HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

What if...(mod: relocation proposal, subsequent effect on HRR)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-05-2013, 09:45 PM
  #126
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I call bull. 14k at less than market cost is no advantage.
Which is why the growth clause is in the RS agreement. It means ticket prices should match the growth of the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
So based on your expectations, columbus can be as poorly run as it had do far for another 40 years ( 5 generations) before they get the hook? Are you serious ?
Not my expectations the NHL's. Do you own one of these teams?? If an owner is OK with the teams ticket prices and not getting a full share of RS. Why complain so much when you can not do any thing about where teams are located unless you find 200 million bucks or so under your bed. The NHL cares very little what you, me, or anyone on here thinks.

Gnashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 09:51 PM
  #127
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
Which is why the growth clause is in the RS agreement. It means ticket prices should match the growth of the league.

Not my expectations the NHL's. Do you own one of these teams?? If an owner is OK with the teams ticket prices and not getting a full share of RS. Why complain so much when you can not do any thing about where teams are located unless you find 200 million bucks or so under your bed. The NHL cares very little what you, me, or anyone on here think.
From what was reported, the performance metrics were taken out of this CBA. No clue until we hear more, but hopefully that's true.

__________________
"It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 09:54 PM
  #128
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 1,827
vCash: 500
Panthers owners are making plenty of money. Good luck convincing them to sell and give up their sweetheart arena deal with broward county

Beezeral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 09:55 PM
  #129
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
Which is why the growth clause is in the RS agreement. It means ticket prices should match the growth of the league.

Not my expectations the NHL's. Do you own one of these teams?? If an owner are OK with the teams ticket prices and not getting a full share of RS. Why complain so much when you can not do any thing about where teams are located unless you find 200 million bucks or so under your bed. The NHL cares very little what you, me, or anyone on here think.
I might not have 200 million, but I suspect there are markets that do.

I get it, never mention anything bad about new markets. Never voice an opinion that the 30 current markets are anything but the best markets available. The inability of these markets to do well is because the Canadian teams run their markets too well, and there are leagues of minions, who are part of some grand conspiracy all working in concert to invent spurious charges to keep the new markets down.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:02 PM
  #130
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beezeral View Post
Panthers owners are making plenty of money. Good luck convincing them to sell and give up their sweetheart arena deal with broward county
Damn straight they are, and last time I looked, buildings either in the #3 or 5 position on the Cashbox Charts. Everyone should have a Yormark. Dont leave home without one.... speaking of which, pretty sure the Nets' would like to eject the Evil Twin. Id be hiring that sucker real quick if I was the Devils, Isles, Yotes, heck, anywhere. Good for business, good for the game.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:03 PM
  #131
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
From what was reported, the performance metrics were taken out of this CBA. No clue until we hear more, but hopefully that's true.
I'm just going by the rules teams have played by thus far. If there is a change let's hope they don't ask for some of the elitest fans' input into RS.

Gnashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:07 PM
  #132
Beezeral
Registered User
 
Beezeral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 1,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Damn straight they are, and last time I looked, buildings either in the #3 or 5 position on the Cashbox Charts. Everyone should have a Yormark. Dont leave home without one.... speaking of which, pretty sure the Nets' would like to eject the Evil Twin. Id be hiring that sucker real quick if I was the Devils, Isles, Yotes, heck, anywhere. Good for business, good for the game.
Great for business terrible for the game.

Yormark keeps the panthers solvent, but its at the expense of the fanbase. We are treated like dirt by him, and everything that can be done to screw us over is done. I could go into further detail, but that is for another thread.

Beezeral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:20 PM
  #133
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
From what was reported, the performance metrics were taken out of this CBA. No clue until we hear more, but hopefully that's true.
I'm curious where you saw that. That's interesting.

Why would you prefer those metrics are removed? I may be missing something, but I think it is a good idea to incent teams to build their revenues and attendance.

But hey, I'd also like to see NFL style media rights management and I think NHL ownership is too feudal for that approach.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 11:02 PM
  #134
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 27,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
yes its flawed on many levels. ESPN uses "reported attendance"

there are three ways attendance can be reported:

turnstile count
sold tickets
estimate


Turnstile count is of course the most accurate
Sold tickets counts all tickets sold no matter whther they were used or not
Estimated is a total swag and often is inflated.
Unless you know which method was used by each team, your method is flawed.


Since you claimed Columbus came into the league offering in your words Super cheap tickets and claiming attendance is irrelevent, why would you use:

data from one season ELEVEN years later?
reported attendance?
I'm not sure what's being argued here, but what is your estimate on Columbus' revenues?

Iirc, the TV money was about $2 MM around 2007 or 2008.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 11:19 PM
  #135
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
That's TMR data. Soon several mods beginnining with Kdb209 will be along to tell you its been proven wrong many times and is not to be used.

Go get the real data
You rang ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
The new and now updated TMR disclaimer. Starting last year TMR added a new column for the "Premium Seats" that they had been arbitrarily excluding since 2001.

The Avg Ticket & Avg Premium Ticket numbers for the Sharks show that they were pretty much excluding the entire Lower Bowl when calculating their bogus avg ticket price numbers.

Even with both numbers, you still cannot come up with any real meaningful average - since their is no indication of the relative number of premium vs non premium and their distinctions still seem arbitrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.



Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.


You know the drill ...

[Standard TMR Disclaimer]
Those numbers are from Team Marketing Report - which has been debunked numerous times here as being wildly inaccurate for many teams due to methodological flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD8 View Post
Wait, you're basing this on the "leaked" Globe & Mail report, right?
Yes - and simple analysis done of actual Colorado (ColoradoHockeyFan) and San Jose (myself) ticket prices.

This post by CHF shows the flaw in TMRs methodology after they changed it in 2001 to arbitrarily exclude "premium" seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoHockeyFan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
No. That is a BAD place to find pricing info.

The bogus numbers on the Team Marketing Report site have been debunked numerous times on the BoH board.

Probably the best (and possibly the only) numbers you are going to find for avg ticket prices were the numbers leaked last year in the Globe & Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/co...pdf/NHLweb.pdf
Thank you. (And thanks to Fugu too.)

Continue to spread the message about the worthlessness of Team Marketing Report, and we will eventually triumph over misinformation! Can I get a hallelujah!

And to further the cause, here is the sorted version of the accurate numbers from that Globe and Mail link:

PHP Code:
Average ticket prices by team
Team                   2006
-07  2005-06
Toronto Maple Leafs    80.33    78.98
Colorado Avalanche     71.04    65.55
New York Rangers       63.53    54.19
Dallas Stars           61.43    58.37
Edmonton Oilers        61.14    50.20
Montreal Canadiens     60.82    58.74
Boston Bruins          59.71    56.61
Vancouver Canucks      58.74    56.24
Detroit Red Wings      56.95    56.72
Columbus Blue Jackets  56.07    53.77
Philadelphia Flyers    54.59    51.94
Minnesota Wild         54.54    51.18
Anaheim Ducks          52.25    49.79
San Jose Sharks        50.95    49.05
Calgary Flames         50.70    46.97
Ottawa Senators        50.38    45.30
New Jersey Devils      49.91    48.97
Los Angeles Kings      46.75    44.17
New York Islanders     45.04    46.30
Carolina Hurricanes    44.91    38.81
Tampa Bay Lightning    44.50    42.38
Phoenix Coyotes        43.60    45.66
Chicago Blackhawks     40.79    39.74
Nashville Predators    40.33    34.74
Florida Panthers       39.75    44.59
Washington Capitals    39.57    36.16
St
Louis Blues        39.50    35.23
Pittsburgh Penguins    38.62    38.05
Atlanta Thrashers      37.27    32.70
Buffalo Sabres         36.67    36.37
League average         52.13    49.31 
Edit: An additional note on one of the reasons that Team Marketing Report's numbers are bogus. Sometime around the 2000-2001 season, they inexplicably decided to stop including anything termed "premium seating" in their average ticket prices. This immediately invalidates their numbers because of the way in which they collect their data--from marketing reps of the respective teams. Each team is allowed to label as "premium seating" any portion of their arena. So a team like Colorado, for example, can simply say that the entire lower bowl is "premium," and exclude it from the average, which is how you wind up with their laughable (made-up) "average" ticket price of under $40!

Edit: For a clear illustration of the effect of the above artificial calculation of average ticket price, observe the historical prices reported by TMR documented here:

http://andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Busi...ket-prices.htm

Note the average ticket prices reported for Colorado during the 2000-01 season and the 2001-02 season. According to TMR, the average ticket price dropped that year from $63.11 in 2000-01 to $37.36 in 2001-02. In other words, TMR would have you believe that the Avs, coming off of a Stanley Cup winning season, with one of the best single seasons ever put together by an NHL team, not only decided to drop their ticket prices (laughable enough), but decided to drop them by an unheard of 41%! (clearly more laughable). As a season ticket-holder for the past 12 years, I can assure you that no such thing happened (not that I needed to tell you this). There was no drop, obviously. There was an increase (also obviously). The artificial numbers reported by TMR that year (and every year thereafter) are simply the result of the seat classification flaw mentioned above in this post.
Now New & Improved:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
TMR 2011 (kdb's disclaimers still apply, though they have split regular and 'premium' tickets which may provide a more accurate view.

http://www.fancostexperience.com/pag...fci_pdfs/6.pdf
Damn, I'll have to update my disclaimer now.

But looking at the Sharks numbers ($49.73 / $112.68 "premium") it looks like their "avg" ticket price excluded pretty much the entire lower bowl as "premium". I calculated an avg price of ~$115 for the lower bowl and ~$46 for the upper (an ~$80 avg).
[/Standard TMR Disclaimer]

kdb209 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:08 AM
  #136
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I'm curious where you saw that. That's interesting.

Why would you prefer those metrics are removed? I may be missing something, but I think it is a good idea to incent teams to build their revenues and attendance.

But hey, I'd also like to see NFL style media rights management and I think NHL ownership is too feudal for that approach.
It was something Fehr had said way back at the beginning when RS was "the important" item. No clue how that manifested between then and now.

As for why? Owners have to know that it's in their best interest to grow their revenue streams, attendance, etc. How effective that is doesn't really make much of a difference for anyone other than them. So if they're going to get a 13m cheque, why should it matter how effective they were or weren't? Telling them you 'must' hit these numbers or no cheque for you isn't right. For the teams that need this, it's not like it's something they can just pocket - they're posting losses.

The only way I'd support something like that is if everyone is healthy enough and RS really isn't needed, the cheque is big enough that it takes them from a loss to a healthy profit, or that it makes the team in #16 have less of a loss (or more of a profit) than the team in #15th spot.

I guess there's some rules you'd have to put around it, but honestly, I'd rather them just cut the cheque without finding as many ways as possible to not write it to some clubs. As long as teams are making an effort to do everything possible, then leave em be.

Yeah would fully support the NHL changing how it's sharing TV monies. But that raises other issues when it comes to their wealth transfer system. If you're taking straight cash from the top teams, then chances are they need those TV deals, or you're dialing back the size of the RS cheque. Then you need to know whether what teams are getting from the new TV money is enough to justify cutting back on the RS cheque. I know splitting the gate really did sweet **** all for most teams, and those actually getting a RS cheque, are better off just getting the cheque.


Last edited by Riptide: 01-06-2013 at 12:15 AM.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:08 AM
  #137
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I'm not sure what's being argued here, but what is your estimate on Columbus' revenues?

Iirc, the TV money was about $2 MM around 2007 or 2008.
sandysan was arguing that Columbus gives away their tickets. That they started by offering super cheap tickets and have continued that practice.

I simply stated they have never papered the house. Based on my own experiences as a season ticket holder and based on buying tickets in other cities (mainly Philly and Pittsburgh) the pricing is comparable. The Globe and Mail data says the same thing.

My estimate of their revenues is $85-$90 million.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. One of their revenue problems is media rights. They gave away a long term sweetheart deal in 2000. The amount per year is debatable- MacLean claimed $2 million on radio.

The other challenge has been the slow attrition of season ticket holders due to poor operations. This extends to more than on ice performance, but rather total game operations and business operations. It is quite an accomplishment to reduce season ticket sales from ~ 14,000 to ~10,000 considering the abandonment of PSLs when those STH's non-renewed.

Do they offer some promotional deals on a small number of tickets? Yes- so do many teams.

Additionally, as you know from prior conversations John H. McConnell dictated from day one that the team would hold back 50-100 nosebleed seats and sell them on gameday for $10.00 each to allow "the working man" to take his kid to the occasional game. He like many other post-war self made entrepeneurs came from a blue collar background and never forgot his roots.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:21 AM
  #138
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
sandysan was arguing that Columbus gives away their tickets. That they started by offering super cheap tickets and have continued that practice.

I simply stated they have never papered the house. Based on my own experiences as a season ticket holder and based on buying tickets in other cities (mainly Philly and Pittsburgh) the pricing is comparable. The Globe and Mail data says the same thing.

My estimate of their revenues is $85-$90 million.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. One of their revenue problems is media rights. They gave away a long term sweetheart deal in 2000. The amount per year is debatable- MacLean claimed $2 million on radio.

The other challenge has been the slow attrition of season ticket holders due to poor operations. This extends to more than on ice performance, but rather total game operations and business operations. It is quite an accomplishment to reduce season ticket sales from ~ 14,000 to ~10,000 considering the abandonment of PSLs when those STH's non-renewed.

Do they offer some promotional deals on a small number of tickets? Yes- so do many teams.

Additionally, as you know from prior conversations John H. McConnell dictated from day one that the team would hold back 50-100 nosebleed seats and sell them on gameday for $10.00 each to allow "the working man" to take his kid to the occasional game. He like many other post-war self made entrepeneurs came from a blue collar background and never forgot his roots.

I'm confused, are you saying that they are not in the bottom third in average ticket prices? You can point to deficiencies in tmr or total attendance but you seem to be convinced they are NOT in the bottom third. if I'm wrong, I'd like to know how you are so convinced. If you have a source that you have think is better, I'd really like to see it.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:37 AM
  #139
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I'm confused, are you saying that they are not in the bottom third in average ticket prices? You can point to deficiencies in tmr or total attendance but you seem to be convinced they are NOT in the bottom third. if I'm wrong, I'd like to know how you are so convinced. If you have a source that you have think is better, I'd really like to see it.
They are not in the bottom third. Look at the Globe and Mail data.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 09:44 AM
  #140
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
It was something Fehr had said way back at the beginning when RS was "the important" item. No clue how that manifested between then and now.

As for why? Owners have to know that it's in their best interest to grow their revenue streams, attendance, etc. How effective that is doesn't really make much of a difference for anyone other than them. So if they're going to get a 13m cheque, why should it matter how effective they were or weren't? Telling them you 'must' hit these numbers or no cheque for you isn't right. For the teams that need this, it's not like it's something they can just pocket - they're posting losses.

The only way I'd support something like that is if everyone is healthy enough and RS really isn't needed, the cheque is big enough that it takes them from a loss to a healthy profit, or that it makes the team in #16 have less of a loss (or more of a profit) than the team in #15th spot.

I guess there's some rules you'd have to put around it, but honestly, I'd rather them just cut the cheque without finding as many ways as possible to not write it to some clubs. As long as teams are making an effort to do everything possible, then leave em be.

Yeah would fully support the NHL changing how it's sharing TV monies. But that raises other issues when it comes to their wealth transfer system. If you're taking straight cash from the top teams, then chances are they need those TV deals, or you're dialing back the size of the RS cheque. Then you need to know whether what teams are getting from the new TV money is enough to justify cutting back on the RS cheque. I know splitting the gate really did sweet **** all for most teams, and those actually getting a RS cheque, are better off just getting the cheque.

My concern is a repeat of MLBs situation where some teams do not compete because they have an incentive to spend as little as possible and then cash a large check no matter how poorly they do selling their product.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 10:55 AM
  #141
Shawa666
Registered User
 
Shawa666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Québec, Qc, Ca
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,277
vCash: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
My concern is a repeat of MLBs situation where some teams do not compete because they have an incentive to spend as little as possible and then cash a large check no matter how poorly they do selling their product.
Salary floor will likely negate this.

Shawa666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 11:50 AM
  #142
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
sandysan was arguing that Columbus gives away their tickets. That they started by offering super cheap tickets and have continued that practice.

I simply stated they have never papered the house. Based on my own experiences as a season ticket holder and based on buying tickets in other cities (mainly Philly and Pittsburgh) the pricing is comparable. The Globe and Mail data says the same thing.

My estimate of their revenues is $85-$90 million.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. One of their revenue problems is media rights. They gave away a long term sweetheart deal in 2000. The amount per year is debatable- MacLean claimed $2 million on radio.

The other challenge has been the slow attrition of season ticket holders due to poor operations. This extends to more than on ice performance, but rather total game operations and business operations. It is quite an accomplishment to reduce season ticket sales from ~ 14,000 to ~10,000 considering the abandonment of PSLs when those STH's non-renewed.

Do they offer some promotional deals on a small number of tickets? Yes- so do many teams.

Additionally, as you know from prior conversations John H. McConnell dictated from day one that the team would hold back 50-100 nosebleed seats and sell them on gameday for $10.00 each to allow "the working man" to take his kid to the occasional game. He like many other post-war self made entrepeneurs came from a blue collar background and never forgot his roots.
To expound a bit further.

The number of Huntington Green Seats is 250, and they're $10 apiece. They're also located at the very top of sections 220-228, which is the end the CBJ defend twice. It's the very definition of "nosebleeds".

The Family Pack night games usually have the following parameters:
- Very top of sections 201-205 (side view) and 208-212 (east end, CBJ attack twice)
- Generally weeknight games, or Saturdays during football season
- Generally against non-divisional or non-conference opponents

Student tickets
- Available every game
- Normally used to clean up singles or trios that are scattered all over the place

That's about it. In terms of actual advance promotions, the number is probably less than 500 out of a building capacity of 18,136. For gameday promotions, it's probably less than 500 out of a building capacity of 18,136. All told, that would be less than 1,000 total, or 5.5%.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:07 PM
  #143
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
My concern is a repeat of MLBs situation where some teams do not compete because they have an incentive to spend as little as possible and then cash a large check no matter how poorly they do selling their product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawa666 View Post
Salary floor will likely negate this.
Agreed, which is why I'm not worried about this. If you're forced to spend 50m in salary, then as long as you don't give it away you should have the talent to at least compete with other clubs, and won't be a doormat. Additionally, it means one is much more likely to retain young players when you have to spend to a fixed amount.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 12:26 PM
  #144
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I call bull. 14k at less than market cost is no advantage. Look at the peg, they said from the get go " listen we are not Toronto or new York, we have by a large margin the lowest population base to draw from. Our arena is small, if you want this team to be viable, you are going to have to pay a premium". You know what, even under these conditions people lined up for season tickets. Columbus, a non traditional market with a questionable fan base comes into the league and says, don't worry our tickets are cheap, super cheap just show up and if the end we are in the red, we can make it up from somewhere else.
A "questionable" fan base? That's hilarious. Let's ignore the fact that Columbus set every minor league sellout record there could be, which is what basically forced the NHL to sit up and take notice. Columbus beat out Houston, a city with four times the population, for an expansion team.

Columbus built an arena without a single public dollar, which forced season ticket holders to pony up big dollars for PSLs. A "questionable fan base" wouldn't have 96.25%, 100%, 97.84%, and 95.77% attendance to watch a team with a first pairing of Luke Richardson and Scott Lachance.

Quote:
So based on your expectations, columbus can be as poorly run as it had do far for another 40 years ( 5 generations) before they get the hook? Are you serious ?
You sure have a funny definition of "generation". And I don't remember that statement being made; I see another strawman.

Quote:
So you have gone from looking at the successes and saying that the jackets could do this to making comparisons to teams that had troubles but turned it around. Let's look at Ottawa a mid market them who did have financial troubles. But they emerged from bankruptcy to be where they are today. you know why? Because they have a good market. If you think that Columbus has the same market for the game as Ottawa you are delusional. [Mod] Instead of insisting you are the next pens or wings, I would prefer you focused on not being the next coyotes or thrashers.
Ottawa's first year selling out an entire season: 2005-06, their 13th season of existence.
Columbus' first year selling out an entire season: 2001-02, their 2nd season of existence

I'm sure that Ottawa's spike in attendance had absolutely nothing to do with emerging as legitimate contenders and sustaining that level for several years. It must be because Ottawa is intrinsically better than Columbus.

Ottawa's last 15 years consist of 13 playoff appearances and an SCF appearance, while watching guys like Jason Spezza, Marian Hossa, Dany Heatley, Daniel Alfredsson, Zdeno Chara, and good Alexei Yashin. Columbus' last 15 years consist of coming into existence, 1 playoff appearance (with 0 wins), and a chance to watch first-liners like David Vyborny, Steve Heinze, and Espen Knutsen.

How pathetic we must be! Let's gather 'round and reminisce about the one year we saw a team finish above .500! Oh, we can't...the sun sets too early in the winter, and re-shoeing our horses after a good barn-raising is exhausting enough.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:09 PM
  #145
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 27,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
sandysan was arguing that Columbus gives away their tickets. That they started by offering super cheap tickets and have continued that practice.

I simply stated they have never papered the house. Based on my own experiences as a season ticket holder and based on buying tickets in other cities (mainly Philly and Pittsburgh) the pricing is comparable. The Globe and Mail data says the same thing.

My estimate of their revenues is $85-$90 million.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. One of their revenue problems is media rights. They gave away a long term sweetheart deal in 2000. The amount per year is debatable- MacLean claimed $2 million on radio.

The other challenge has been the slow attrition of season ticket holders due to poor operations. This extends to more than on ice performance, but rather total game operations and business operations. It is quite an accomplishment to reduce season ticket sales from ~ 14,000 to ~10,000 considering the abandonment of PSLs when those STH's non-renewed.

Do they offer some promotional deals on a small number of tickets? Yes- so do many teams.

Additionally, as you know from prior conversations John H. McConnell dictated from day one that the team would hold back 50-100 nosebleed seats and sell them on gameday for $10.00 each to allow "the working man" to take his kid to the occasional game. He like many other post-war self made entrepeneurs came from a blue collar background and never forgot his roots.
That seems a bit high, and I'm not trying to argue it one way or the other, but if they have at least the NHL avg for ticket prices ($55 per ticket), and with paid attendance of an avg of 15-16K, that's $33-36 MM in gate receipts. I generally add half of the gate total for in-arena receipts, so another $20 MM (to be on generous side). Add NHL revenue sharing ($8-10 MM per team), and if they're not in the bottom 15, no revenue transfer, that's still under $70 MM.

If they were in the revenue transfer recipient pool, they wouldn't qualify for a full share if attendance has been declining. The highest amounts transferred wer $14 MM, iirc.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 02:15 PM
  #146
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That seems a bit high, and I'm not trying to argue it one way or the other, but if they have at least the NHL avg for ticket prices ($55 per ticket), and with paid attendance of an avg of 15-16K, that's $33-36 MM in gate receipts. I generally add half of the gate total for in-arena receipts, so another $20 MM (to be on generous side). Add NHL revenue sharing ($8-10 MM per team), and if they're not in the bottom 15, no revenue transfer, that's still under $70 MM.

If they were in the revenue transfer recipient pool, they wouldn't qualify for a full share if attendance has been declining. The highest amounts transferred wer $14 MM, iirc.
In-arena purchases (concessions, alcohol, retail) for Columbus are all done by DNC Sportservice, so revenues and profit don't go directly to the team that way.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:00 PM
  #147
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That seems a bit high, and I'm not trying to argue it one way or the other, but if they have at least the NHL avg for ticket prices ($55 per ticket), and with paid attendance of an avg of 15-16K, that's $33-36 MM in gate receipts. I generally add half of the gate total for in-arena receipts, so another $20 MM (to be on generous side). Add NHL revenue sharing ($8-10 MM per team), and if they're not in the bottom 15, no revenue transfer, that's still under $70 MM.

If they were in the revenue transfer recipient pool, they wouldn't qualify for a full share if attendance has been declining. The highest amounts transferred wer $14 MM, iirc.
I'm not sure where you're getting that average from, but even TMR has it at $57 - and we know that's low due to how they calculate things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
In-arena purchases (concessions, alcohol, retail) for Columbus are all done by DNC Sportservice, so revenues and profit don't go directly to the team that way.
That's gotta be a kick in the pants. Teams really need to have control over things like this to have much of a chance at breaking even.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:47 PM
  #148
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That seems a bit high, and I'm not trying to argue it one way or the other, but if they have at least the NHL avg for ticket prices ($55 per ticket), and with paid attendance of an avg of 15-16K, that's $33-36 MM in gate receipts. I generally add half of the gate total for in-arena receipts, so another $20 MM (to be on generous side). Add NHL revenue sharing ($8-10 MM per team), and if they're not in the bottom 15, no revenue transfer, that's still under $70 MM.

If they were in the revenue transfer recipient pool, they wouldn't qualify for a full share if attendance has been declining. The highest amounts transferred wer $14 MM, iirc.
The question was average price per ticket, not total revenues. I would be among the first to agree Columbus is most likely in the bottom 10 in total revenues. I assert it is not because they are selling mass quantities of tickets for very little.

Many fans of Canadian large market teams are sensitive to the idea of some teams almost giving tickets away when they are paying a lot for tickets. This makes sense from a fan perspective. How many times has someone posted that they can travel to a city and buy a seat for the same or less than buying tickets to their home team?

Living in Columbus, I am acutely aware of their situation. The same story exists with Ohio State football and basketball tickets, and it used to exist with Blue Jackets tickets the first 3-4 years.

A $75.00 football ticket sells on the secondary market for $200- $1,000.00 depending on the game. OSU fans often go to away games because of cost and availability.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 06:47 PM
  #149
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
That's gotta be a kick in the pants. Teams really need to have control over things like this to have much of a chance at breaking even.
Well, this gets into another set of issues entirely. I think that, as the price of taking a family to a sporting event has skyrocketed in the last 25 years, there's an overall breaking point economically. I expect that in the next 5-10 years, we will see significant pressure exerted on Congress to outlaw certain practices for leagues that have an anti-trust exemption. Namely elimination of "exclusive" concession contracts for their venues.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.