$999 tickets?

[ThrashersGM]

In a game earlier today Steven Stamkos was blown away when he tried to buy a pair of tickets for his parents. The bill, $1,998.00. After the game in which the Thrashers needed to win to pull closer to the playoffs, Stamkos told the local reporters that the game of hockey is played for everyone and not just the elite upper class of Carolina. Some reporters said that the team grossed close to 7 million dollars in the one game. It is not yet known whether the league will investigate this situation.

Click to read more...

 

[Brock]

The finances of this version of the SIM are definitely pretty effed up. Look no farther than the Calgary Flames ticket prices this year. 750 dollar luxury seats and nearly sell outs. 250 dollar seats. Nearly sell outs.

This would be more proof to the weirdness of this SIM.

It's damn interesting that you brought this to everyone's attention though. I'm guessing we'll have to do something about this as an admin team, because we'll otherwise have every team making 7 million in each home game and finances we'll become obsolete.

 

[HFNHLOilers]

Lol damn I was going to use this tactic but ya that is pretty crazy I get 85 percent and my seats are cheep not to mention I win alot at home yet a team that isn't even In the playoffs sell almost half what I do meanwhile my prices are WAY lower

 

[Wildman]

I think the best way to sort this out is have revenue based on wind and losses. A simple was is to earn $1M for every win and $500K for every draw. This will create competition and teams will actually focus on winning rather than sitting at the bottom and thinking of drafting 1st overall.

 

[Ohio Jones]

As long as we're using a simulator, we'll be bound to the financial engine of the sim. There's just no appetite for additional book-keeping and administrative tasks than what we already have to deal with. Hopefully the solution will come from Simon in the off-season.

 

[Canuck09]

This tactic doesn't work for everyone though. While I didn't try $999 tickets I did bump them all up to at least 2-3 times normal prices for 1 game against the Blues. The result was about 50% attendance and a little less revenue than what I make in a game with my usual 97-99% attendance, about $1.1M. I'm a strong team on home ice and tried it against the conference leading Blues....no success. Maybe I didn't go high enough for the glitch to work properly.

 

[HFNHL Commish]

Interesting...the results of the Thrashers game in question would appear to indicate that the simulator won't allow attendance of less than 40% in a given price tier...

 

[Hossa]

The Flames' ticket prices have been a confusing anomaly. Has anybody else managed to get it to work?

Not being able to go below 40% capacity is a bizarre loophole.

 

[kasper11]

The Flames' ticket prices have been a confusing anomaly. Has anybody else managed to get it to work?

Not being able to go below 40% capacity is a bizarre loophole.

When I tried to set my luxary box seats to $300, I lost a ton of money, let alone $750.

I will try 999 though if it will keep it at 40%

 

[Hossa]

When I tried to set my luxary box seats to $300, I lost a ton of money, let alone $750.

I will try 999 though if it will keep it at 40%

I'm pretty sure everybody reading this thread is going to try 999 for their next home game.

 

[Canuck09]

I'm pretty sure everybody reading this thread is going to try 999 for their next home game.

I've got back to back road games the next 2 days, hopefully this isn't eliminated before then!! Show me the money!!!

 

[MatthewFlames]

I've got back to back road games the next 2 days, hopefully this isn't eliminated before then!! Show me the money!!!

Grrrrrrrr....

 

[Lord Stanley]

The real issue at the heart of this is the fact that the financial structure in which the league operates is severely flawed. If you look at the finances of each team according to the sim. We have 3 teams that are going to make money this year, between those 3 teams roughly 4 million dollars will be made. That leaves 27 teams losing money. At around 105 million. No league would survive 27 teams projected to lose money.

As much as the endorsements add a little something to the league they do not come anywhere close to solving the issue. I'm not suggesting that no team should lose money but after endorsements and playoffs we will likely still have around 20 teams losing money.

Maybe adding something like concession revenue to the league would dramatically decrease this problem to around 5 to 10 teams losing money which would be far more reasonable. I did some very basic math lets assume for our purposes that the average fan attending a game spends $10. Let say the average team sells 16,000 tickets 41 times a year. That's a total of 656,000 fans multiply that by $10. That gives a team an additional 6.5 million dollars revenue in a season. I'm willing to bet that by doing this we would probably turn those 20 teams losing money to anywhere between 5 and 10. Obviously the $10 amount could be played with a little up or down.

Maybe use and endorsement of some sort say a wager.

Lets say the base is $10 bucks you wager you win 40 games to get an extra $4 dollars added to make it $14. For every win you fall short of your 40 games you lose $.50 off the $10.

 

[Wildman]

I think the SIM minimum is season ticket holder...so you can set everything at $999 and will collect season ticket holder percentage.

 

[MatthewFlames]

The Flames' ticket prices have been a confusing anomaly. Has anybody else managed to get it to work?

Not being able to go below 40% capacity is a bizarre loophole.

As far as I know nobody else has been able to carry 100% or high attendance while raising ticket prices like I have.

The 40% thing is a setting in the sim to which I'd paid no attention. It is called BASE season ticket attendance and we can set it whereever. The default was 40%. So as Jon very cleverly figured out - the sim guaranteed that you sell 40% tickets no matter what. Thankfully the sim default setting for ticket prices is 999. Or Jon could have made even more money.

 

[Lord Stanley]

In a game earlier today Steven Stamkos was blown away when he tried to buy a pair of tickets for his parents. The bill, $1,998.00. After the game in which the Thrashers needed to win to pull closer to the playoffs, Stamkos told the local reporters that the game of hockey is played for everyone and not just the elite upper class of Carolina. Some reporters said that the team grossed close to 7 million dollars in the one game. It is not yet known whether the league will investigate this situation.

"I'm pretty sure Mr.Stamkos wallet doesn't feel any lighter after forking out almost $2000 for tickets. If it is I'm sorry Steven that you can't afford to buy a Hummer this year and you'll have to settle for an Escalade instead." commented a Hurricanes fan after it was reported that Steven Stamkos had to fork out $1998 for a pair of tickets to the game last night.

 

[MatthewFlames]

The real issue at the heart of this is the fact that the financial structure in which the league operates is severely flawed. If you look at the finances of each team according to the sim. We have 3 teams that are going to make money this year, between those 3 teams roughly 4 million dollars will be made. That leaves 27 teams losing money. At around 105 million. No league would survive 27 teams projected to lose money.

As much as the endorsements add a little something to the league they do not come anywhere close to solving the issue. I'm not suggesting that no team should lose money but after endorsements and playoffs we will likely still have around 20 teams losing money.

And cue the eye rolls as the ANNUAL FINANCIAL DEBATE begins.


Don't forget that every year we add money in via the TV REVENUE element which normalizes the financials of the league. We calculate this by adding up all the $$ in each teams bank account in the off-season and comparing it to the initial amount of money in the league on day 1 (back in 1998 if you can believe that?)... that number is about 940 million. If the league has lost money due to the sim, which is usually the case, even after endorsements, then the teams get a TV bonus, so that we start each season with at least the 940 million in league coffers (even though that number isn't spread out evenly amongst the teams.... calm down all you communists in the league.... )

 

[SPG]

Shady...

 

[Lord Stanley]

And cue the eye rolls as the ANNUAL FINANCIAL DEBATE begins.


Don't forget that every year we add money in via the TV REVENUE element which normalizes the financials of the league. We calculate this by adding up all the $$ in each teams bank account in the off-season and comparing it to the initial amount of money in the league on day 1 (back in 1998 if you can believe that?)... that number is about 940 million. If the league has lost money due to the sim, which is usually the case, even after endorsements, then the teams get a TV bonus, so that we start each season with at least the 940 million in league coffers (even though that number isn't spread out evenly amongst the teams.... calm down all you communists in the league.... )

The problem with the 940 million is that at the time there was only 27 teams in the league. Meaning the average team had 34.8 mil in the bank. With 3 more team added to the mix there should be another 104.4 million in the coffers to start each year. Not to mention inflation of player salaries since 1998 the money in the coffers should actually be even more. It would be interesting to see how much the average NHL salary has increased over the past 13 years. Seeing as how we are tied to those salary for the most part it makes little sense to try and operate with 940 million in the coffers. when all things are considered.

 

[kasper11]

The problem with the 940 million is that at the time there was only 27 teams in the league. Meaning the average team had 34.8 mil in the bank. With 3 more team added to the mix there should be another 104.4 million in the coffers to start each year. Not to mention inflation of player salaries since 1998 the money in the coffers should actually be even more. It would be interesting to see how much the average NHL salary has increased over the past 13 years. Seeing as how we are tied to those salary for the most part it makes little sense to try and operate with 940 million in the coffers. when all things are considered.

There is no need for more money in the league. Yes, player salaries are higher, but that just means that the league will have more money pumped into it at the end of the season. Teams will start with at minimum an average of $31 million next season, regardless of whether player salaries jump by 50% or shrink by 20%. Teams that spend to the limit and don't make the playoffs will lose money (unless you are the Flames and the sim somehow allows you to charge whatever you want) and teams that advance deep into the playoffs or go cheap will make money. Pretty much how it should be.

 

[Lord Stanley]

The problem with the 940 million is that at the time there was only 27 teams in the league. Meaning the average team had 34.8 mil in the bank. With 3 more team added to the mix there should be another 104.4 million in the coffers to start each year. Not to mention inflation of player salaries since 1998 the money in the coffers should actually be even more. It would be interesting to see how much the average NHL salary has increased over the past 13 years. Seeing as how we are tied to those salary for the most part it makes little sense to try and operate with 940 million in the coffers. when all things are considered.

After doing some research I found that the average NHL teams payroll in 1998 was 29.8 million. This year the average NHL club will spend 54.9 million. That means that the average payroll has nearly doubled since 1998 and yet we are trying to operate with 1998 money. In order to cover the average 54.9 million a team needs to make almost 1.4 million dollars per 41 regular season games to cover those salaries. The average team in our league is pulling in 1.1 to 1.2 million. At 1.2 million that leaves an average of 8.2 million in short falls on player salaries.

 

[SPG]

 

[ThrashersGM]

I think ticket prices should be capped then to avoid people scamming the system. Say $275 so that if that a 40% minimum fan base gets you 1.9 mil per game?

 

[Lord Stanley]

There is no need for more money in the league. Yes, player salaries are higher, but that just means that the league will have more money pumped into it at the end of the season. Teams will start with at minimum an average of $31 million next season, regardless of whether player salaries jump by 50% or shrink by 20%. Teams that spend to the limit and don't make the playoffs will lose money (unless you are the Flames and the sim somehow allows you to charge whatever you want) and teams that advance deep into the playoffs or go cheap will make money. Pretty much how it should be.

You are right it doesn't matter to much about the money in the bank. But when the average NHL payroll has jumped up over 25 million dollars over the past 13 years that matters. In 1998 the average nhl team would only need to make .75 mil over 41 regular season games to cover the payroll. Now they need to make 1.4 mil per game to make payroll. In our league we are pulling in 1.1 mil on average. So we need to find alternate revenues for clubs other than endorsements as that clearly doesn't work when 20 teams will still lose money this year after that. While I did just charge $999 per ticket as an experiment I did it because I was selling 94% of my tickets and making 1.3 mil per game and was losing money still, with a payroll that at the time was 46 million. I did try smaller increases and I would make less money, meaning I'd lose more money so I upped the tickets to it's max to see what would happen.

 

[Canuck09]

There is no need for more money in the league. Yes, player salaries are higher, but that just means that the league will have more money pumped into it at the end of the season. Teams will start with at minimum an average of $31 million next season, regardless of whether player salaries jump by 50% or shrink by 20%. Teams that spend to the limit and don't make the playoffs will lose money (unless you are the Flames and the sim somehow allows you to charge whatever you want) and teams that advance deep into the playoffs or go cheap will make money. Pretty much how it should be.

I didn't see it at first but I understand that inflation in player salaries is somewhat moot with the TV revenue because as expenses increase so does the TV revenue. What I don't understand is how this really helps the teams that need it. The good teams will make the playoffs, generate profit and as a result lower the TV revenue while the teams struggling get hurt even more as their share is reduced. The rich get richer while the poor get slightly less poor while continuing to lose tons of money.

EDIT: I don't think anyone has responded yet but I thought I'd mention that I'm by no means an expert on these TV revenue calculations. I had no idea what it was based on and if I'm missing a key part of how it works then that's my bad.