An Anti-Attendance Thread: Info on Gate Receipts

[guyincognito]

So, how much of Edmonton's $1 million per night take is "take home pay"?,
after revenue sharing (I mean, I assume they give up money, even if they
act like a charity case) and whomever else they have to chop up the pie with?

I think that's the most interesting thing on the sheet. Everyone knew that the
Blackhawks are a disaster and that Lou lies when he says he doesn't give out freebies
(although if I'm Buffalo, I'm a tad concerned that my full houses don't really make much more money than the Devils, and will make far less next season... fiscal doom awaits!) and that the average ticket prices listed aren't correct (as MSG's prices are boosted by certain seats) and so on and so forth.

But, Edmonton. How many boxes in Edmonton? Club seats? This isn't exactly a new palace. They're raking in revenue, and they were one of the prime charity cases for the lockout... while teams like Atlanta and Nashville, playing in relatively new buildings, with more corporate options, are making half the money a night.

What's going on in Edmonton? Do they have a bad deal or does someone have some 'plainin to do?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Hypothetical question. Three NHL teams are put on the market tomorrow. The price is somewhere between the last real sale (St. Louis) at $150 MM and the almost sale of Pittsburgh at $175 MM.

Your three options are Chicago, Boston, or Nashville.

Your money. Which team would you buy? And no, you can't move them.

[I'll take Chicago.]

Well, I was beaten to the punch by the other poster above, but the answer really is in what investment horizon I have chosen. If it is relatively short term, I might choose Chicago. Longer term, I think Nashville might be a better investment for the reasons set out above.

Boston is not the choice in any circumstance.

That being said, it is a bit of an artificial choice, Chicago would notionally command a premium as an O6 team in a gigantic TV market. That being said, though, has there ever been a demonstration that hockey support in Chicago was ever more than skin deep? Has it ever made its way to the top of the sporting food chain in that city (I am asking; I dunno), or even in the top 3? Every franchise in every sport in that city is storied, so there is huge competition for the sports page, all year round. Even if Wirtz put the game on TV, there is a lot of sports competition for the airwaves. Could there even be airtime for 82 hockey games on top of 324 ballgames, 82 basketball games and 16 NFL games? That factor may very well be overstated, although that is just speculation.

 

[Seth Lake]

Something seems odd with those numbers for the Thrashers. How are they suddenly giving away so many freebies? What are they doing different one year to the next to cause a swing of 2500 free tickets per game? That's a huge number. I live in Atlanta and have been a season ticket holder since day one. If anything the ticket office has cut back on freebies to STHs (no more bonus tickets etc...) who represent the bulk of sales.

If there are any Thrasher fans out there that know I'd be real curious if they know what's changed. My season ticket prices have gone up considerably each of the last three seasons...sort of contradictory to a team in dire straights filling the barn.

I'd be curious too. The only thing I've been thinking about (as an outsider) from the time I saw those statistics is did it have something to do with the whole Atlanta Hawks/Thrashers ownership split fiasco legal battle during the lockout season and into last season?

Any Thrashers fans that can give any credit to that thought or discredit it? I'm seriously interested to know...that was a huge spike and there has to be a reason for it.

 

[EbencoyE]

First off a team like Chicago isn't going to get any attendance until they have a good team which hasn't happened in years. From the 97-98 season to present, the Blackhawks have only made the playoffs once. A lot like the Rangers except they still stink now.

In terms of other teams, you're not in a hockey market, so it's going to be hard to get attendance. Sure Atlanta is a pretty big city, but they had hockey there once and it didn't work. I don't see why they wanted to go back. The team isn't going to get any big publicity unless they win the cup or go to the finals or something. Same goes for a lot of those smaller market teams. When you have guys like Hossa, Kovalchuk, Kozlov, and now Tkachuk on your team, you shouldn't have to give away tickets.

Wrong. The Atlanta Flames were actually very successful. They drew better than the NBA team and were pretty popular. Unfortunately the owner sold the team and it happened to be to a guy from Calgary.

A team's geographic location has nothing to do with it being "traditional" or not. Look at Houston. The Aeros have been around for years. I would consider them "traditional" even if they are in the south. San Jose and LA are also another couple southern markets I would consider traditional. Some people also consider St. Louis to be southern and they're definitely a traditional market.

Unfortunately ignorant elitist northerners who refused to spread their beloved game until the 90's have held it back in many markets and it's been the job of snowbirds and average Joes to spread the game. And since they've had little help, it's not surprising to see markets who have only had teams for 10 years struggling to be as successful as those who've been around for 50.

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

Do you know stupid people that have feelings, and like to discuss these feelings despite how ignorant they are? I do.

Funny, I know people that do not like what other people have to say and call them stupid and ignorant, that to me is pretty idiotic.

Remember just because I hate NHL teams and think a market deserves a team over another market makes me stupid and ignorant, I never said I hated any fans.

I would recite examples of your horrendous spelling, incoherent sentence structure and rampant grammatical errors, but that is a waste of everyone's time. And no, I am not talking about typos. Those who noticed them do not need me to point them out. Those who did not notice them would not care.

I think it is a waste of everyone's time because as much as you would like all those things to be true, you cannot find any. If you do however, just remember the most brillant minds in human history, the best selling authors have horrendous spelling, incoherent sentence structure and rampant grammatical errors, that's what editors are there for.

Freedom of speech does exist, but there is no right, under the law or in civilized discussions between good people, to unfettered speech. Your speech is hateful. You admitted as such yourself:

So because it is hateful I cannot say it. I am sure you have no problems with critics in the media do you, they also have hateful things to say. All I am doing is putting into question the decisions the NHL makes.

Your POV is very childish, IMO. I can only assume you are very young. I hope that is the case, because you will grow out of it.

My point of view is simple this, I dislike teams in certain cities that should not be there. I believe there should be less teams in the NHL and not so much of them in the south. Couple reasons, no tradition, not enough fans sad to say but it is the truth.

You act like it is a virtue to spew venom because "at least you are being honest". I would bet dollars to donuts that you are a big Cherry fan, since that is what many of his disciples say. Anyone with an ounce of sense and who knows how to actually conduct themselves with people realizes that "saying what's on your mind" is not a virtue if you have nothing but destructive, mean-spirited thoughts and you have no desire to do anything but tear people (or groups of people) down with them.

I am not trying to put anyone down, did I ever say I hate Nashville, Tampa, Florida fans no I did not. If people would realize something that I have no influence on teams and where they go, then maybe we could have a discussion about these things. I mean actually talk about it not saying your "point of view is stupid." Tell me why you think that way, I do not care if you think I am stupid tell me why you think those cities deserve those teams and try to convince me.

BTW I love DC.

 

[Resolute]

Hypothetical question. Three NHL teams are put on the market tomorrow. The price is somewhere between the last real sale (St. Louis) at $150 MM and the almost sale of Pittsburgh at $175 MM.

Your three options are Chicago, Boston, or Nashville.

Your money. Which team would you buy? And no, you can't move them.

[I'll take Chicago.]

Chicago, clearly. Remove Wirtz from the equasion, and attendance skyrockets. Build a winner, and you have a top 5 team in the league in attendance.

 

[Resolute]

So, how much of Edmonton's $1 million per night take is "take home pay"?,
after revenue sharing (I mean, I assume they give up money, even if they
act like a charity case) and whomever else they have to chop up the pie with?

I think that's the most interesting thing on the sheet. Everyone knew that the
Blackhawks are a disaster and that Lou lies when he says he doesn't give out freebies
(although if I'm Buffalo, I'm a tad concerned that my full houses don't really make much more money than the Devils, and will make far less next season... fiscal doom awaits!) and that the average ticket prices listed aren't correct (as MSG's prices are boosted by certain seats) and so on and so forth.

But, Edmonton. How many boxes in Edmonton? Club seats? This isn't exactly a new palace. They're raking in revenue, and they were one of the prime charity cases for the lockout... while teams like Atlanta and Nashville, playing in relatively new buildings, with more corporate options, are making half the money a night.

What's going on in Edmonton? Do they have a bad deal or does someone have some 'plainin to do?

Edmonton has among the fewest suites of any team in the league, about 50.

The one thing that is notable with Edmonton is that they seriously jacked prices up this year. 10-12% for weekday games, and around 30% for weekend games. Obviously, winning a WC title allows them to do this. The Oilers, along with the Flames (who have similaraly jacked up prices for next year) were not willing/able to offer such large increases in ticket prices prior to the lockout because of the general mediocrity of both teams.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

Funny, I know people that do not like what other people have to say and call them stupid and ignorant, that to me is pretty idiotic.

Remember just because I hate NHL teams and think a market deserves a team over another market makes me stupid and ignorant, I never said I hated any fans.



I think it is a waste of everyone's time because as much as you would like all those things to be true, you cannot find any. If you do however, just remember the most brillant minds in human history, the best selling authors have horrendous spelling, incoherent sentence structure and rampant grammatical errors, that's what editors are there for.



So because it is hateful I cannot say it. I am sure you have no problems with critics in the media do you, they also have hateful things to say. All I am doing is putting into question the decisions the NHL makes.



My point of view is simple this, I dislike teams in certain cities that should not be there. I believe there should be less teams in the NHL and not so much of them in the south. Couple reasons, no tradition, not enough fans sad to say but it is the truth.



I am not trying to put anyone down, did I ever say I hate Nashville, Tampa, Florida fans no I did not. If people would realize something that I have no influence on teams and where they go, then maybe we could have a discussion about these things. I mean actually talk about it not saying your "point of view is stupid." Tell me why you think that way, I do not care if you think I am stupid tell me why you think those cities deserve those teams and try to convince me.

BTW I love DC.

I'm curious here, so humor me. Define 'tradition' as you're using it.

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

I'm curious here, so humor me. Define 'tradition' as you're using it.

Hall of fame players that have played on the team, stanley cups, playoff appearances, rivalries, I don't know what else to say I am sure there is more to be mentioned. Also I never mentioned Carolina so no need to bit my head off.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

When there are more deserving markets (Canada) then some in the USA I think most people hope to see those markets fail. (me included)

The fact is that the US took 2 Canadian teams away. One of which, you have a very good case in saying the best rivalry in NHL history. (Montreal-Quebec) Now expansion/relocation comes along and these cities are not even considered, OK whatever in the expansion era they cannot survive because of the rise in salaries. But with the new CBA there is a new hope, and that hope is that a team in the US bombs and has no choice but to move, and we all (Canadians) pray that they come back to Canada.

I really hope you didn't say that you hope some teams will fail? Thats terrible

 

[marc-edouard grier]

Hall of fame players that have played on the team, stanley cups, playoff appearances, rivalries, I don't know what else to say I am sure there is more to be mentioned. Also I never mentioned Carolina so no need to bit my head off.

Going by your logic, expansion isn't an option by definition since it lacks "hall of famers, playoff appearances, and rivalries." That's why expansion happens, to create those new rivalries and hall of famers and stanley cup battles. All that it seems that you want is to get back to a good 'ol canadian boy game (don't even get me started w/ that...)

 

[Injektilo]

In a sense, I can sorta see where MrBlueandWhite is coming from, though I think hoping franchises fail is a little extreme and harsh. He's not concerned with how much money the NHL owners make, he's concerned about hockey culture in Canada. Just like I'm sure most Americans here are concerned with the health and popularity of the game in the US. It's a shame they have to be somewhat mutually exclusive, but with the population and wealth advantage that US cities have over Canadian cities, it does exist. If the game gets as popular in the US as say, the NFL, we're not gonna see teams in Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa eventually. If the game fails in the US and remains popular in canada, teams in Winnipeg and Quebec (or hamilton, or wherever) might be more viable.

If the growth of the league means that my Oilers are more in danger of moving, why should I be hoping for that? If a downturn for the league makes it more likely that teams could survive in Winnipeg and Quebec, be it by expansion or relocation (from wherever, Boston, Phoenix, Chicago, etc) then why would that be a bad thing for me, the Canadian hockey fan who doesn't give a **** how much money the owners make?

 

[zenator]

Edmonton, Calgary, and Ottawa are quite wealthy cities (especially Calgary). They are all in the top 12 for NHL revenue.

Even if the NHL gets more popular in the US and more cities there support teams well (doubtful), I don't see how that hurts these Canadian cities which are hockey-mad, and sell out most of their games, and have good TV ratings.

 

[Trizent]

Edmonton has among the fewest suites of any team in the league, about 50.

The one thing that is notable with Edmonton is that they seriously jacked prices up this year. 10-12% for weekday games, and around 30% for weekend games. Obviously, winning a WC title allows them to do this. The Oilers, along with the Flames (who have similaraly jacked up prices for next year) were not willing/able to offer such large increases in ticket prices prior to the lockout because of the general mediocrity of both teams.

All of the above is basically accurate.

Canadian dollar going from 0.65US to 0.87US means an instant 20% increase in revenue as well for Edmonton and the other Canadian teams from a couple years ago.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

Hall of fame players that have played on the team, stanley cups, playoff appearances, rivalries, I don't know what else to say I am sure there is more to be mentioned. Also I never mentioned Carolina so no need to bit my head off.

I didn't bite your head off and I was unaware that you had to mention the 'Canes in order for me to have some sort of fight of reply. The fact of the matter is that I find that most fans in "traditional hockey markets" are wholly ignorant of the history of minor pro & semi-pro hockey here in the South that, in some places, dates back a good fifty years. I asked for your definition of "tradition" not to bite your head off but rather to see if it was the "Well you should have had exposure to ice hockey before the 1990s" definition I've seen from other users and posters.

As marc-edouard grier stated though, you can't expect a new team in the League to just have those things - it takes time to build up to that.

 

[Bobby Orr]

Hypothetical question. Three NHL teams are put on the market tomorrow. The price is somewhere between the last real sale (St. Louis) at $150 MM and the almost sale of Pittsburgh at $175 MM.

Your three options are Chicago, Boston, or Nashville.

Your money. Which team would you buy? And no, you can't move them.

[I'll take Chicago.]

At that price, I'd take Chicago in a heartbeat.

 

[Hawker14]

It's great that we finally have actual numbers. Some are better than I thought, some are worse and there are some big surprises.

Dallas and Colorado both jump out at me, averaging $1 million per game at the gate even while distributing 2,000 plus freebies. Interesting business plan but it's obviously working for them. I certainly didn't expect to see them comp so many.

Most importantly are the gate revenues. $750-850k per game constitutes the mid range, and a good barometer of a team's health.

Boston, even with low paid attendance numbers this season and a double digit decrease in gate, is still surprisingly healthy due to high prices.

Buffalo and Carolina, both formerly concerns, are on the right track and should be healthy self-sustaining franchises in a few seasons if they can maintain reasonable growth.

New Jersey and Pittsburgh both have low revenues, but with new arenas set to open in '07 and '09, they should be healthy if they get the expected growth new arena streams (and ticket price increases) bring.

The remaining eight teams at the bottom are all extremely weak sisters, and need to grow their gate revenues by between 70 and 219 % to get to a healthy range IMO.

Phoenix at $ 538k, decent growth this year, and considering ticket price reduction, have more paid fans this season. Still have a very long way to go but making some progress.

Nashville at $ 516k, strong growth at 20%. One concern is the growth at gate almost equals the raise in prices, meaning there aren't many more paid fans this season.

Florida at $ 505k, slight decline, although more paying fans this season. The Panthers are in serious trouble if things don't improve soon.

Atlanta at $ 488k, even. With a huge price increase, and a static gate, there are alot less paying fans this season. The biggest surprise for me, the Thrashers are in serious trouble which explains the trade deadline deals.

Washington at $ 456k, double digit increase in gate revenues explained by price increase of almost same level. The Capitals paying fan base is not growing, which is a serious concern for a team generating such low gate. Another team in serious trouble although Leonsis can afford vast losses, which he's shown the apetite for. The Capitals, in their defence, are only spending to the bottom of the salary cap range unlike most others in dire straits thus they appear to be fiscally responsible during their rebuilding process.

New York Islanders at $ 440k, massive 16% decline following slight price reduction means fans are staying away in droves. The Islanders are quickly heading in the wrong direction, but with their TV deal and a new arena, they could possibly turn things around. Things look really bad in the absence of an arena though.

St.Louis at $ 433k is up 6.3%, but factoring in the 12% price increase, less paying fans this season isn't good news for this once shining light. the Blues need to increase their gate by about 175%, so 6% annual increases aren't going to cut it.

Chicago at $ 342k, is down 15%, and needs to more than double it's gate. That's not going to happen with current ownership which has to be an embarrassment to the league.


Seeing the bottom per game gate revenues, I think the $ 175 million offer for the Penguins was an anomaly and a premium for such a stocked team. I'm speculating, but I imagine new owners buying into any of these eight markets will be looking at $ 75-125 million fees unless they're purchasing to relocate which may cost slightly more.

 

[MAROONSRoad]

Not that anyone has questioned the reporting of the Globe & Mail, but the New York Times mentions the "NHL numbers" as they relate to Atlanta's average 2,800 plus comp tickets here:

"The Atlanta Thrashers are on the verge of qualifying for the postseason for the first time since the club was founded in 1999. Playoff dates would help the finances of the team, which leads the league in comp tickets. According to N.H.L. figures, the Thrashers have given away an average of more than 2,800 tickets a game this season."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/sports/hockey/01hockey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

GHOST

 

[lemieux32*]

Hawker14, the Blues will be fine next season. Attendance has increased since Murray was hired and since Laurie left. Next season the fans will be excited again.

Ghosts- Why are you so obsessed with this? The numbers may be right, but as I said before the article is a terrible, one of their main points is comparing the per game revenue of Toronto ($80 avg.) and Atlanta ($33 avg.) and that
s an absolute joke.

 

[Kritter471]

Dallas comps so much because of several sponsership programs with local businesses and a minor fall out with fans/local corperatoins dating back to the Stars leaving Reunion and the Mavs becoming the new hot ticket in town.

Local businesses that sponser the Stars (Dr Pepper is a big player) get chunks of tickets comp'd every night. The Stars also comp tickets to local coperations to entice them and their clinets back in a paying capacity.

Even with the comping, they're still very healthy at the gate and are the fourth most valuable franchise in the league. I'm not real worried about them.

 

[GSC2k2*]

It's great that we finally have actual numbers. Some are better than I thought, some are worse and there are some big surprises.

Dallas and Colorado both jump out at me, averaging $1 million per game at the gate even while distributing 2,000 plus freebies. Interesting business plan but it's obviously working for them. I certainly didn't expect to see them comp so many.

Most importantly are the gate revenues. $750-850k per game constitutes the mid range, and a good barometer of a team's health.

Boston, even with low paid attendance numbers this season and a double digit decrease in gate, is still surprisingly healthy due to high prices.

Buffalo and Carolina, both formerly concerns, are on the right track and should be healthy self-sustaining franchises in a few seasons if they can maintain reasonable growth.

New Jersey and Pittsburgh both have low revenues, but with new arenas set to open in '07 and '09, they should be healthy if they get the expected growth new arena streams (and ticket price increases) bring.

The remaining eight teams at the bottom are all extremely weak sisters, and need to grow their gate revenues by between 70 and 219 % to get to a healthy range IMO.

Phoenix at $ 538k, decent growth this year, and considering ticket price reduction, have more paid fans this season. Still have a very long way to go but making some progress.

Nashville at $ 516k, strong growth at 20%. One concern is the growth at gate almost equals the raise in prices, meaning there aren't many more paid fans this season.

Florida at $ 505k, slight decline, although more paying fans this season. The Panthers are in serious trouble if things don't improve soon.

Atlanta at $ 488k, even. With a huge price increase, and a static gate, there are alot less paying fans this season. The biggest surprise for me, the Thrashers are in serious trouble which explains the trade deadline deals.

Washington at $ 456k, double digit increase in gate revenues explained by price increase of almost same level. The Capitals paying fan base is not growing, which is a serious concern for a team generating such low gate. Another team in serious trouble although Leonsis can afford vast losses, which he's shown the apetite for. The Capitals, in their defence, are only spending to the bottom of the salary cap range unlike most others in dire straits thus they appear to be fiscally responsible during their rebuilding process.

New York Islanders at $ 440k, massive 16% decline following slight price reduction means fans are staying away in droves. The Islanders are quickly heading in the wrong direction, but with their TV deal and a new arena, they could possibly turn things around. Things look really bad in the absence of an arena though.

St.Louis at $ 433k is up 6.3%, but factoring in the 12% price increase, less paying fans this season isn't good news for this once shining light. the Blues need to increase their gate by about 175%, so 6% annual increases aren't going to cut it.

Chicago at $ 342k, is down 15%, and needs to more than double it's gate. That's not going to happen with current ownership which has to be an embarrassment to the league.


Seeing the bottom per game gate revenues, I think the $ 175 million offer for the Penguins was an anomaly and a premium for such a stocked team. I'm speculating, but I imagine new owners buying into any of these eight markets will be looking at $ 75-125 million fees unless they're purchasing to relocate which may cost slightly more.

One key aspect you are ignoring, Hawker, is that collectively gate revenues project to about $985 million, which is significantly less than half of the NHL's revenues. It has become part of hockey mythology that "the NHL is a gate-driven league". While that is partly true, gate revenues (though significant) tell less than half the story. As such, it is still a fool's errand to assume that one can ascertain a reasonable franchise value for any team based on these numbers alone.

NYI, for example, has that whopping local TV contract.

Chicago has a huge number of corporate boxes, if memory serves.

Every team is highly individual, I would warrant. If one is not selling as many seats as the next guy, one can still be doing better with better concession deals, parking facilities, sponsorships, corporate boxes, seat licenses, etc.

 

[Rob]

Forgive me if this has been stated previously in this thread, but am I the only one bothered by the fact that Gary Bettman and the NHL have been trumpeting post-lockout attendance records when clearly those numbers have been juiced by thousands -- THOUSANDS -- of ticket comps?

This isn't really a much of a surprise. Hockey journalists have been pointing this out for years when they are covering games in the south. Or the commentators on TV will crack a joke about the announced attendance.

Of course the apologists will continue to deny the truth.

 

[Magnus Fulgur]

Mr. BLUE and WHITE wrote this:

"My point of view is simple this, I dislike teams in certain cities that should not be there. I believe there should be less teams in the NHL and not so much of them in the south. Couple reasons, no tradition, not enough fans sad to say but it is the truth."

Doesn't this argument apply to much of the 1967 expansion???

Anyhow...

Red flags should be raised about Thrashers attendance and comp tickets. But building the team is going to be a slow hard sell since the management did NOT do well in building the team in the first four years. However, the market is too big to give up on, and there are just too many Northern US, Canadian, and European transplants moving here to give up on hockey. My pickup team at lunch last week had two Bostonians, a New Yorker, two Finns, Three Czechs, Two Canadians, and even some people from the South! You'll find the same diverse demographic at Thrashers' games, but a majority of local born (or at least) bred.

I have noticed a huge change in the energy level at Philips Arena this year. Even when we were stinking out the joint in January, the fans were into it in a way I haven't heard before.

And honestly, Thrashers tickets are cheap. We have an entire $10 section up top (which is usually filled).

 

[Ted Hoffman]

St.Louis at $ 433k is up 6.3%, but factoring in the 12% price increase, less paying fans this season isn't good news for this once shining light. the Blues need to increase their gate by about 175%, so 6% annual increases aren't going to cut it.

Let me see if I get this right: the Blues increase ticket prices, generate more revenue from fewer fans (again, we'll ignore the reasons why attendance is down because hawker is apparently physically incapable of factoring anything like this into his line of thinking), and .... apparently it's a bad thing b/c they really need to be focusing more on packing the place. (Again, ignoring the reasons why attendance is down the last 2 years and ignoring the fact that the Blues averaged near capacity for much of the prior 13-15 years.)

Of course, hawker's premise is that "$750-850k per game constitutes the mid range, and a good barometer of a team's health" without anything to back that statement up. Sorry, but personal opinion is not the same as expert analysis. I mean, if Nashville was packing the place and had gate revenues of $700K per game, then what? St. Louis could literally pack the place every night with ticket prices where they are and probably would just get to $750K per game ... and then what - it's still a sign of an unhealthy market? The team should raise ticket prices to make them healthy? (Which would likely be followed by, "OMG, THE BLUES AREN'T SELLING OUT - WHAT'S THEIR PROBLEM?")

And for the 1,416th time, it doesn't matter what the fans think - it only matters what the owners think. If an owner sees a problem in the market he's in, only he can decide whether he's better off moving the team elsewhere to generate more profits. Clearly, the cost of doing this outweighs future profits, so owners aren't stampeding for other cities in North America ... so it doesn't matter whether anyone here thinks ______ is a struggling/failing market: you're not moving the team, and you're not going to force an owner to move a team.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Let me see if I get this right: the Blues increase ticket prices, generate more revenue from fewer fans (again, we'll ignore the reasons why attendance is down because hawker is apparently physically incapable of factoring anything like this into his line of thinking), and .... apparently it's a bad thing b/c they really need to be focusing more on packing the place. (Again, ignoring the reasons why attendance is down the last 2 years and ignoring the fact that the Blues averaged near capacity for much of the prior 13-15 years.)

Of course, hawker's premise is that "$750-850k per game constitutes the mid range, and a good barometer of a team's health" without anything to back that statement up. Sorry, but personal opinion is not the same as expert analysis. I mean, if Nashville was packing the place and had gate revenues of $700K per game, then what? St. Louis could literally pack the place every night with ticket prices where they are and probably would just get to $750K per game ... and then what - it's still a sign of an unhealthy market? The team should raise ticket prices to make them healthy? (Which would likely be followed by, "OMG, THE BLUES AREN'T SELLING OUT - WHAT'S THEIR PROBLEM?")

And for the 1,416th time, it doesn't matter what the fans think - it only matters what the owners think. If an owner sees a problem in the market he's in, only he can decide whether he's better off moving the team elsewhere to generate more profits. Clearly, the cost of doing this outweighs future profits, so owners aren't stampeding for other cities in North America ... so it doesn't matter whether anyone here thinks ______ is a struggling/failing market: you're not moving the team, and you're not going to force an owner to move a team.

IB, you know I would be pretty well the last person to defend Hawker's line of thinking, and the point you raise in the first and second paragraphs above are all very valid, but your point in the third paragraph is really not meaningful, IMO.

The raison d'etre of this board is not to influence things. If it was, HF would not exist at all. The purpose of this Board IMO is to discuss and share opinions. HAwker is sharing his (usually completely misguided) opinions about what owners should/might be considering moves, and which franchises bear watching after reading the latest data. To me there is nothing wrong with that per se. Now, with respect to his rationales, they are fair game to be dismantled and slaughtered, as is almost always the case for his opinions. However, to say that they are unworthy simply because he cannot influence them is not fair, IMO.