Despite rebuild and struggles, Canucks still averaging over 18k fans / home game

[MS]

95% capactity is amazing especially for a rebuilding/struggling team

And as a season ticket holder i certainly dont notice that there is less people especially since its much louder in there.

No, it's not 'amazing'. It's really bad. Only the league's perpetual problem teams and threats to move are worse.

And that's with the generous number of tickets actually sold. Real attendance is probably closer to 15k.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Shows fan support and morale of the general publiv towards the team.

It shows that Vancouver is willing to support this team through the ups and downs.

If that's true, then it means that the fans would support a full rebuild here. Which would make what Linden and Benning tried to do here as completely misreading the fan base. Fair?

Also, question: Why do you suppose that the Canucks were 1 of only 2 franchises to be devalued over the last 5 years according to Forbes (IIRC)?

Last, attendance has been brought up as a sub-topic in the management thread before. Any reason you didn't include this information there?

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

No, it's not 'amazing'. It's really bad. Only the league's perpetual problem teams and threats to move are worse.

And that's with the generous number of tickets actually sold. Real attendance is probably closer to 15k.

No chance its 15k... maybe on a tuesday night vs Carolina.

18k is the Average so im sure there are some dud games. There has also been lots of sold out games that ive been to this yr where the arena looked standing room only.

 

[CanaFan]

No chance its 15k... maybe on a tuesday night vs Carolina.

18k is the Average so im sure there are some dud games. There has also been lots of sold out games that ive been to this yr where the arena looked standing room only.

You understand the difference between tickets sold and bums in seats ya?

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

You understand the difference between tickets sold and bums in seats ya?

Yep. Tons of bums in seats during the ample games ive been to.

But i reckon that on a tuesday night vs a no star team then people either dont go orr dont buy the tickets.

On average it equates 18 k.

As for butts in seats, as i stated theres been plenty this year that it has been standing room only. Especially on a friday-sunday

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

Why are people so shocked or in disbelief that the Canucks average 18k this season!


Canuck pride baby, dont underestimate the die hard fans !

For every older generation of guys that refuse to go to the game theres about 3 younger twenty yr olds spending plenty on the Canucks. Its the circle of life.

Brockstar has really been able to excite and ignite the fan base. Especiallly the younger crowd. Its the flo!

 

[CanaFan]

Yep. Tons of bums in seats during the ample games ive been to.

But i reckon that on a tuesday night vs a no star team then people either dont go orr dont buy the tickets.

On average it equates 18 k.

As for butts in seats, as i stated theres been plenty this year that it has been standing room only. Especially on a friday-sunday

But you do understand that bums in seats can never exceed tickets sold, right? It will always be lower and can never “catch up” to the tickets sold number. Cause in your reply to MS you seem to suggest that it can.

 

[Bleach Clean]

A little perspective here: The same link lists the Canucks attendance record at 18,860 fans in 2011.

2010-2011 NHL Attendance - National Hockey League - ESPN

So the net difference between then and now (18,005) is 855 fans per game. Effectively, a 5% shift in fan turn out. Even if you were able to divorce yourself from all logic and assume that this is accurate, just based on what you see in the games and TV, how preposterous is it that the shift is only 5% between then and now? Clearly, something is a miss here.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Even if many of those fans aren't going to games, I'm still glad that they're being paid for.

But yeah - it's very obvious that there aren't 18,000 people going to Canucks games on average these days.

 

[Grub]

This kid hasn't been a Canuck fan very long it seems. This is the lowest it has ever been.

 

[Shareefruck]

i don't advocate excessively negative or positive commentary here. i advocate maintaining perspective and keeping an even keel. i will concede thought that i particularly hate whining, negativity and lazy group think.

in that regard, to respond to your complaint, i would say many of the negative posts in here clearly "start from the desired end point and move backwards from that". for some posters here, everything bad that happens to this team is an opportunity to be frame events as the fault of current management as a hot take, or is an excuse to complain about them. that approach reflects lazy safe thinking and promotes negative reinforcement that distorts perception and leads to despair. it's as old as greek tragedy and the practice of scapegoating. of course bad things are going to happen to a bad hockey team. keep some perspective and stop assuming it is all due to jim benning.

i am not much of a fan of rah rah positivism either, but at least it has the advantage of maintaining a positive outlook. in real life i avoid people who are negative all the time. they suck the life out of everything. i can tolerate excessively positive people for far longer even if they are totally out to lunch.

anyway, the other issue here is i don't know what you are on about bringing this up in an attendance thread. i do not see what paid attendance has to do with the quality of this hockey team or its management so i do not understand why you are being so defensive about someone posting about it. the reality is that most businesses with season tickets and many die hard fans will bite the bullet and continue to maintain their season ticket seat locations during a bad period. it's an investment in the future. it has nothing to do with current performance of management.

the seats are empty because instead of using those seats to entertain valued clients, those seats are being distributed by businesses to employees who may not use them, and instead of selling off seats that cannot be used, die hard season ticket holders are having to eat them or give them away.

anyway, i hope i answered your question.

I just thought I should bring it up because rarely does such a clear and unambiguous example appear like this. To be clear, when I go off on this tangent, it really has nothing to do with Jim Benning or management, just the very sentiment of "you should be a real fan and actively skew reality because that's healthier and happier!", which existed even when Gillis was GM-- I know that YOU don't do that, I'm just clarifying that that knowingly wrong but self righteous stuff is what bothers me WAAAY more than the typical biased narrative stuff that we normally argue about and can all somewhat understandably be guilty of from time to time.

Behaving badly and dishonestly is one thing, but doing it based on principle is another.

Negative behavior isn't starting from the desired end point and reconstructing everything from that in the sense that I mean because nobody DESIRES negativity and argues in the name of it (other than outright trolls that everyone on both sides already agrees are scum bags). Only in the name of their biased perception of reality. The positive/negative equivalent of that (which is what you seem to be alluding to) is a lesser charge than what I'm talking about.

The hang-up I'm speaking of does not have anything to do with people becoming overly emotional, becoming motivated by their biases and making bad/dishonest arguments or engaging in group think (although that's bad too). What I'm pointing out is the people who knowingly, self-admittedly, and actively argue that people SHOULD intentionally make wrong arguments in the name of positivity, and who don't even bother trying to hide this motivation, which is what this guy seems essentially up front about believing. That's a whole other level of unreasonable, IMO, and I don't think the opposite equivalent attitude/sentiment (which I guess would be people who admit to being trolls and argue that it's recommended to behave that way, in principle, because it's funny) gets defended/excused/accepted/revealed nearly as much. That was my sticking point all along.

Anyways, sorry for bringing it up out of nowhere-- I was just struck by it.