Buffalo trying to limit visiting team fans

[LadyStanley]

Sabres planning experiment to make sure their fans get first chance at tickets

The Buffalo Sabres are finalizing plans to limit the presale for games, likely by ZIP code, in an attempt to cut down the number of visiting-team fans in the building.

buffalonews.com

Paywall. (Didn't get chance to read but headline after following link from letter to editor.)

These plans usually backfire.

Click to read more...

 

[No Fun Shogun]

As I said in another topic about this, and also in other topics about other teams that have done this...

Sure, that's fine. Teams are free to sell their tickets as they please. But let's be clear here... they are intentionally limiting demand for their tickets, which invariably means they are intrinsically limiting what they can realistically charge as basically anyone could say about simple supply and demand economics. High demand road teams could otherwise be a damn nice source for a revenue boost by charging more for priority games, after all.

So, when we get to the next CBA negotiations and a load of teams start suddenly crying about revenue being limited, I better not hear the Sabres or any other team that does this complain. All must be a-okay economically to purposefully refuse to allow some people from paying you money, after all.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

But i thought the Sabres were Hamilton's team(or anywhere else in Southern Ontario)?

 

[GordonGraham]

I can get doing that when you sellout everynight but not when you have thousands of empty seats

 

[Roadrage]

But i thought the Sabres were Hamilton's team(or anywhere else in Southern Ontario)?

Not anymore

 

[Primary Assist]

This should be addressed in the CBA - in theory this artificial demand constraint will lower HRR, thus preventing the salary cap from growing freely, thus lowering player salaries in the long run. I can't imagine any players are on board with this

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

And it's not going to work, we know that because it NEVER works. I'm not sure why teams do this

 

[CANADIENSFAN90]

I really hate this practice

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

Not anymore

more like never was

 

[joestevens29]

As I said in another topic about this, and also in other topics about other teams that have done this...

Sure, that's fine. Teams are free to sell their tickets as they please. But let's be clear here... they are intentionally limiting demand for their tickets, which invariably means they are intrinsically limiting what they can realistically charge as basically anyone could say about simple supply and demand economics. High demand road teams could otherwise be a damn nice source for a revenue boost by charging more for priority games, after all.

So, when we get to the next CBA negotiations and a load of teams start suddenly crying about revenue being limited, I better not hear the Sabres or any other team that does this complain. All must be a-okay economically to purposefully refuse to allow some people from paying you money, after all.

Do many teams do this in the NHL? I thought prices are pretty standard and it's the re-sell tickets that have stupid price inflation that really doesn't help the team anyway.

 

[Rob]

Pride over profits.

 

[awfulwaffle]

This should be addressed in the CBA - in theory this artificial demand constraint will lower HRR, thus preventing the salary cap from growing freely, thus lowering player salaries in the long run. I can't imagine any players are on board with this

Is it really going to be that impactful to tip the scales one way or the other?

 

[sabremike]

As I said in another topic about this, and also in other topics about other teams that have done this...

Sure, that's fine. Teams are free to sell their tickets as they please. But let's be clear here... they are intentionally limiting demand for their tickets, which invariably means they are intrinsically limiting what they can realistically charge as basically anyone could say about simple supply and demand economics. High demand road teams could otherwise be a damn nice source for a revenue boost by charging more for priority games, after all.

So, when we get to the next CBA negotiations and a load of teams start suddenly crying about revenue being limited, I better not hear the Sabres or any other team that does this complain. All must be a-okay economically to purposefully refuse to allow some people from paying you money, after all.

Before commenting on things please read the actual story instead of the misleading clickbait headlines: The Sabres are giving first crack at getting tickets to people living in WNY. That's it. After that exclusive window anyone can buy as many tickets that are left as their hearts desire no matter where they live.

 

[KevFu]

The Sabres were also one of the first teams to use dynamic pricing, where ticket prices are different based on analytic data of "day of the week" and "opponent"

We've covered this dozens of times on the BOH forum, that DAY OF WEEK and PRICE POINT factor more heavily than "opponent."

 

[Bood12]

Do these teams know how cowardly and pathetic it looks? If anything it should motivate the home team to win the game as they don't want these opposing fans to have fun in their building

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

As I’ve said before, if it wasn’t for us fans of opposing teams paying good money to sit and watch our teams subsequently shitkick the Sabres year in year out…the lights in Buffalo would have gone out eons ago.

Yet now, when they actually might have an on-ice product that isn’t a f***ing failure for once, they wanna try and keep us…and our $$$$…out???

Get f***ed.

Hope they set a new consecutive loss record this year….

 

[Mach2]

In past years when I watched some Sabres home games on TV, I recall noticing many empty seats. If there are a large number of visiting teams' fans in your arena, it means your local community is not supporting your home team. "Fixing" this this problem by purposely limiting attendance in your arena does not pass the idiot test. Instead, you must fill the arena any way you can, and use that vital revenue to fix the core problems with your on-ice product...or to pay for the moving vans.

 

[coolboarder]

I can see this not going well for next CBA negotiation as if there is no money, then player will then demand NHL to remove salary cap and revenue sharing in exchange for this policy with no sales to visiting fans. Watch how quickly NHL introduce the rules of requiring every franchise allowing every visiting fans they wishes to buy with no restriction to continue to have revenue sharing policy including playoff series.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Do many teams do this in the NHL? I thought prices are pretty standard and it's the re-sell tickets that have stupid price inflation that really doesn't help the team anyway.

Happens in playoffs all the time - and I think Nashville used to do it for Chicago games.

 

[NSH615]

Do these teams know how cowardly and pathetic it looks? If anything it should motivate the home team to win the game as they don't want these opposing fans to have fun in their building

The Preds have been doing this for probably 7 or 8 years now for specific opponents and playoffs. This was not about the team's play but rather to make the environment more enjoyable for the Pred's season ticket holders who had stopped attending many of these games (mostly Chicago and St. Louis at the time).

This year the teams they are limiting sales against are:

Toronto
Chicago
New York Rangers
Detroit

 

[hammer42]

I guess that means the sabers have giving up there so called territory rights to Hamilton market with out a fight & what time to do it when Hamilton is doing 150 million dollar renovation to the FOC. to make it NHL. ready kind like what Seattle did with Climate pledge .

 

[bossram]

Do many teams do this in the NHL? I thought prices are pretty standard and it's the re-sell tickets that have stupid price inflation that really doesn't help the team anyway.

Yes. Most teams definitely have dynamic pricing for in-demand opposition.

E.g. in Vancouver the club is already hyping up the marketing for when Chicago/Bedard visit and the tickets do cost more. Essentially the same lower bowl non-resale seat (section 116 at Rogers Arena) costs $165 for some random November game against Anaheim, compared to $500+ for Bedard/Chicago. These are both weeknight games - not a Friday or Saturday.

 

[Neutrinos]

Yes. Most teams definitely have dynamic pricing for in-demand opposition.

E.g. in Vancouver the club is already hyping up the marketing for when Chicago/Bedard visit and the tickets do cost more. Essentially the same lower bowl non-resale seat (section 116 at Rogers Arena) costs $165 for some random November game against Anaheim, compared to $500+ for Bedard/Chicago. These are both weeknight games - not a Friday or Saturday.

I didn't realize teams gouged their own fans like that

Just on principle I would never support a franchise that did that

Call it "dynamic boycotting"

 

[joestevens29]

Yes. Most teams definitely have dynamic pricing for in-demand opposition.

E.g. in Vancouver the club is already hyping up the marketing for when Chicago/Bedard visit and the tickets do cost more. Essentially the same lower bowl non-resale seat (section 116 at Rogers Arena) costs $165 for some random November game against Anaheim, compared to $500+ for Bedard/Chicago. These are both weeknight games - not a Friday or Saturday.

Is it resale tickets or actual ticket prices if you were the first one to buy them directly from ticketmaster or wherever?

 

[bossram]

Is it resale tickets or actual ticket prices if you were the first one to buy them directly from ticketmaster or wherever?

They are the base-level prices directly from Ticketmaster. There are also resale tickets on Ticketmaster, but they're identified as resale.

I didn't realize teams gouged their own fans like that

Just on principle I would never support a franchise that did that

Call it "dynamic boycotting"

I mean, yeah. I'm not gonna go to the Chicago game, that's for sure.

But it's supply and demand. If someone is willing to pay that price...why wouldn't a profit-driven organization list a higher price?