Man, with a lot of people not renewing, goodbye Boyle, Marleau, or Thornton. One of them might have to go just to save them money.
Sharks are making quite a bit of money. If they want to maintain the same profit margins, yes, they might have to let go of someone. But overall, they are raking in a profit (just by owning the team and getting some HP pavilion reciepts, which are huge).
Yup, same here - Sec 201, row 13. Much better seats than 203/204, which presumably would now have higher prices.
I'm guessing my $35 seats will probably go to $37 (a 5.7% increase) - inline with the increases in 214-216 row 2-12 seats ($53->$56) .
I am confused why they didn't make the blue line to blue line the most expensive tickets.
I wonder if this means I'll be able to specify attacking end twice for a 10 game pack though, the last two years I got screwed and was in the non-attack end despite being in the attack end the two years before that.
i'm in 212 last row and 35 a game was kinda bank this year...it's kind of hard to just cancel because of the unused ticket credit from being bounced this early (in a sense, we are kind of pot committed). it's starting to become a very expensive luxury with lousy results.
Sharks are making quite a bit of money. If they want to maintain the same profit margins, yes, they might have to let go of someone. But overall, they are raking in a profit (just by owning the team and getting some HP pavilion reciepts, which are huge).
Forbes would disagree with you on that. According to their analysis, the Sharks are operating just slightly below breakeven at their current payroll level.
i'm in 212 last row and 35 a game was kinda bank this year...it's kind of hard to just cancel because of the unused ticket credit from being bounced this early (in a sense, we are kind of pot committed). it's starting to become a very expensive luxury with lousy results.
i'm in 212 last row and 35 a game was kinda bank this year...it's kind of hard to just cancel because of the unused ticket credit from being bounced this early (in a sense, we are kind of pot committed). it's starting to become a very expensive luxury with lousy results.
From what I understand, you can slide that money over to the individual game ticket purchases. At least that's what my ticket rep told me a few years ago when I put a deposit down, but asked if it was non-refundable.
I'm pretty sure you can just get a refund on that unused playoff ticket money right? Its not like it was a deposit. You pre-paid for games that never happened.
-Quickest postseason exit in team history
-Raise ticket prices
Yeah that makes sense.
I agree with your point, but the year after the Sharks beat the presidents trophy winning Red Wings, they played them again in a series referred to as the "tennis series". Detroit won all 4 games by scores of 6-0,6-2,6-0,6-2.
Forbes would disagree with you on that. According to their analysis, the Sharks are operating just slightly below breakeven at their current payroll level.
Forbes isn't exactly the most credible source for sports economics. They have been wrong in the past.
I wonder if this means I'll be able to specify attacking end twice for a 10 game pack though, the last two years I got screwed and was in the non-attack end despite being in the attack end the two years before that.
I would assume so, since they would be two different price points.
Forbes would disagree with you on that. According to their analysis, the Sharks are operating just slightly below breakeven at their current payroll level.
Take what they, and the Sharks, say with a very big grain of salt. The Sharks are always quite specific - they claim that the Sharks are losing money. They are completely silent on whether SVSE is profitable (nor how revenues/expenses are split between the two). When I explicitly asked Greg Jaimison (at a STH breakfast) about the then recent claims of Sharks losses and whether SVSE was profitable on the arena he gave me a sheepish grin while dancing his way through a no comment.
KDB, I tend to agree. I sit in sec 214, row 14, two rows above the next price tier (actually two price tiers) and two seats in from the blue line aisle. I think it's been the sweet spot cost vs. view and unless I win the lotto, will hold these seats forever.
As a STH in section 215 row 12 I envy your seats so much. If I can't move into what were the yellow seats this year, I don't think I can justify keeping my seats.
Take what they, and the Sharks, say with a very big grain of salt. The Sharks are always quite specific - they claim that the Sharks are losing money. They are completely silent on whether SVSE is profitable (nor how revenues/expenses are split between the two). When I explicitly asked Greg Jaimison (at a STH breakfast) about the then recent claims of Sharks losses and whether SVSE was profitable on the arena he gave me a sheepish grin while dancing his way through a no comment.
Well, of course he won't give you a straight answer. That is the problem with businesses, they aren't honest with their customers or employees.
If they claimed that the Sharks were profitable and SVSE was doing great, how would they be able to justify a price increase? Reading between the lines, it's easy to see that the Sharks are making profit and are running just fine. If they weren't, they would have DW up against the cap floor, instead of the ceiling where they are now.
I agree with your point, but the year after the Sharks beat the presidents trophy winning Red Wings, they played them again in a series referred to as the "tennis series". Detroit won all 4 games by scores of 6-0,6-2,6-0,6-2.
Actually, it was 6-0,6-2,6-2,6-2. Still a painful memory.
But at least that playoffs lasted 11 games, 6 more than this year's Sharks playoffs. Sharks management would have taken another round 2 tennis series this season, just to get into Round 2 and two home playoff games.
__________________
2011: Outcoached by Vigneault. 2012: Outcoached all season and postseason by Hitch.
2013: Outcoached by most coaches in the NHL. Who's left? 12 year olds on Xbox Live? SACK T-MAC NOW
Take what they, and the Sharks, say with a very big grain of salt. The Sharks are always quite specific - they claim that the Sharks are losing money. They are completely silent on whether SVSE is profitable (nor how revenues/expenses are split between the two). When I explicitly asked Greg Jaimison (at a STH breakfast) about the then recent claims of Sharks losses and whether SVSE was profitable on the arena he gave me a sheepish grin while dancing his way through a no comment.
The question to which you might get an answer is "How many years have the owners had to make a cash infusion or take a loan to support the entire entity?" An answer of 3 or less would say they are doing fine. STH drop on the year following the Nolan/Sutter/Lombo debacle, lockout year and the year they raised payroll and lost to the Ducks in the first. They might have lost when they lost two minor sports in one year (arena football and one other).
We need to remind all that they are spending significantly on capital projects like ice rinks, the ad ribbon, etc.
They really can't hide revenue as there are proscriptions in the CBA but they can shift expenses to their hearts' desire.
Actually, it was 6-0,6-2,6-2,6-2. Still a painful memory.
But at least that playoffs lasted 11 games, 6 more than this year's Sharks playoffs. Sharks management would have taken another round 2 tennis series this season, just to get into Round 2 and two home playoff games.
That's right. They beat Calgary in the 1st round thanks to Ray Whitney.
Jeez, disappointment is just ruining my long-term memory.
I agree with your point, but the year after the Sharks beat the presidents trophy winning Red Wings, they played them again in a series referred to as the "tennis series". Detroit won all 4 games by scores of 6-0,6-2,6-0,6-2.
Pretty sure that was in the second round, follow Ray Whitney's amazing game 7 double OT goal to beat Calgary in round 1. The best goal in Sharks history.
Take what they, and the Sharks, say with a very big grain of salt. The Sharks are always quite specific - they claim that the Sharks are losing money. They are completely silent on whether SVSE is profitable (nor how revenues/expenses are split between the two). When I explicitly asked Greg Jaimison (at a STH breakfast) about the then recent claims of Sharks losses and whether SVSE was profitable on the arena he gave me a sheepish grin while dancing his way through a no comment.
Silicon Valley Sports and Entertainment is not just the Sharks. Forbes had access to the NHL financial statements when they did their study of all the NHL teams and it was quite accurate. SVSE might be making money, but the Sharks themselves are not, and that is including game concession revenue. They could be if they cut payroll a bit. They are a break even business at best, which is actually success in terms of pro hockey team ownership. But the idea that the Sharks are making a bunch of money is ridiculous.
2 seats, center ice, 12 games, $400 
