HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Coyotes institute parking fees at two lots with reduced price for STH

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2013, 12:17 PM
  #51
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,449
vCash: 500
Gentle reminder: this thread is for discussing the Coyotes parking situation.

mouser is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 12:25 PM
  #52
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
I don't see the problem.

If the Westgate lots are wide open then RSE or whoever runs the arena can still book low-cost events with free parking reasonably available.

COG doesn't lose much if anything from the loss of parking revenues. What it doesn't get from parking is made up under the arena operator's guarantee.

If the arena operator would rather have admission and concessions than parking revenue, who's left to complain?

Mork is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 12:31 PM
  #53
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
And many more knew it was coming and aren't complaining.
re: your comment on parking rates

Nothing against you or RSE or Glendale, etc. Glad it all worked out for you however....

Of course you're going to say that because it would be hypocritical of you to say otherwise, seeing as you're one of the staunchest " keep the Coyotes at any cost " supporters here.

Guess what I'm leading up to is...... ' the proof will be in the pudding '; we'll see how much revenue was turned over the the COG at years end and then it'll be clear how the fans feel / felt about the cost.

Again this is not a diss at you......

enarwpg is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 12:36 PM
  #54
OthmarAmmann
Money making machine
 
OthmarAmmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Gentle reminder: this thread is for discussing the Coyotes parking situation.
So will there be another thread to discuss the CoG's workshop session on the lease and use agreement and the request by council members that the AG review potential criminal activity related to the Coyotes deal?

Announced a new marketing campaign targeting Cardinals fans: thread-worthy or not?

I can't tell - the determination usually appears to be somewhat subjective.

OthmarAmmann is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 12:39 PM
  #55
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
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.
As to parking fees being "forced" it was RSE that convinced the COG there was this new found parking revenue stream which played a huge role in persuading the COG to guarantee the $15 million AMF. It would be incredibly insane / irresponsible, even more insane that approving the inflated AMF, if they didnt expect a return in the first year.

enarwpg is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 12:45 PM
  #56
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
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.
It was all 'smoke and mirrors', nothing more..... but we'll see at the end of the season as to how the COG fares on RSE's guaranteed new found revenue stream.

enarwpg is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 12:47 PM
  #57
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann View Post
So will there be another thread to discuss the CoG's workshop session on the lease and use agreement and the request by council members that the AG review potential criminal activity related to the Coyotes deal?

Announced a new marketing campaign targeting Cardinals fans: thread-worthy or not?

I can't tell - the determination usually appears to be somewhat subjective.
If there is a media report of something noteworthy resulting from the CoG workshop session regarding the Coyotes then we can consider whether a thread is merited.

If there is a media report of something noteworthy resulting from the AG review regarding criminal activity by CoG in regards to the Coyotes then we can consider whether a thread is merited.

In short, we're not recreating the megathread where uninformed speculation was common and permitted, as well as off-topic arcs. Actual news will be required for new threads going forward. We're also going to keep threads focused on the OP topic, not a smorgasbord of all things Coyotes or CoG.

mouser is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 12:53 PM
  #58
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
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.
Apparently through apathy, the likes of which has never been seen in modern history , the residents / taxpayers are either oblivious to the cost of keeping the team OR more likely so, couldn't give a rats behind about the cost.

But all of this makes and will continue to make newsworthy fodder for numerous new threads on the "business of hockey" in Glendale.

enarwpg is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 01:33 PM
  #59
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OthmarAmmann View Post
So will there be another thread to discuss the CoG's workshop session on the lease and use agreement and the request by council members that the AG review potential criminal activity related to the Coyotes deal?

Announced a new marketing campaign targeting Cardinals fans: thread-worthy or not?

I can't tell - the determination usually appears to be somewhat subjective.
I think there is that challenge here, as everything is related in some form. I'm guessing what is trying to be avoided (and not to put words in anyone's mouth)-the mega thread at times turned seemt to turn into a "do the Yotes deserve a team" discussion, and understandably there was some bristling and hard feelings that came out on all sides-and I think at the very least there's a feeling of "okay, let's just this cool down for awhile", which I can understand too.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 01:48 PM
  #60
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
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.



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.
I know this is going to cost me; with some saying I've over stepped some kind of invisible line about posting but.....

You're kidding right. A creative solution is increasing ticket prices. That has to be one of the most insane statements made here in a long time. No kidding raising ticket prices.

Who would ever have thunk it..... raise ticket prices from the 2nd lowest price in the league.. $36 and change that which make the team unviable at the present.....

It's too bad RSE never included that in their pro forma. It would have made a whole lot more sense than parking revenue because it would have affected each and every fan not only those using or not using the paid parking lots...

I'm flabbergasted at the statement to say the least..... and with that I have to go and calm down because it's incredible that one could say that increased ticket prices would be a creative way to raise revenues !!!!

enarwpg is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 02:25 PM
  #61
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enarwpg View Post
I know this is going to cost me; with some saying I've over stepped some kind of invisible line about posting but.....

You're kidding right. A creative solution is increasing ticket prices. That has to be one of the most insane statements made here in a long time. No kidding raising ticket prices.

Who would ever have thunk it..... raise ticket prices from the 2nd lowest price in the league.. $36 and change that which make the team unviable at the present.....

It's too bad RSE never included that in their pro forma. It would have made a whole lot more sense than parking revenue because it would have affected each and every fan not only those using or not using the paid parking lots...

I'm flabbergasted at the statement to say the least..... and with that I have to go and calm down because it's incredible that one could say that increased ticket prices would be a creative way to raise revenues !!!!
You probably would save yourself a conniption if you read my post and the situation more carefully.

The issue is the institution of a sudden, high cost parking arrangement to raise revenues for the COG (to compensate for the AMF). When I said "creative solution", I meant it in relation to how RSE raises revenue to pass back to the COG, not the overall plan for increasing the financial viability of the Coyotes. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

What I suggested in my post was that instead of generating revenues for the COG via parking revenues immediately, an alternative would have been to increase the ticket surcharge that goes to the COG. It is currently set at $3.00 per ticket. Increasing that to $5.00 or $6.00 per ticket for the first year (to raise revenue for the COG) would probably have been simpler and more palatable for fans. In subsequent years the ticket surcharge could have been reduced and replaced by increasing parking revenues, while RSE could keep the ticket prices higher (and raise them further) to increase their own revenues.

Whileee is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:48 PM
  #62
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
You lost all credibility after this statement
I'm just presenting facts..... I don't worry about credibility.


TheLegend is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:56 PM
  #63
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enarwpg View Post
re: your comment on parking rates

Nothing against you or RSE or Glendale, etc. Glad it all worked out for you however....

Of course you're going to say that because it would be hypocritical of you to say otherwise, seeing as you're one of the staunchest " keep the Coyotes at any cost " supporters here.

Guess what I'm leading up to is...... ' the proof will be in the pudding '; we'll see how much revenue was turned over the the COG at years end and then it'll be clear how the fans feel / felt about the cost.

Again this is not a diss at you......

Except I'm not..... and I indicated several times in the megathread I wasn't.

I don't expect to see this situation turn itself around overnight. Neither does Gosbee or the rest of the IceArizone group.


Last edited by TheLegend: 09-04-2013 at 12:55 PM. Reason: My horrible grammar.
TheLegend is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 04:01 PM
  #64
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
You probably would save yourself a conniption if you read my post and the situation more carefully.

The issue is the institution of a sudden, high cost parking arrangement to raise revenues for the COG (to compensate for the AMF). When I said "creative solution", I meant it in relation to how RSE raises revenue to pass back to the COG, not the overall plan for increasing the financial viability of the Coyotes. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

What I suggested in my post was that instead of generating revenues for the COG via parking revenues immediately, an alternative would have been to increase the ticket surcharge that goes to the COG. It is currently set at $3.00 per ticket. Increasing that to $5.00 or $6.00 per ticket for the first year (to raise revenue for the COG) would probably have been simpler and more palatable for fans. In subsequent years the ticket surcharge could have been reduced and replaced by increasing parking revenues, while RSE could keep the ticket prices higher (and raise them further) to increase their own revenues.
I agree that a gradual easing as you suggest might have been a little easier-instead its an instant huge hit up in parking right off, and it strikes me that someone is wanting to get money back asap and maybe isn't willing to try the more gradual route. I imagine RSE is not totally impressed by this as they may have felt that for not raising ticket prices for a year so as not to turn off fans, in turn this parking rate might negate the "good feeling" of giving the fans a break in ticket prices.

Because it wouldn't surprise me next year if rates go up even more AND the eventual raising of ticket prices-and if the yotes struggle this year and don't make the playoffs-that's going to make for a bit of a PR job into next year trying to convince people to pay more parking AND higher ticket prices after a poor performance.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 05:41 PM
  #65
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I agree that a gradual easing as you suggest might have been a little easier-instead its an instant huge hit up in parking right off, and it strikes me that someone is wanting to get money back asap and maybe isn't willing to try the more gradual route. I imagine RSE is not totally impressed by this as they may have felt that for not raising ticket prices for a year so as not to turn off fans, in turn this parking rate might negate the "good feeling" of giving the fans a break in ticket prices.

Because it wouldn't surprise me next year if rates go up even more AND the eventual raising of ticket prices-and if the yotes struggle this year and don't make the playoffs-that's going to make for a bit of a PR job into next year trying to convince people to pay more parking AND higher ticket prices after a poor performance.
Exactly right. Beyond the strong possibility that parking revenues will be blunted by the availability of other parking options, there is the real possibility that it will constrain expansion of the fan base and/or discourage existing fans, not just due to the cost, but potentially because of the increased hassle of parking.

As a casual fan or STH, I would probably prefer easy and cheap parking with a slightly higher ticket cost than high parking costs with less convenience. But let's wait and see how this pans out. Maybe I have misread the market and the parking regimen won't create any ripples in the expansion and maintenance of the fan base.

Whileee is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 07:06 PM
  #66
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
You probably would save yourself a conniption if you read my post and the situation more carefully.
enarpegs being highly sarcastic Whileee. Too sarcastic perhaps. Jacking up ticket prices in one fell swoop with an excessive surcharge in addition to the increase certainly wouldnt have been palatable so instead they pull the old parking dodge. The fact is someone has to pay that $15M AMF and so they couldve either stuck it to the taxpayers & faced re-call's seat by seat or put on the rose colored glasses & just assume no ones going to have a problem with NYC parking rates in Glendale. But as is typical, huge gaping hole in their plan. Westgate parking lots not requiring validation of anykind & no authority employed to enforce such. It wont really hit them this year, but next year, fiscal 14/15 thats when the screamings going to start and Im not sure what kind of a cure they can devise. Their going to have to lower parking prices, perhaps execute a CFD to make up the shortfall.... but the Jurys Out, so we'll just wait & see yes? Maybe Im completely wrong. People gladly turning from free parking to paid.

Killion is online now  
Old
09-03-2013, 07:52 PM
  #67
enarwpg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
You probably would save yourself a conniption if you read my post and the situation more carefully.

The issue is the institution of a sudden, high cost parking arrangement to raise revenues for the COG (to compensate for the AMF). When I said "creative solution", I meant it in relation to how RSE raises revenue to pass back to the COG, not the overall plan for increasing the financial viability of the Coyotes. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

What I suggested in my post was that instead of generating revenues for the COG via parking revenues immediately, an alternative would have been to increase the ticket surcharge that goes to the COG. It is currently set at $3.00 per ticket. Increasing that to $5.00 or $6.00 per ticket for the first year (to raise revenue for the COG) would probably have been simpler and more palatable for fans. In subsequent years the ticket surcharge could have been reduced and replaced by increasing parking revenues, while RSE could keep the ticket prices higher (and raise them further) to increase their own revenues.
But the implementation of the parking fee wasn't asked for by the COG, it was presented to them by RSE as a 'new found' revenue stream that would be, in turn, handed over to the COG (less $20K per game) to compensate for the COG guaranteeing payment to RSE of the $15 million AMF (needed to pay Fortress).

This even though 'the Legend" said in post #13 there was a charge of "$10 to park in Lot G adjacent to the arena for the last two years" AND LPHabsFan saying in post #12 that "according to the documents from the end of June, they (RSE) were "estimating" that 2.243 million would be generated from parking revenues."

RSE, I'm assuming, carefully planned and calculated, hopefully based on their professional knowledge of arena management, the $2.243 million in extra parking revenue they could collect. But now it's being suggested 'parking fees should have been postponed for a year' in order to grow the fan base, not piss off current ST holders. Preposterous..... RSE are and will continue to be the architects of their own demise.

Hell, these guys are in it for the long haul; 5 years or just under the half life of a golden retriever. The COG should be getting the full $2.2 million each and every year during that time but we all know that the parking revenue thingy was all smoke and mirrors to deceive the naive and easily distracted.

But just to humour ourselves, lets look at an increased ticket surcharge "atop" the current $3 surcharge:
26,829 tickets X $2 surcharge X 41 regular season games = $2,200,000 (impossible as the arena seats only 17,125)

17,886 tickets X $3 surcharge X 41 regular season games = $2,200,000 (ah yes, doable if they sell out each and every regular season home game)

13,415 tickets X $4 surcharge X 41 regular season games = $2,200,000 (this is the MOST PLAUSIBLE scenario as attendance would have to increase by only 995 attendees or 8% from the average 12,420 paid (? was it) attendance in the 2010/2011 season < source: http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2012).
SO, to somehow deliver $2.2 million annually to the COG through "the institution of sudden, high cost ticket surcharges?" which would be "more palatable for fans"...not likely... as increasing the ticket price by say $4 (to be at the reported 2010/2011 attendance and allowing an increase to it by 8%) is an 11% increase to the average ticket price of $36.15.

Bottom line...... good luck RSE

enarwpg is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 08:40 PM
  #68
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
Good luck indeed.

If it comes down to the parking revenues they are in very deep trouble.

One hopes the rest of ther business plan is more viable than this small segment of it.

Mork is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 08:47 PM
  #69
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,368
vCash: 500
Just curious, how many teams actually control a significant number of the parking options around their arena. Even when I drove to MSG I didn't pay to park (its free on the street in NYC after a certain time) or Columbus. I did pay at an Islanders game because any non-Coliseum lot was too far to walk. So I know the Islanders, Senators, Ducks, Hurricanes, and Panthers have arenas outside of urban centers but are there any others who really control/need parking.

aqib is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 11:32 PM
  #70
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
enarpegs being highly sarcastic Whileee. Too sarcastic perhaps. Jacking up ticket prices in one fell swoop with an excessive surcharge in addition to the increase certainly wouldnt have been palatable so instead they pull the old parking dodge. The fact is someone has to pay that $15M AMF and so they couldve either stuck it to the taxpayers & faced re-call's seat by seat or put on the rose colored glasses & just assume no ones going to have a problem with NYC parking rates in Glendale. But as is typical, huge gaping hole in their plan. Westgate parking lots not requiring validation of anykind & no authority employed to enforce such. It wont really hit them this year, but next year, fiscal 14/15 thats when the screamings going to start and Im not sure what kind of a cure they can devise. Their going to have to lower parking prices, perhaps execute a CFD to make up the shortfall.... but the Jurys Out, so we'll just wait & see yes? Maybe Im completely wrong. People gladly turning from free parking to paid.

It's not "gladly" as much as knowing it's something that was eventually going to happen.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 11:58 PM
  #71
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
It's not "gladly" as much as knowing it's something that was eventually going to happen.
I should nail you for Trolling yes? You wanna Troll a Mod?

Killion is online now  
Old
09-04-2013, 02:32 AM
  #72
TheLegend
Megathread Refugee
 
TheLegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Anxiety Closet
Country: United States
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I should nail you for Trolling yes? You wanna Troll a Mod?
Now how could I troll a Mod when I got no credibility???

FWIW.... I do think some adjustments will need to be made down the road in how they work the parking situation. But they had to start from somewhere.

TheLegend is offline  
Old
09-04-2013, 08:40 AM
  #73
GuelphStormer
Registered User
 
GuelphStormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
enarpegs being highly sarcastic Whileee. Too sarcastic perhaps. Jacking up ticket prices in one fell swoop with an excessive surcharge in addition to the increase certainly wouldnt have been palatable so instead they pull the old parking dodge. The fact is someone has to pay that $15M AMF and so they couldve either stuck it to the taxpayers & faced re-call's seat by seat or put on the rose colored glasses & just assume no ones going to have a problem with NYC parking rates in Glendale. But as is typical, huge gaping hole in their plan. Westgate parking lots not requiring validation of anykind & no authority employed to enforce such. It wont really hit them this year, but next year, fiscal 14/15 thats when the screamings going to start and Im not sure what kind of a cure they can devise. Their going to have to lower parking prices, perhaps execute a CFD to make up the shortfall.... but the Jurys Out, so we'll just wait & see yes? Maybe Im completely wrong. People gladly turning from free parking to paid.
neither is ripping off a bandaid, but in most situations it is the most efficient way to do it. ouch. move on.

i completely disagree with what seems to be the majority opinion here: that price increases must be implemented gradually so as not to alienate patrons, especially casual fans. i think that is a recipe for non-success and guaranteed relocation in five years.

there will never be a better time to increase ticket prices, ticket surcharges, and parking than now. never. not even a stanley cup win will make people any more willing to pay any more money than right now. reluctantly of course, but the brutal reality is that prices must increase and everyone understands that, so just go ahead and rip that bandaid off immediately. of course there will be short term pain - some people may not attend, many will whine about it, or continue to freeload by refusing to park in the paid lots. but there will always be pain whenever any price increase is implemented whether it is next year, the year after or even four years from now as the team heads into its "make it or break it" final year ... and don't anybody fool themselves into thinking that final year cannot easily become a total loss lame duck season if the writing is on the wall after years 3 or 4.

so why wait when you can actually get away with it right now and more importantly, it establishes more revenue immediately to begin undertaking that fancy new marketing campaign we are all expecting. certainly, IA could care less whether Glendale is made whole on these new revenue streams (despite its assurances to the contrary) but it's just stupid to not take steps now to increase their own revenues as soon as possible.

but hey, maybe the real goal is not to make enough money to succeed in Glendale but instead to pretend to want to do so and carefully tally up enough losses so as to then contractually sneak out of town in the middle of the night five years hence.

GuelphStormer is offline  
Old
09-04-2013, 01:00 PM
  #74
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuelphStormer View Post
...there will never be a better time to increase ticket prices, ticket surcharges, and parking than now. never. not even a stanley cup win will make people any more willing to pay any more money than right now.
Thats hard core GS, and sure, your assessment & point is very valid. I wouldnt be doing that myself if I were running things, going with a graduated increase but I do see the merit in what you suggest. Not a whole lot of time here. By year 3 they've got to have everything up to speed and playing at par. With the parking, something that conceptually & from the standpoint of execution Im just not understanding how it is that literally just 5 minutes from thejob youve got tonnes of free parking without any monitoring or enforcement so why then would anyone pay to park? You cant have Westgate charging shoppers to park but you can gate the entrances and require validation of the parking stub from the merchants, but again, if your there for an event or hockey game, you might shop or eat/drink, get validated, no pay for parking. See ya. Going to have to work something out with iStar & Westgate for sure.

Killion is online now  
Old
09-04-2013, 01:22 PM
  #75
Llama19
Registered User
 
Llama19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Outside GZ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 1100
Great sentiment...

George Gosbee ‏@Goz100 2h
$5 tickets [at intrasquad scrimmage on Wed. Sept. 18 at 7:00 p.m.] will benefit the families of the 19 firefighters who perished fighting Yarnell Hill fire. More details on http://PhoenixCoyotes.com

Source: https://twitter.com/Goz100

Will the parking fees be waived?

Llama19 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:05 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.