From a business perspective, the most RSE can ever keep in parking profit is $20,000, for the next 15 years. So parking revenue is always going to be of little consequence to the Coyotes owners' bottom line. It won't take much for them to reach that $20,000 - they'll probably max out their profit with 1500 cars. Other cheap parking options will therefore probably just cut into the COG's cut of the revenues. But I think that the larger issue is how this affects the overall strategy for making the Coyotes a viable financial enterprise before the owners and the COG are faced with the window for the "out clause" in five years. Both parties should be highly motivated to use whatever marketing strategies they can to avoid a relocation at that point. Starting with a big parking fee doesn't seem logical in the wider scheme of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcwpg (Post 70724631)
This is all to do with the parking fees and the Coyotes, but how about non hockey events? Has there been any announcements for that or will those prices be set on an event by event basis?

According to the lease, parking charges need to be at least $15 per car for non-hockey events. That means that the closest and most convenient lots will be considerably more than that. The COG retains 75% of the parking profits from non-hockey events.

Llama19 09-02-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcwpg (Post 70724631)
This is all to do with the parking fees and the Coyotes, but how about non hockey events? Has there been any announcements for that or will those prices be set on an event by event basis?

No, next to nothing (*) for non-hockey events, and really, just more of the same old, same old...

Some notable quotes:

Knaack says they are 'Here to Stay' and they are not leaving in five years and Global Specturm is icing on the cake. The biggest plus is keeping the Coyotes here and the viability of Westgate, if they weren't here, a lot of the businesses would close.

Sherwood says the city can go foward and address a lot of the other issues (facing Glendale).

Martinez says in the long run it is the best thing for the city, businesses have been waiting in the wings to see what happens.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQi96rGMJsw

Curiously, the only other councilmember who was there, but did not speak in front of the camera, was Sammy 'You're My Hero Anthony' Chavira.

* Non-hockey events: 1 - Oct, 2 - Nov, 1 - Dec, 1 - Jan
Source: http://www.jobingarena.com/events.aspx

htpwn 09-02-2013 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whileee (Post 70713397)
I don't think there is anything new here.

It's a bit of a shame that the new owners were forced by their new lease agreement into charging a minimum of $10 per car for hockey events, just when they are trying to improve the fan base, etc. I think it was short-sighted on the part of the City of Glendale to insist on this right away. It would have been better to give them a year to build the fan base and some momentum, and then introduce parking fees more slowly starting in the second year. After all, it is in the interests of both the owners and the COG for the Coyotes franchise to turn around and become successful within the next few years.

Disagree.

Glendale weren't the ones who insisted on a large AMF as a precondition of buying the franchise.

If the Ice Edge clowns find the parking hinders the growth of the franchise, then they should compensate Glendale for the lost revenue and drop the parking rates. But that would require using their own money, which as we know full well, they simply don't have.

The rates are, arguably, exorbitantly high. I doubt many Coyotes fans will find them as a shock though. There was no "ideal" deal that would save the franchise after Jamison flamed out. Higher prices on anything and everything was going to be inevitable with the clock reset to 5 years to make it work.

GuelphStormer 09-02-2013 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htpwn (Post 70726917)
Disagree.

Glendale weren't the ones who insisted on a large AMF as a precondition of buying the franchise.

If the Ice Edge clowns find the parking hinders the growth of the franchise, then they should compensate Glendale for the lost revenue and drop the parking rates. But that would require using their own money, which as we know full well, they simply don't have.

The rates are, arguably, exorbitantly high. I doubt many Coyotes fans will find them as a shock though. There was no "ideal" deal that would save the franchise after Jamison flamed out. Higher prices on anything and everything was going to be inevitable with the clock reset to 5 years to make it work.

exactly. it's a strategic mistake to drag out any of the required price increases because it might upset or scare some potential fans. just do it now while everyone knows its absolutely necessary, is much more willing to accept it, and while the warm honeymoon glow still surrounds the recent sale. people wont be so forgiving next year or the year after that.

and shame on any STH who pinches pennies by parking down the road. if anyone should be intentionally paying more to help this team, its them.

Whileee 09-02-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htpwn (Post 70726917)
Disagree.

Glendale weren't the ones who insisted on a large AMF as a precondition of buying the franchise.

If the Ice Edge clowns find the parking hinders the growth of the franchise, then they should compensate Glendale for the lost revenue and drop the parking rates. But that would require using their own money, which as we know full well, they simply don't have.

The rates are, arguably, exorbitantly high. I doubt many Coyotes fans will find them as a shock though. There was no "ideal" deal that would save the franchise after Jamison flamed out. Higher prices on anything and everything was going to be inevitable with the clock reset to 5 years to make it work.

No argument about the reason for the large AMF and the need to increase prices. My point is that the pricing scheme, which affects marketing, was done through the rather crude instrument of a lease agreement, which mandated parking prices immediately. I expect that more creative solutions could have been found. For example, consider the option of increasing the ticket surcharge by an extra $3 a ticket this year. That will almost certainly raise nearly as much money for the COG as parking. It would be much more convenient for fans, and perhaps much more palatable. Next season, you could introduce some parking fees, and take away some of the ticket surcharges and replace them with actual ticket fee increases to boost revenue. I just think that slapping an expensive new parking regimen and blaming it on the COG/AMF is a bit inartful, from a marketing perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuelphStormer (Post 70728287)
exactly. it's a strategic mistake to drag out any of the required price increases because it might upset or scare some potential fans. just do it now while everyone knows its absolutely necessary, is much more willing to accept it, and while the warm honeymoon glow still surrounds the recent sale. people wont be so forgiving next year or the year after that.

and shame on any STH who pinches pennies by parking down the road. if anyone should be intentionally paying more to help this team, its them.

Parking down the road doesn't hurt the Coyotes owners, it could only hurt the COG. I doubt that many potential fans care very much about the financial situation of the City of Glendale when they are making decisions about parking.

Killion 09-02-2013 05:40 PM

Early days yet. Theyve got Winterjam, Pearl Jam & the Trans Siberian Orchestra booked in between now & Christmas, but ya, its going to take some time to develop. Easily 12mnths.... that Winterjam dealeo is basically 10 no name up & comers, $10 tickets. I dont know how they can then expect to charge $15-$25 for parking on a booking like that so who knows.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.