An Anti-Attendance Thread: Info on Gate Receipts

NJD Jester

Registered User
Nov 14, 2003
960
0
DC
www.njdevilsbook.com
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?
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
As long as there is an owner willing to make the investment of money and time into making an NHL team work in any given city, that team will stay exactly where it is. I don't understand these debates that bring up things like "X deserves a team" or "X should have a team" or any of these emotion-based arguments. We can debate the difficulty from a business standpoint in making it work or not... but at the end of the day if someone with a few extra hundred million dollars or so is willing to use that on an NHL team? It's only up to them, the BOG and the league.

Quoted for truth. Well done.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
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?
It is not really relevant if attendance figures in tthe past also included a substantial amount of complimentary tickets. If it did, then "apples to apples", and you should not be bothered.

Keep in mind that "complimentary tickets" are not simply tickets given away for nothing. They include 2-for-1, 3-for-2, 4-for-3 deals and the like, so it is arguably not so much free tickets as reduced-price tickets. Also, per Don Waddell's assertion, in some circumstances it includes tickets included in suite purchases, which would make it VERY misleading and not nearly so negative as people might otherwise assert.

By the way, when I get suite tickets for the ACC, they show up as "$0.00".
 

Sotnos

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
10,885
1
Not here
www.boltprospects.com
James Mirtle, who has his own blog and writes for The Globe dropped a comment into Tom Benjamin's blog, that the league itself provided the G&M with these figures.
Hmmm, that's interesting. You've gotta wonder what's in it for them to be leaking that kind of information. It's not public info, and it's not exactly flattering.

As long as there is an owner willing to make the investment of money and time into making an NHL team work in any given city, that team will stay exactly where it is. I don't understand these debates that bring up things like "X deserves a team" or "X should have a team" or any of these emotion-based arguments. We can debate the difficulty from a business standpoint in making it work or not... but at the end of the day if someone with a few extra hundred million dollars or so is willing to use that on an NHL team? It's only up to them, the BOG and the league.
That's the bottom line and something a lot of people forget around here.

As a bit of side note, Sotnos, I read that the TB Lightning were pulled off the market today after the asking price of $200 MM didn't find much interest. Obviously that owner is showing what its all about. He bought the team, invested some time and money, and is willing to accept $200 MM as a return. Failing that, he pulled the team off the market. He could dump the Bolts if he were really trying to sell them, but apparently he has a figure in mind.... Is there more to the story?
Yes there is more to the story - it's made up. :) Tampa brought in some sort of financial advising firm a month or so ago to look over operations to see what could be done better and for estate planning purposes (the owner is in his 80s), and somehow we end up with this strange story in the Toronto Star. I can't find the story btw, not sure if they pulled it or if they just don't archive anything. Anyway, the team president says it's all bunk: St Pete Times story, Tampa Trib story. He doesn't deny that they'd listen if the price was right, but the team hasn't been actively on the market since Mr. Davidson bought it.

IMO, the vultures' best shot will be after the owner passes on, we have no idea if any of his heirs are interested in a hockey team in Florida. He supposedly bought the team for the land around the arena which he was going to develop with some friends, but they died before the development got off the ground and Mr. Davidson lost enthusiasm for the project. He's certainly stuck it out, and I'll grudgingly admit he's the best owner this team has had, even though we're the red headed step-child compared to his Pistons. With the way some of the owners are around the League though, maybe it's better to have someone that's hands-off.
 

Fugu

Guest
On TB being for sale, Rick Westhead just adds this as a blurb at the very bottom of a story on the OHL playoffs, and then a couple of odds and ends on the NHL...

Toronto Star link:


BOLTS OFF THE BLOCK: Tampa Bay Lightning owner Bill Davidson, who also owns the NBA's Detroit Pistons, has pulled the NHL team off the market after failing to receive sufficient interest in the team, a veteran sports banker told the Star. Davidson had been seeking roughly $200 million (U.S.) for the Lightning.
 

MAROONSRoad

f/k/a Ghost
Feb 24, 2007
4,067
0
Maroons Rd.
You cannot be serious. You honestly don't know what people are talking about when other posters claim bias?

You are correct that the poster is reporting arithmetical facts. However, if you think that simply leaves the OP off the hook as far as bias is concerned, that is either grossly simplistic or else it reveals your own bias.

Within the Globe article and chart, there are tons of facts. What the OP has done is select the facts that support his previous clearly articulated position that he wants an NHL team to come to Winnipeg. He takes a more carefully cloaked approach than many of the other Jetties that come through this Board who act like a bunch of yahoos and bring shame to the rest of us fellow Canadians, but that is most certainly his intent.

to take but one example, see a quoted passage:

"With the best team in the NHL to date, gate receipts in Nashville were up 28% on Dec. 31, at just shy of $525,000 per game. That still left the Predators in 23rd spot overall, with nightly gate receipts that are less than half of four Canadian teams, and not equal to 60% of the ticket revenues the Calgary Flames and Ottawa Senators reap on a per-game basis."

Instead of underlining the passages noted, one could just as easily leave them be and underline/bold "gate receipts in Nashville were up 28% on Dec. 31". One could point out that Carolina is up a league-leading 40.4%, an astounding figure by any business measure. One could point out that the Leafs were up by a measly 1.9%, perhaps indicating that the market has reached its gate revenue maximum. One could point out that, over the past 10-12 home dates, virtually every NHL team has been posting significantly improved attendance figures, which would leave one to believe that the gate receipts are going to show even better increases than they are currently showing. One could point out that, despite cutting prices by 10.9%, Florida's gate receipt reduction is only 2.2%, showing that the strategy of lowering prices to broaden support has worked.

Do you see the point? It is not just the facts; it is how you report and slant the facts.

Folks, I AM BIASED! That's the second time on this thread I've admitted it. Happy?

I guess GSCarpenter is not biased in any way, but he certainly seems to have an angle in most of his post and can be rather condescending to the individuals he calls "Jetties." Whatever.

That doesn't mean anything I have posted is unfair or inaccurate. It means I am looking at the data from one point of view, my point of view. EVERYONE has their own way of looking at the world. The great thing about these forums is that anyone else can come on here and do the same thing. I for one welcome that.

BTW, AFTER MY INITIAL POST, I became aware of the Chart for ALL NHL teams (see Fugu's post with the link). AT THAT POINT, I DID notice that Carolina is doing a lot better this year and is giving out a lot fewer free tickets. I also noticed that Ottawa gave away quite a few freebies. I don't believe I posted on this thread since I became aware of the Chart except to edit the original post to include Fugu's link to the Chart. So in that respect the above poster is wrong to write what he did. (I couldn't have posted about data I did not know about at the time).

That's all I have to say about this subject.

GHOST
 

Mr BLUEandWHITE

Registered User
Nov 14, 2005
3,241
0
Toronto
Your post is an embarrassment to the rest of us reasonable, educated, thoughtful Canadians.

American fans, please disregard.

I was wondering what part of my post was so bad that you are to call me uneducated. I see you are from Hamilton, chances are that if you have lived there your whole life we probably attended the same uneducated school for idiots at some point in our lives. Whatever does not matter, I am just talking out of my ass.

I do not think it is an embarrassment everyone has a right to discuss there feelings on all subjects. My feelings are different but at least I will not shy away from talking about them, and I know that many others feel the same way as I do. (I.E. Canadian Media, friends, HFboard members) The difference is that I will say it and I speak the truth. The fact that I think the NHL is in markets that it should not be is my buisiness and I choose to share it with everyone who whises to read it. Right or wrong, it the way I feel and that is OK others feel differently and that is OK too. I would not worry too much its not like I am going to buy every team and move them at will.

Someone in this thread mentioned that it is pointless to argue which city deserves a team or not and I agree because who are we, we are nobody's, we have no influence on the NHL what so ever. The NHL does not care what we think, the only way they will ever care is if we come along with a suitcase full of money then they will start to talk to us.
 

Evil Genius

Registered User
Mar 24, 2006
360
0
ATL
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.
 
Last edited:

GSC2k2*

Guest
Folks, I AM BIASED! That's the second time on this thread I've admitted it. Happy?

I guess GSCarpenter is not biased in any way, but he certainly seems to have an angle in most of his post and can be rather condescending to the individuals he calls "Jetties." Whatever.

That doesn't mean anything I have posted is unfair or inaccurate. It means I am looking at the data from one point of view, my point of view. EVERYONE has their own way of looking at the world. The great thing about these forums is that anyone else can come on here and do the same thing. I for one welcome that.

BTW, AFTER MY INITIAL POST, I became aware of the Chart for ALL NHL teams (see Fugu's post with the link). AT THAT POINT, I DID notice that Carolina is doing a lot better this year and is giving out a lot fewer free tickets. I also noticed that Ottawa gave away quite a few freebies. I don't believe I posted on this thread since I became aware of the Chart except to edit the original post to include Fugu's link to the Chart. So in that respect the above poster is wrong to write what he did. (I couldn't have posted about data I did not know about at the time).

That's all I have to say about this subject.

GHOST
Ghost, I was using you as an example only because the poster to whom I was replying was trying to say you were not biased. As you state, you do not really pretend to be unbiased, although IMO you do your best to downplay it. As you say, everyone has a POV.

Myself, I actually do think I am pretty unbiased on this Board. That being said, I definitely admit to a bias towards intellectual honesty. I will admit to another; I have a bias to looking at business issues on a business basis, rather than whether hockey is Canada's game and more Canadian cities "deserve" franchises. If I am "condescending" to Jetties, which I do not believe (but whatever), it is because IMHO they do not ascribe to either intellectual honesty or a business POV on business issues. They bring an almost religious zeal and faith to the proceedings, which has no place in business discussions. You canot just wish things to be true. For that reason, I use a name for them that reflects my POV on their zeal.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
I was wondering what part of my post was so bad that you are to call me uneducated.

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 see you are from Hamilton, chances are that if you have lived there your whole life we probably attended the same uneducated school for idiots at some point in our lives. Whatever does not matter, I am just talking out of my ass.

I am not from Hamilton. I just live here, so I doubt we went to the same schools.

I do not think it is an embarrassment everyone has a right to discuss there feelings on all subjects.

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:

I hate teams in the NHL and I wish teams to fail miserably so the NHL can realize its mistakes. On the other hand I was overjoyed when Buffalo came out of bankrupcy, and when Pittsburgh got its new arena deal, I do not hate all American teams but I do hate most and hope they fail miserably like I said.

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 feelings are different but at least I will not shy away from talking about them, and I know that many others feel the same way as I do. (I.E. Canadian Media, friends, HFboard members) The difference is that I will say it and I speak the truth. The fact that I think the NHL is in markets that it should not be is my buisiness and I choose to share it with everyone who whises to read it. Right or wrong, it the way I feel and that is OK others feel differently and that is OK too. I would not worry too much its not like I am going to buy every team and move them at will.

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 speak the truth"??? Hardly. You speak what you believe is the truth, based on your evidently small experience.

Someone in this thread mentioned that it is pointless to argue which city deserves a team or not and I agree because who are we, we are nobody's, we have no influence on the NHL what so ever. The NHL does not care what we think, the only way they will ever care is if we come along with a suitcase full of money then they will start to talk to us.

We talk about this stuff because it is interesting and fun, especially when more info comes out regarding a subject that was under discussion, such as with this topic. We can then all look at real data and compare it to our analyses. It is not to influence events. If one could not talk about anything unless one could influence it, then no one would have a hobby of any kind, and no one would be able to share their opinions on anything.
 

Magnus Fulgur

Registered User
Nov 27, 2002
7,354
0
I was wondering what part of my post was so bad that you are to call me uneducated. I see you are from Hamilton, chances are that if you have lived there your whole life we probably attended the same uneducated school for idiots at some point in our lives. Whatever does not matter, I am just talking out of my ass.

I do not think it is an embarrassment everyone has a right to discuss there feelings on all subjects. My feelings are different but at least I will not shy away from talking about them, and I know that many others feel the same way as I do. (I.E. Canadian Media, friends, HFboard members) The difference is that I will say it and I speak the truth. The fact that I think the NHL is in markets that it should not be is my buisiness and I choose to share it with everyone who whises to read it. Right or wrong, it the way I feel and that is OK others feel differently and that is OK too. I would not worry too much its not like I am going to buy every team and move them at will.

Someone in this thread mentioned that it is pointless to argue which city deserves a team or not and I agree because who are we, we are nobody's, we have no influence on the NHL what so ever. The NHL does not care what we think, the only way they will ever care is if we come along with a suitcase full of money then they will start to talk to us.

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

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,684
3,510
Crossville
The most interresting thing from that chart is the number of comp tickets in Canadian markets (Something the xenophobic Canadians say never happens). Ottawa and Montreal were close to 1000 per game last season. Comp tickets are defined differently from team to team. One things for sure Winnipeg would NOT HAVE 15005 fans paying full price if the NHL went back there as claimed by the jetties. BTW Comp ticket are not some guy on the corner passing out freebies to every passerby which is also claimed by some.
 

Resolute

Registered User
Mar 4, 2005
4,125
0
AB
Ghost, I was using you as an example only because the poster to whom I was replying was trying to say you were not biased. As you state, you do not really pretend to be unbiased, although IMO you do your best to downplay it. As you say, everyone has a POV.

Myself, I actually do think I am pretty unbiased on this Board. That being said, I definitely admit to a bias towards intellectual honesty. I will admit to another; I have a bias to looking at business issues on a business basis, rather than whether hockey is Canada's game and more Canadian cities "deserve" franchises. If I am "condescending" to Jetties, which I do not believe (but whatever), it is because IMHO they do not ascribe to either intellectual honesty or a business POV on business issues. They bring an almost religious zeal and faith to the proceedings, which has no place in business discussions. You canot just wish things to be true. For that reason, I use a name for them that reflects my POV on their zeal.

One only has to look at jetsowner to see how the zeal affects their minds, as the operator of that site has taken a "one week strike" that is now in week 4 from posting selective attendance figures becuase all of the southern teams he is targetting are "clearly lying" about their current attendance figures, and he is tired of "picking on the same teams every night" - ie: teams like St. Louis, Chicago and Boston, who have history on their sides.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
One only has to look at jetsowner to see how the zeal affects their minds, as the operator of that site has taken a "one week strike" that is now in week 4 from posting selective attendance figures becuase all of the southern teams he is targetting are "clearly lying" about their current attendance figures, and he is tired of "picking on the same teams every night" - ie: teams like St. Louis, Chicago and Boston, who have history on their sides.
No way!!!! :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Sometimes, there are not enough laugh emoticons.
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,569
1,091
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
Let's start with Boston and Chicago before we start attacking Nashville and Atlanta.

LOL. You are trying to compare two of the WORST teams in the NHL to one of the best and a division leader? If Boston and Chicago were top teams, they'd be pulling in TONS of fans (as history has proven). The fact that teams who are excelling are having trouble drawing is why people clamor for contraction/relocation.
 

lemieux32*

Guest
I realized what a joke the article was when it decided to compare gate receipts between Toronto and Atlanta. Toronto's average ticket price is more then twice as much as Atlanta's thus the comparison would look bad for Atlanta no matter how many tickets they sell.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
LOL. You are trying to compare two of the WORST teams in the NHL to one of the best and a division leader? If Boston and Chicago were top teams, they'd be pulling in TONS of fans (as history has proven). The fact that teams who are excelling are having trouble drawing is why people clamor for contraction/relocation.

You're sure about that, huh?

You mean like 2003-04, when Boston went 41-19-15-7, for 104 points and 1st in their division, and drew an average of 15,133 (a little under what Nashville is doing this year, even though Boston has a bigger arena)?

Or maybe 2001-02, when Boston won their division with 101 points and drew 15,404?

Maybe 1992-93, first place again, but still not a universal sellout (14.233 average)even in the tiny Garden.

I am just quoting first place finishes, since you want to compare top notch teams (otherwise screaming "no fair").

Perhaps the Blackhawks, then?

2001-02, 41-27-13-1 for 96 pts, 3rd in division (hard to find more recent first place finishes, so bear with me) - drew 15,569 in a 20,500 seat arena, only 76% capacity.
Going back further, I will grant that Chicago was a very strong draw, averaging 20,000 fans for good teams (and 17,000 before the United Centre), but that was a long time ago.

The point is that Chicago does not have a spotless record draw-wise, and Boston has never been a good draw, even when they played in a miniscule arena. So "history" has not proven anything like what you suggest. People just assume that all "traditional markets" have exhibited strong support. Not the case. Yet among some, the de facto standard of strong support is the universal sellout of every game.

The numbers are out there, folks. I do not know why people do not avail themselves of them before posting.

NOTE to Boston and Chicago fans - I am not picking on you. The poster cited those examples, so I was responding.
 

Fugu

Guest
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.]
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,569
1,091
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
You're sure about that, huh?

You mean like 2003-04, when Boston went 41-19-15-7, for 104 points and 1st in their division, and drew an average of 15,133 (a little under what Nashville is doing this year, even though Boston has a bigger arena)?

Or maybe 2001-02, when Boston won their division with 101 points and drew 15,404?

Maybe 1992-93, first place again, but still not a universal sellout (14.233 average)even in the tiny Garden.

I am just quoting first place finishes, since you want to compare top notch teams (otherwise screaming "no fair").

Perhaps the Blackhawks, then?

2001-02, 41-27-13-1 for 96 pts, 3rd in division (hard to find more recent first place finishes, so bear with me) - drew 15,569 in a 20,500 seat arena, only 76% capacity.
Going back further, I will grant that Chicago was a very strong draw, averaging 20,000 fans for good teams (and 17,000 before the United Centre), but that was a long time ago.

The point is that Chicago does not have a spotless record draw-wise, and Boston has never been a good draw, even when they played in a miniscule arena. So "history" has not proven anything like what you suggest. People just assume that all "traditional markets" have exhibited strong support. Not the case. Yet among some, the de facto standard of strong support is the universal sellout of every game.

The numbers are out there, folks. I do not know why people do not avail themselves of them before posting.

NOTE to Boston and Chicago fans - I am not picking on you. The poster cited those examples, so I was responding.

If Boston's survival relies on a revenue-sharing check, then move/contract them also IMO. Are they breaking even? Losing money? I'd have to look into their situation more, but at face value I'll concede the point. Boston should be on the list if they can't support themselves over an 8-10 year span.

Noe Chicago is a completely different story. Having lived there for over a decade until a couple years ago, their problem is their ownership. They are probably the single most poorly marketed team ever. Not a single home game is televised. The NHL had to step in to even get home playoff games on TV (back when they actually made the playoffs). The owner refuses to pay even hometown discounts for players (Roenick, Amonte, Sullivan) and just ends up bad for long periods of time. Very similar to the terrible ownership/organization in Detroit prior to Mike Ilitch purchasing the team. If the NHL had an guts, they'd revoke the franchise from Wirtz and sell it to an owner willing to stop actively trying to kill the franchise.
 

Spankatola Jamnuts*

Guest
Weeping, creeping Jesus. $80 on average for a Leafs team that hasn't done anything worth supporting in 9000 years?

Buncha geniuses up there.
 

garnetpalmetto

Jerkministrator
Jul 12, 2004
12,476
11,841
Durham, NC
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.]

I'd have to go with Nashville here. Let's look at it this way and be as dispassionate as possible. As an owner my only obligation is to maximize profit for myself and any other investors or individuals I owe money to. Let's split the difference between the Pens almost sale and the Blues sale and say that I bought the team for about $162.5 Million. Now how do I go about maximizing profit? Maximizing gains while minimizing losses, naturally. Each and every fan should be seen as a revenue source. I don't care about them as people, I don't care that they feel their market "deserves" their team - all I care about is getting them into the arena and getting their money.

So I want as many revenue sources as possible coming in, thus I want a growing market. I want the ability to say that each year there are more and more potential revenue sources. Nashville's got that - growing at roughly 16.7% in the last census and still growing about, 4% over the national average. Chicago, meanwhile, is growing, but at a bit over half the rate (9%) and is under the national average. Boston, too, is growing, but at an even slower rate (2.6%). Don't get me wrong, some growth is better than no growth, but give me that constant growth anytime. Secondly, where is this growth coming from? For Nashville, like any other Southern city, a major part of the growth is from individuals moving from the North and from so-called "traditional hockey markets." Hrm...a place where the hockey fans are moving to in droves? I'll take it. Yes, they may be reluctant at first to buy into being a Predators fan, but hey, who cares if they show up to their first game in another team's jersey? It just means I can sell them one of mine after they (or their children) buy into Predators hockey. It also must be said that it's likely that Chicago or Boston aren't going to see increased fan growth - it's likely that everybody who ever is or will be a Bruins or Blackhawks fan is around. The fanbase has matured, so to speak. While I'll still make jersey sales and souvenier sales, I'd wager that these sales are roughly a slow constant. In Nashville though, every newcomer in that 16.7% and every local who has never been to a hockey game in their life is a potential jersey/team puck/assorted other memorabilia sale. The fanbase is "younger," so to speak, and I can come in during the sales spike and ride it for a bit before it cools as Chicago and Boston's have with the combination of the right marketing and putting a winning team on the ice.

Speaking of a consistently winning team, it's another reason why I'd go for the Predators. It's a young team, but they know success within the last couple years. Further, I think it bears to be said that Nashville can be a potentially lucrative draw to sign players. "Where would you rather play, sir...for a Canadian team or an original 6 team where just a slump will cause you to be castigated in the local media or down here where, the chances of that are a bit less? Where would you rather play, a team in the Northeast Division where it's up in the air as to what happens or down here where, as of late, we've been one of the strongest teams in the division? Sure that could change, but that's why we're trying to sign you and not someone else"

Lastly, it can't be understated that from a business perspective the South is pretty lucrative. Low tax rates for me, a corporate entity? Low cost of living means I can pay my employees less than what I'd have to in Boston or Chicago and they'll STILL be happy? A city with only one other major sports franchise to challenge me for fan dollars? Sign me up!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->