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.

OT: Oakland Raiders want a small new stadium...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-16-2013, 11:13 PM
  #51
sayheykid
Registered User
 
sayheykid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
It's all about the luxury suites.

sayheykid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 12:43 AM
  #52
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The fans weren't exactly coming out in sellout numbers for the Rams and Raiders either during those times and that wasn't an issue of non-shared revenue and luxury boxes. That had to do with mostly crappy teams on the field. A team that goes into LA has to have deep pockets to get the stadium built and intelligent management to make the team consistently good. Fans will not show up in LA if the product is not at least playoff-worthy.
I think you may be underestimating the effect a state of the art stadium in the right area can have on attendance. Especially in as large a metro area as LA to draw fans from. There's no reason to believe a 65k to low 70k's stadium wouldn't be a consistent sellout with strong corporate revenue streams.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 02:33 AM
  #53
Vamos Rafa
ADT = GH
 
Vamos Rafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Clay Court
Country: Spain
Posts: 11,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I think you may be underestimating the effect a state of the art stadium in the right area can have on attendance. Especially in as large a metro area as LA to draw fans from. There's no reason to believe a 65k to low 70k's stadium wouldn't be a consistent sellout with strong corporate revenue streams.
Exactly. The Giants couldn't draw **** when they played at Candlestick and look what that new park did to their attendance. What's also being underestimated is the hunger for an NFL team.

MOD


Last edited by Brodie: 07-17-2013 at 09:34 AM.
Vamos Rafa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 06:04 AM
  #54
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The fans weren't exactly coming out in sellout numbers for the Rams and Raiders either during those times and that wasn't an issue of non-shared revenue and luxury boxes. That had to do with mostly crappy teams on the field. A team that goes into LA has to have deep pockets to get the stadium built and intelligent management to make the team consistently good. Fans will not show up in LA if the product is not at least playoff-worthy.
It's the NFL. You don't "need" to sell out to average fans, you need lots of full suites.

The Raiders were dead last in the NFL in revenue last season... bringing in dollars nearly twice the NFL's salary cap.

The NHL has 20 teams that don't make as high of a percentage as the cap.

The NFL is a TV driven league, not a gate driven league.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 10:28 AM
  #55
ShootIt
Registered User
 
ShootIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 561
Country: United States
Posts: 6,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumblin Erb Brooks View Post
Doesnt the NFL have blackout rules if they stadium doesnt sell out as well?
Yes, but, then the team "buys" the empty seats.

Been watching the local Dolphin games for the past 3-4 years on CBS/FOX and some games there are a lot of empty seats.

ShootIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 11:55 AM
  #56
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 27,787
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The fans weren't exactly coming out in sellout numbers for the Rams and Raiders either during those times and that wasn't an issue of non-shared revenue and luxury boxes. That had to do with mostly crappy teams on the field. A team that goes into LA has to have deep pockets to get the stadium built and intelligent management to make the team consistently good. Fans will not show up in LA if the product is not at least playoff-worthy.
Sure, but the NFL of the late 80's/early 90's was a completely different beast from the monster that it is today.

Fans showing up might be an issue in the event that an L.A. team is bad, but they'll still be a massive source of revenue generation from increased merchandising sales, ticket sales, and TV revenue from that market regardless.

Not claiming that they'll definitely be a top-tier franchise, but hard to imagine that they wouldn't be at least in the top 32 markets in the nation.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2013, 03:02 PM
  #57
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
It's the NFL. You don't "need" to sell out to average fans, you need lots of full suites.

The Raiders were dead last in the NFL in revenue last season... bringing in dollars nearly twice the NFL's salary cap.

The NHL has 20 teams that don't make as high of a percentage as the cap.

The NFL is a TV driven league, not a gate driven league.
You can have zero fans and still turn a profit.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 09:29 AM
  #58
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
It's the NFL. You don't "need" to sell out to average fans, you need lots of full suites.

The Raiders were dead last in the NFL in revenue last season... bringing in dollars nearly twice the NFL's salary cap.

The NHL has 20 teams that don't make as high of a percentage as the cap.

The NFL is a TV driven league, not a gate driven league.
The NFL is a TV driven league. The teams themselves are not. They are still driven by the gate as well as what they get from the TV. If they weren't, luxury suites wouldn't be part of the argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Sure, but the NFL of the late 80's/early 90's was a completely different beast from the monster that it is today.

Fans showing up might be an issue in the event that an L.A. team is bad, but they'll still be a massive source of revenue generation from increased merchandising sales, ticket sales, and TV revenue from that market regardless.

Not claiming that they'll definitely be a top-tier franchise, but hard to imagine that they wouldn't be at least in the top 32 markets in the nation.
I don't see much evidence that there will be an increase in revenue from LA. They get a pretty damn good amount from the market already w/o a team in it. The only thing that separates them from Oakland is a theoretical new stadium's suite sales. I don't see ticket sales getting much better after the honeymoon ends of having a new team. And Oakland getting a new stadium, which the city is likely willing to pursue, will yield the luxury suites that the ownership craves.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 10:05 AM
  #59
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,423
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The NFL is a TV driven league. The teams themselves are not. They are still driven by the gate as well as what they get from the TV. If they weren't, luxury suites wouldn't be part of the argument.
No, the teams are TV driven as well. The Raiders wouldn't have any problems spending to the cap and making tons of money on top of it if they played in front of no fans at all.

The luxury suites, in stadium sales, parking, and any other revenue streams that the teams don't share, are just pure profit for the owners. They aren't what drives the teams, though.


Last edited by IU Hawks fan: 07-18-2013 at 10:11 AM.
IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 12:04 PM
  #60
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The NFL is a TV driven league. The teams themselves are not. They are still driven by the gate as well as what they get from the TV. If they weren't, luxury suites wouldn't be part of the argument.



I don't see much evidence that there will be an increase in revenue from LA. They get a pretty damn good amount from the market already w/o a team in it. The only thing that separates them from Oakland is a theoretical new stadium's suite sales. I don't see ticket sales getting much better after the honeymoon ends of having a new team. And Oakland getting a new stadium, which the city is likely willing to pursue, will yield the luxury suites that the ownership craves.
If the majority of the revenue is TV how does the gate matter at all?The only problem is bad attendance looks bad, which is why we have blackouts.

Face it, the san francisco are should not have 2 NFL. Not before Chicago let alone LA having 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
No, the teams are TV driven as well. The Raiders wouldn't have any problems spending to the cap and making tons of money on top of it if they played in front of no fans at all.

The luxury suites, in stadium sales, parking, and any other revenue streams that the teams don't share, are just pure profit for the owners. They aren't what drives the teams, though.
exactly. That is all gravy.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 01:42 PM
  #61
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
No, the teams are TV driven as well. The Raiders wouldn't have any problems spending to the cap and making tons of money on top of it if they played in front of no fans at all.
Not quite. TV revenues are ~$159M per year per team and the cap is ~$121M - and teams have other expenses.

Based on the Forbes' numbers <insert generic Forbes discclaimer here> - the Raiders gate revenue was only $40M and total revenues only $226M (both lowest in the league) with an operating loss of $15.2M.

The increase on TV revenues in 2014 (up to ~$218M/team) will help, but that (plus increased local revenues of other teams, 40% of which are included in the cap) will also significantly increase the cap.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 02:57 PM
  #62
Kesselology
License to Phil
 
Kesselology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 1,971
vCash: 500
Helllllll no, keep the Raiders as far away from LA as possible. Even Oakland's too close, move them to Saskatoon or something. I don't want widespread anger and violence when the Raiders lose (which will be often) because their fans don't understand that supporting a team entails more than having a bumper sticker, getting drunk and picking fights. Not to mention the fact that downtown will have to effectively shut down every Sunday where there's a home game because the freeways will become too congested for even LA standards. Hopefully our new hipster mayor will live up to his mantra and be anti-sport enough to prevent them from ever moving here.

Kesselology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 03:22 PM
  #63
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 27,787
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundinology View Post
Helllllll no, keep the Raiders as far away from LA as possible. Even Oakland's too close, move them to Saskatoon or something. I don't want widespread anger and violence when the Raiders lose (which will be often) because their fans don't understand that supporting a team entails more than having a bumper sticker, getting drunk and picking fights. Not to mention the fact that downtown will have to effectively shut down every Sunday where there's a home game because the freeways will become too congested for even LA standards. Hopefully our new hipster mayor will live up to his mantra and be anti-sport enough to prevent them from ever moving here.
uh.... you seem to be under the impression that huge numbers of Oakland fans will pour into Los Angeles should the Raiders move there. I'm not getting that logic.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 03:26 PM
  #64
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 33,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
If the majority of the revenue is TV how does the gate matter at all?The only problem is bad attendance looks bad, which is why we have blackouts.

Face it, the san francisco are should not have 2 NFL. Not before Chicago let alone LA having 1.



exactly. That is all gravy.
How does the gate matter at all? Because the cost to run a franchise in the NFL is more than TV revenues produce for each team. If it didn't matter at all, there would not be talk of a new stadium. It is a large stretch to apply your thinking of bad attendance equals why they'd discuss a new stadium or relocation in general.

And your ideals are all nice and dandy but irrelevant. Teams in locations aren't based on which market deserves what. It's based on owners and cities willing to invest to have a franchise where they want. Does Chicago even want another team? The city of LA never cared enough for it to invest in a stadium...not like they need to. Nobody has thought enough to relocate there since the teams left in 1994. Teams go where the money is there to spend on the team and its facilities.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 03:58 PM
  #65
Vamos Rafa
ADT = GH
 
Vamos Rafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Clay Court
Country: Spain
Posts: 11,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundinology View Post
Helllllll no, keep the Raiders as far away from LA as possible. Even Oakland's too close, move them to Saskatoon or something. I don't want widespread anger and violence when the Raiders lose (which will be often) because their fans don't understand that supporting a team entails more than having a bumper sticker, getting drunk and picking fights. Not to mention the fact that downtown will have to effectively shut down every Sunday where there's a home game because the freeways will become too congested for even LA standards. Hopefully our new hipster mayor will live up to his mantra and be anti-sport enough to prevent them from ever moving here.

I really don't care which team comes to LA. There's no reason for any NFL-hungry LA sports fan to be picky.

BTW, can someone explain why Goodell wants a publicly-finances stadium before he moves a team there? Both pro sports venues in LA are privately owned: Dodger Stadium, Staples Center. It's really impossible to build a publicly-financed stadium in LA, much less a big NFL stadium that could cost over a billion bucks. And no, I ain't counting Angel Stadium and Honda Center as LA sporting venues.

Vamos Rafa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 04:39 PM
  #66
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Not quite. TV revenues are ~$159M per year per team and the cap is ~$121M - and teams have other expenses.

Based on the Forbes' numbers <insert generic Forbes discclaimer here> - the Raiders gate revenue was only $40M and total revenues only $226M (both lowest in the league) with an operating loss of $15.2M.

The increase on TV revenues in 2014 (up to ~$218M/team) will help, but that (plus increased local revenues of other teams, 40% of which are included in the cap) will also significantly increase the cap.
Yeah, but think about that: NFL TV revenue was $159 million, which easily covers a $121 mil salary cap! Yeah, teams have way more than $38 mil in operating expenses, but they also don't HAVE to spend to the cap.

That would be like the NHL getting $97.25 million per team in TV revenue. The Islanders have one of the better local TV deals in the league and their TOTAL revenue didn't cover the salary cap in 2011-12 ($74 mil cap, $63 mil revenues, roughly $30 mil from TV).


I've done the math on what the Islanders old lease was costing the team compared to the rest of the league: About $25 million in arena-related revenue (advertising, suites, concessions, 15% of tickets).


But that's exactly why it didn't make sense for a city, or an owner, to fully fund an NFL stadium: It's basically the biggest expense a franchise has, and it brings in a relatively small amount of revenue to the team. The suites are king -- but suites also don't benefit the community in general, because John Q. Taxpayer isn't going to be the person renting the suite. The big corporate big wigs are in the suite.

And because it's the winning team that sells the tickets, not the brand new stadium and the new stadium doesn't necessarily mean a winning team.


The lack of an NFL team in Los Angeles is very much like the lack of an NHL team in Hamilton. No one in their right mind would say Hamilton would make for a lousy hockey market, and the idea LA is a lousy NFL market is equally nuts. It's just that the "buy in" for the owner to place a team in that market is probably double the cost of buying any other existing team.

In Hamilton, it might make sense to pay the startup cost, because the market would allow you to generate more profits year-to-year than say, buying the Columbus Blue Jackets. And the franchise value is much higher when you sell the team.

In Los Angeles, without local TV rights revenue, the "extra" profit you'd make isn't enough to make up the $800 million or so difference in price tag between owning LA, or owning, say, Carolina.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 05:18 PM
  #67
chasespace
Registered User
 
chasespace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williston, FL
Posts: 4,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The 'Winnipeg Jets' approach to stadium building perhaps?
It would help a good number of baseball teams, that's for sure.

chasespace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 05:20 PM
  #68
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
How does the gate matter at all? Because the cost to run a franchise in the NFL is more than TV revenues produce for each team. If it didn't matter at all, there would not be talk of a new stadium. It is a large stretch to apply your thinking of bad attendance equals why they'd discuss a new stadium or relocation in general.

And your ideals are all nice and dandy but irrelevant. Teams in locations aren't based on which market deserves what. It's based on owners and cities willing to invest to have a franchise where they want. Does Chicago even want another team? The city of LA never cared enough for it to invest in a stadium...not like they need to. Nobody has thought enough to relocate there since the teams left in 1994. Teams go where the money is there to spend on the team and its facilities.
The stadium is getting replaced because they can't fill it and that looks bad. It also causes blackouts. It also has a lack of club suites. Not sure how that is a stretch. That's why the blackouts exist.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2013, 06:13 PM
  #69
BwayBshirt
Registered User
 
BwayBshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My NY State of Mind
Country: United States
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
The Raiders didn't work the 1st time around in LA mainly b/c the Coliseum was a crappy NFL facility & the area around USC was at or near its absolute worst socially.

The Raiders aren't working in Oakland the 2nd time around mainly b/c the Coliseum is a crappy NFL facility & the city is at or near its absolute worst socially.

Hard to miss the parallel. But still I think ultimately they'd be better served in LA.

BwayBshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 08:34 AM
  #70
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwayBshirt View Post
The Raiders didn't work the 1st time around in LA mainly b/c the Coliseum was a crappy NFL facility & the area around USC was at or near its absolute worst socially.

The Raiders aren't working in Oakland the 2nd time around mainly b/c the Coliseum is a crappy NFL facility & the city is at or near its absolute worst socially.

Hard to miss the parallel. But still I think ultimately they'd be better served in LA.
good call!

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:35 PM
  #71
gordie
Registered User
 
gordie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwayBshirt View Post
The Raiders didn't work the 1st time around in LA mainly b/c the Coliseum was a crappy NFL facility & the area around USC was at or near its absolute worst socially.

The Raiders aren't working in Oakland the 2nd time around mainly b/c the Coliseum is a crappy NFL facility & the city is at or near its absolute worst socially.

Hard to miss the parallel. But still I think ultimately they'd be better served in LA.
Better to stay in Oakland where you will eventually be the only game in town no matter if you win or lose than Los Angeles where you'd be just another entertainment option for the population to ignore.

gordie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 02:38 PM
  #72
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
Better to stay in Oakland where you will eventually be the only game in town no matter if you win or lose than Los Angeles where you'd be just another entertainment option for the population to ignore.
I guess before parcells the pats should have moved to st louis.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 03:59 PM
  #73
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,177
vCash: 500
The NFL should have followed through the plan to grant St. Louis their expansion team (they were already selling merchandise, the deal was so close) instead of deciding at the last minute that Jacksonville was the future.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 04:14 PM
  #74
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,423
vCash: 50
I know local revenue doesn't mean much for this league, but Jacksonville still makes zero sense to me.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 06:33 PM
  #75
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordie View Post
Better to stay in Oakland where you will eventually be the only game in town no matter if you win or lose than Los Angeles where you'd be just another entertainment option for the population to ignore.
That's extremely silly for a number reasons:

#1 - All those teams in the Bay Area are still in the market. They wouldn't be "the only game in town."

#2 - The reason they wouldn't be the only game in town is because people can and do go to games in a different section of the same market. Taking BART to any of these venues is ridiculously easy for people as far away as Stockton. You don't just earn money in your zip code.

#2 - Even if that were true ("they'd be the only game in town"), it's MORE of a reason to leave Oakland. If each team is only making money from people in their zip code, and they'd be far better off in a richer zip code.

#4 - The generalization that LA fans would ignore an NFL franchise is categorically insane.

#5 - Being the "only game in town" in Oakland (metro population: 400,740) wouldn't be better than being one of NINE teams in metro Los Angeles (population: 3,792,621) and metro Los Angeles actually only has FOUR teams (Dodgers, Lakers, Kings, Clippers).

#6 - Being one of SEVEN teams in the Los Angeles DMA (pop: 19,831,858) is still more potential earning power than one of FIVE team in the San Fran-Oakland-Fremont DMA (pop: 4,455,560) -- and that's five not counting the Sharks.

#7 - Being the ONLY NFL team in Los Angeles (metro pop. 3,792,621; DMA pop 19,831,858) is better than being the ONLY NFL team in "Oakland" (metro pop: 400,740) or one of TWO NFL teams in the Bay Area (DMA pop: 4,455,560).

KevFu 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 05:11 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.