Do minor league teams embellish their attendance? Why?

[MinorHockeyFan]

Hello folks, first post so go easy on me.
I have recently gotten very interested in minor pro hockey, mainly the ECHL, and find it unusual/interesting how some teams manage to sell out and have great attendance like Toledo, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville. I have started to go out to a lot of my local ECHL teams games and noticed a suspicious discrepancy. The attendance they record is far higher than what is actually at the game.

For example, me and my buddy went to a game my friend was curious and literally counted every single person in the stadium about halfway through the 2nd period (when most ppl were in their seats) and he counted 389. The attendance recorded on the game sheet online was over 2400. Even is some people were out of their seats, or left early, it was still no where near 2400. I am certain they fib the numbers.

These are the published attendance figures for the Brampton Beast:

Brampton Beast [ECHL] yearly attendance at hockeydb.com

I am absolutely certain they have exaggerated the numbers. The stadium is very barren at games, sometimes entire sections have just one or 2 people in them. The fact they have been begging the city for tax dollars only furthers my suspicion they have serious attendance problems.

Now my question is why would a team lie about attendance? I there any incentive to do so? Do other teams do this?

Thanks.

Click to read more...

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Hello folks, first post so go easy on me.
I have recently gotten very interested in minor pro hockey, mainly the ECHL, and find it unusual/interesting how some teams manage to sell out and have great attendance like Toledo, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville. I have started to go out to a lot of my local ECHL teams games and noticed a suspicious discrepancy. The attendance they record is far higher than what is actually at the game.

For example, me and my buddy went to a game my friend was curious and literally counted every single person in the stadium about halfway through the 2nd period (when most ppl were in their seats) and he counted 389. The attendance recorded on the game sheet online was over 2400. Even is some people were out of their seats, or left early, it was still no where near 2400. I am certain they fib the numbers.

These are the published attendance figures for the Brampton Beast:

Brampton Beast [ECHL] yearly attendance at hockeydb.com

I am absolutely certain they have exaggerated the numbers. The stadium is very barren at games, sometimes entire sections have just one or 2 people in them. The fact they have been begging the city for tax dollars only furthers my suspicion they have serious attendance problems.

Now my question is why would a team lie about attendance? I there any incentive to do so? Do other teams do this?

Thanks.

Why would a team lie about attendance? They may not be lying, just using a different definition of attendance. The usual definition is tickets distributed, not turnstile count like you're thinking. The numbers can be fudged by adding comped tickets handed out and season ticket holders, regardless of whether they show actually up.

Is there incentive to do so? Yes. It's easier to attract people to show up if they see other people are showing up. Common sense usually dictates that if no one is showing up, there's something wrong with the product even if they've never gone themselves. Newfoundland is suffering from this a little bit. It was a market that loved their AHL hockey that still isn't sure about the ECHL despite a championship in their inaugural season. There's many examples of these types of situations.

Do any other teams do this? Yes, every single one that doesn't announce the turnstile count, which is almost all of them. Fort Wayne isn't actually drawing north of 8,000 people per game. It's between 6-7,000, but a full house looks better on paper. It keeps them a pedestal and the minor league hockey model. Toledo to be fair is pretty close because they don't comp that many tickets and their season ticket holder base has a higher turnout rate. AHL teams fudge the numbers, heck, even Florida fudges it. Hockey isn't the first to do it.

 

[210]

Every single pro hockey team in North America counts, at a minimum, their sold tickets as their game attendance. Some teams also count tickets distributed in their attendance numbers.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Hello folks, first post so go easy on me.
I have recently gotten very interested in minor pro hockey, mainly the ECHL, and find it unusual/interesting how some teams manage to sell out and have great attendance like Toledo, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville. I have started to go out to a lot of my local ECHL teams games and noticed a suspicious discrepancy. The attendance they record is far higher than what is actually at the game.

For example, me and my buddy went to a game my friend was curious and literally counted every single person in the stadium about halfway through the 2nd period (when most ppl were in their seats) and he counted 389. The attendance recorded on the game sheet online was over 2400. Even is some people were out of their seats, or left early, it was still no where near 2400. I am certain they fib the numbers.

These are the published attendance figures for the Brampton Beast:

Brampton Beast [ECHL] yearly attendance at hockeydb.com

I am absolutely certain they have exaggerated the numbers. The stadium is very barren at games, sometimes entire sections have just one or 2 people in them. The fact they have been begging the city for tax dollars only furthers my suspicion they have serious attendance problems.

Now my question is why would a team lie about attendance? I there any incentive to do so? Do other teams do this?

Thanks.

There's no doubt that Brampton fudges their numbers based on what I have heard from those who have attended their games.

I attend a lot of ECHL games. I'm a 14 years season ticket holder for the Cincinnati Cyclones. The Cyclones announce what is in the building. If there is a snow storm and there are 500 people there, that's the announced crowd. It's unusual, but they do it.

I go to around 8-10 Florida Everblades games per year. I went to three games in December and the announced crowd was at least double what was actually there for two of those games. The building holds around 7500 and it was no more than 25-30% full on these two dates. Florida announced over 4,000 and there's no way that there was 2,000 in for either of those games.

I went to a game in Indy last Thursday. They announced 2444. There was about half that many.

Fort Wayne's numbers are often doubled. It's not hard to tell. When a building seats 10,000 and less than 10 sections are half full and the attendance is announced at 5,000, they're just making up a number.

Orlando's numbers are farcical. I've been in there with around 1,000 in the arena and attendance has been announced at over 3,000.

You get the point. Most ECHL teams-and many NHL teams-fudge their attendance numbers. I suspect it's done to create a false appearance about the demand for their product so that sponsors will be more inclined to pony up for sponsorships.

There is no standard for announcing attendance numbers in the ECHL. Most teams lie. Some lie more than others. There is no penalty for announcing phony attendance numbers so far as I am aware.

The late Dayton Bombers of the ECHL announced an average attendance of 3,600 for their final season. I read an article where the the Director of the Nutter Center-the home of the Bombers-said that the actual attendance (drop count) was 1,900 and the paid attendance was under 1,000.

Unless one attends a team's games, attendance figures should generally be taken with a grain of salt. The only two ECHL teams that announce real numbers (or close to them) that I've seen are Cincinnati and Toledo. I haven't been to Maine, Adirondack, Norfolk, Newfoundland, Worchester, Rapid City, Idaho, Allen, KC, Tulsa or Wichita so I have no idea about their announced numbers. I hear that Kalamazoo's numbers are accurate, but I've only been to 2 games there and don't remember enough to make a comment about the accuracy of those numbers.

 

[JMCx4]

... Unless one attends a team's games, attendance figures should generally be taken with a grain of salt. The only two ECHL teams that announce real numbers (or close to them) that I've seen are Cincinnati and Toledo. I haven't been to Maine, Adirondack, Norfolk, Newfoundland, Worchester, Rapid City, Idaho, Allen, KC, Tulsa or Wichita so I have no idea about their announced numbers. I hear that Kalamazoo's numbers are accurate, but I've only been to 2 games there and don't remember enough to make a comment about the accuracy of those numbers.

Wichita's published attendance numbers during their CHL days were a League-wide joke, so I'd bet their ECHL numbers are equally suspect relative to game night attendance. Tulsa's announced numbers appeared nearly as fanciful pre-ECHL; and their 5-6K numbers from the previous ECHL seasons beg to be questioned. The then-Missouri Mavericks' numbers were accurate for many of their CHL seasons, as they really did sell out the Event Center game after game; looking at the KC Mavericks ECHL attendance figures, I'd reckon they've been relatively representative of butts-in-seats (i.e., within 5%, which seems pretty respectable compared to minor pro hockey as a whole).

 

[PCSPounder]

I'm at that age where I have to check myself when I see this question. I've been around awhile, I'm jaded, my snarky answer is "who doesn't fudge their numbers." When I say that... pick any sport in the United States. Post an attendance number. I'm more than likely to laugh at it.

In all seriousness, however, that's probably a good question, and it's to the point where, for those who do announce drop counts, I'd question their sanity. (Do I sound healthy at this point?)

I do think Cyclones Rock is on point as to why; sponsors care that they're reaching an actual audience. Thing is, in some markets of certain size, sponsors don't care. In my neck of the woods, Spokane (WHL, NWL) and Boise (ECHL, NWL, when they had a D-League/G-League team) both had questionable numbers on many nights, but the suites and the rinksides were rather full. My point there: the importance of attendance numbers CAN be overstated.

 

[Liebo]

I've spent most of the last 25 years on the other end of the equation, because I work in the business. (Not hockey specifically, but for the most part, minor league sports.) Yes, on some nights and with some teams, it looks like an executive just spins a wheel to determine attendance. I've long said there are three attendance figures for every game:

1. Butts in seats. Call it in-park, in-arena, or drop count, it's the number of attendees in the building. This is an important figure because it's what teams use to determine per caps, or spending per person. Teams will rarely announce this because it can be impacted by forces beyond their control, like the weather.
2. Paid attendance. This is the number of tickets distributed for a game. "Paid" is perhaps a misnomer, because it includes not only ticket purchases that didn't attend the game, but also comps and other distributions. This number is preferable to #1 because it reflects the sales results the team worked to generate.
3. Announced attendance. I'd like to tell you that #2 and #3 are the same, but if it were true, this thread wouldn't have been started. Some organizations pad their paid attendance with a little cushion to come up with their announced attendance. Sometimes that padding amounts to a full-on reupholstering. To each their own.

I've heard of GMs who look out over the crowd from the press box and declare their own attendance--far greater than the paid figure they were given. On the other hand, the most accurate attendance reporting I know of firsthand in the minors was the old El Paso Diablos minor league baseball team. Their lease stipulated rent was based on announced attendance, so trumping up an inflated figure would actually cost them more money, not make them more money. But such an arrangement is rare.

Why do teams do it? Cyclones Rock is correct in that some of the rationale is for sponsors. The more fans in the stands, the more attractive a sponsorship, the easier it is to sell or the more it can cost. It could be to promote sales: it's easier to generate sales, particularly advance sales, if fans think attendance is higher and (good) tickets may be in short supply. I've seen teams do it because they were used to being atop the attendance list and they slipped, so they threw a few extra fans in the attendance total. Sometimes it's just pride: a president, GM, or owner doesn't want to publicly share disappointing attendance numbers.

Going back to the original point, on some nights (particularly midweek games) and in many locations, fans will notice the announced attendance doesn't seem to correlate to the fans you see in attendance. Because of no-shows and such, that's not entirely a case of intentional misinformation. But it can be a little bit.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I've heard of GMs who look out over the crowd from the press box and declare their own attendance--far greater than the paid figure they were given. On the other hand, the most accurate attendance reporting I know of firsthand in the minors was the old El Paso Diablos minor league baseball team. Their lease stipulated rent was based on announced attendance, so trumping up an inflated figure would actually cost them more money, not make them more money. But such an arrangement is rare.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread! Check this out:

Carl Scheer was known for fudging the attendance figures for most of the teams he directed (outside of the Hornets, who always sold out). Scheer liked to see the official attendance number first on a piece of paper. Then he would cross it out and write down a higher number before the number was made public.
“So at his funeral,” Bob Scheer said, “I’m going to say: ‘I heard there was going to be a couple of hundred people here. That’s awesome. My Dad would like to announce an attendance of 17,423.’”

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/scott-fowler/article238221569.html

 

[SemireliableSource]

What looks more attractive to potential sponsors:

"Hey, we average 3,500 butts in seats per game," where you're not counting 2,500 tickets that were sold or given away but didn't get scanned in because the people didn't attend.

or

"Hey, we average 6,000 a game!"

That's a big factor in why teams report tickets out as opposed to the drop count.

 

[crimsonace]

I will at least speak for one of the teams mentioned in the thread ... attendance isn't fudged, however, it is a tickets distributed count, NOT a turnstile count. If a ticket is sold for that seat (often to an STH - there are a lot of corporate STHs who might not use their seats), then that is counted in the attendance whether or not the seat was used. The seat was sold, the team received the revenue from it, it wasn't available to someone walking up.

Almost nobody announces turnstile count at *any* level of sports these days. There was a time about 30 years ago the NFL announced both tickets distributed and turnstile count, but it quietly dropped announcing the latter number (although, at least in NFL games I attend, they actually announce the attendance count "tickets distributed" rather than "today's attendance").

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I will at least speak for one of the teams mentioned in the thread ... attendance isn't fudged, however, it is a tickets distributed count, NOT a turnstile count. If a ticket is sold for that seat (often to an STH - there are a lot of corporate STHs who might not use their seats), then that is counted in the attendance whether or not the seat was used. The seat was sold, the team received the revenue from it, it wasn't available to someone walking up.

I've heard this from Fort Wayne fans. I am not inclined to believe that 50% of paid for tickets are no shows in the absence of severe weather.

It's really easy to tell if a team is fudging numbers. Go to ticketmaster and look at the seating available 10 minutes before a game starts. If 80% of the seats of a 6000 seat arena are still available and the announced attendance is 3000, then it's pretty obvious that it's a made up number.

Ultimately teams which don't draw fold-with rare exception. The first in line for the minor league mortician this year is Brampton as their announced numbers are brutally fraudulent. Other teams-and there are many in the ECHL-are in bad shape and probably only have a few years left before they fold. Lying about attendance and spins about ticket distribution might fool a lot of people, but the actual lack of attendance ultimately catches up with teams which don't draw well.

At least half of the current ECHL teams won't be around in 10 years. That's almost a guarantee if there isn't a 32-32-32 system with significant NHL subsidy in place within that time frame.

 

[JMCx4]

... At least half of the current ECHL teams won't be around in 10 years. That's almost a guarantee if there isn't a 32-32-32 system with significant NHL subsidy in place within that time frame.

I have no doubt there will be changes in the ECHL team lineup in the coming decade. But there are at least a few factors that lead me to believe your bold(ed) prediction above will not come true, including: Municipal governmental bodies having a solid & cooperative relationship with a team; arenas needing tenants for a fixed number of dates to survive; ECHL cities with a potential "white knight" who has the resources to buy a floundering franchise & keep them going in-place for the good of the community (and probably the good of that knight's other local business interests); (this one might be a stretch) an ECHL leadership & BOGs who care more about League stability than a rush to shuffle the deck chairs just to satisfy some group of fans' notion that being a "development league" will require 1-for-1 matching with AHL & NHL numbers.

 

[royals119]

I've heard this from Fort Wayne fans. I am not inclined to believe that 50% of paid for tickets are no shows in the absence of severe weather.

Not from "normal" season ticket holders. However, if every sponsor package also includes a large number of season seats, then a large number of no-shows is possible if there isn't someone at that company actively distributing those tickets to employees or clients. In the case of Brampton I believe they get a subsidy from the government. Maybe the team gives the government free tickets in exchange, but the employees aren't allowed to use them due to some conflict of interest clause?

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Not from "normal" season ticket holders. However, if every sponsor package also includes a large number of season seats, then a large number of no-shows is possible if there isn't someone at that company actively distributing those tickets to employees or clients. In the case of Brampton I believe they get a subsidy from the government. Maybe the team gives the government free tickets in exchange, but the employees aren't allowed to use them due to some conflict of interest clause?

Definitely something which could be considered. But if a sponsor is given an overly generous number of tickets for their purchase, those tickets don't have much real value in terms of a meaningful attendance figure-i.e. a $5,000 package which could be given 75 season tickets would be very misleading even though they were technically "paid" tickets.

I'll stand by my numerous experiences in a large number of venues and state that when an announced attendance number is almost double what is in the building on a regular basis those numbers are of no use in determining what the actual attendance of a team is and makes useless any assessment of a franchise's financial health based upon those phony numbers. I could list a lot of teams which do this but I won't.

I'll restate the info about an article about the great, late Dayton Bombers. The Nutter Center GM told a Dayton Daily News reporter that the actual drop count the last year of the Bombers was roughly 1,900 per game. The actual paid attendance was not even 1,000 per game. The official announced attendance average was 3,600. Bombers fans used to laugh at Cyclones numbers when the team was drawing less than 3,000 per game, but it was apparent to the eye that the actual attendance of the Cyclones was higher than that the Bombers.

Dramatically lying about attendance numbers is a deceitful PR game.

 

[210]

While I agree with your post in general, I'm just going to toss out there that a $5000 sponsorship probably wouldn't get you more than a couple of season tickets. The Railers base full-season sponsorship package is a bit more than that cost and doesn't even come with season tickets (you get some number of flex tickets to use, I think it's 50 but I'm far from sure of that). The Railers $7500 package, which you can see on their website (or at least used to be able to), gets you 120 flex tickets. Those numbers are similar to the ones the Worcester Sharks had.

 

[royals119]

Definitely something which could be considered. But if a sponsor is given an overly generous number of tickets for their purchase, those tickets don't have much real value in terms of a meaningful attendance figure-i.e. a $5,000 package which could be given 75 season tickets would be very misleading even though they were technically "paid" tickets.

I'll stand by my numerous experiences in a large number of venues and state that when an announced attendance number is almost double what is in the building on a regular basis those numbers are of no use in determining what the actual attendance of a team is and makes useless any assessment of a franchise's financial health based upon those phony numbers. I could list a lot of teams which do this but I won't.

I'll restate the info about an article about the great, late Dayton Bombers. The Nutter Center GM told a Dayton Daily News reporter that the actual drop count the last year of the Bombers was roughly 1,900 per game. The actual paid attendance was not even 1,000 per game. The official announced attendance average was 3,600. Bombers fans used to laugh at Cyclones numbers when the team was drawing less than 3,000 per game, but it was apparent to the eye that the actual attendance of the Cyclones was higher than that the Bombers.

Dramatically lying about attendance numbers is a deceitful PR game.

All true. I agree with everything you said, but just for the sake of debate...
Just theoretically, lets say a team needs $1 million to survive a season. They have 5 $100.000 sponsors, who each get 500"free" flex tickets per game. They don't take a particular seat off the ticketmaster site until someone has redeemed a flex ticket, but they can't wait until the last game of the year to add in 18,000 tickets that were distributed but never used, so they "pad" the number at each game so the accounting works out at the end of the year. You can't guess their financial health one way or the other based on the fact that there are only 2500 people at a game with an announced attendance of 5000, but they are actually breaking even.

Is it the best way to operate? Probably not, but it could work if you had five silent partners who own the local restaurant, parking lot, brew pub, practice rink, and t-shirt manufacturer and they prefer to get a bunch of free flex tickets in exchange for their "contribution" because that is better for their tax accounting. Maybe they never use most of them, but they want the team to stay around because they are making money on the rest of the folks who show up for the game. Do they have to announce all those "free" tickets as part of the attendance? No, but maybe the majority partner just does it that way because that's the way its always been done, or because he thinks it looks better, or the arena lease is actually less if the "attendance" is higher?

 

[Cyclones Rock]

They just had the opening face-off in Indianapolis. Definitely less than 1000 in here. Could be as low as 500. Ticketmaster didn't look as if they were much more than 1000 tickets not available. It's going to be fun to hear what number the fuel pull out of the air for this one.


****1465 reported attendance**** Certainly not out of the realm for a tickets distributed number if one includes comps. But when a market the size of Indy has about 700 for a game with only a slight drizzle and 40 degree temperatures, it's not a good sign.

 

[crimsonace]

They just had the opening face-off in Indianapolis. Definitely less than 1000 in here. Could be as low as 500. Ticketmaster didn't look as if they were much more than 1000 tickets not available. It's going to be fun to hear what number the fuel pull out of the air for this one.


****1465 reported attendance**** Certainly not out of the realm for a tickets distributed number if one includes comps. But when a market the size of Indy has about 700 for a game with only a slight drizzle and 40 degree temperatures, it's not a good sign.

That is an accurate number. Indy does NOT embellish, but does announce tickets distributed and not turnstile count. That would be the number of full STHs + any walkups.

And it was a rare Tuesday night without any special promotions with bad weather in the area, with the team in the midst of a stretch with nine home games in a four-week span, which means the crowd on that night is likely going to be a small one. A minor league team in a major market like Indy relies *heavily* on weekend dates, promotions and group sales. The FO threw most of its energy into promoting three big promotional nights on back-to-back weekends, so there's not going to be a heavy push for a Tuesday-night game. And two of those promotional nights drew 5500K+ (close to capacity), and Indy is expecting another large crowd Saturday. The Fuel are very profitable and are currently in the middle of the ECHL attendance-wise without goosing the numbers. Their profitability is based on not just ticket sales, but they control all the advertising in the arena and generate a lot of revenue from the arena naming rights.

If you're going to judge a team's success based on Tuesday night attendance two days after the Super Bowl in a busy stretch, you won't find a single successful team in minor pro hockey. Market size isn't as important as market saturation. I've been in the rink formerly known as Riverfront Coliseum where you could put the entire crowd in one end-zone section for weeknight playoff games.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

That is an accurate number. Indy does NOT embellish, but does announce tickets distributed and not turnstile count. That would be the number of full STHs + any walkups.

And it was a rare Tuesday night without any special promotions with bad weather in the area, with the team in the midst of a stretch with nine home games in a four-week span, which means the crowd on that night is likely going to be a small one. A minor league team in a major market like Indy relies *heavily* on weekend dates, promotions and group sales. The FO threw most of its energy into promoting three big promotional nights on back-to-back weekends, so there's not going to be a heavy push for a Tuesday-night game. And two of those promotional nights drew 5500K+ (close to capacity), and Indy is expecting another large crowd Saturday. The Fuel are very profitable and are currently in the middle of the ECHL attendance-wise without goosing the numbers. Their profitability is based on not just ticket sales, but they control all the advertising in the arena and generate a lot of revenue from the arena naming rights.

If you're going to judge a team's success based on Tuesday night attendance two days after the Super Bowl in a busy stretch, you won't find a single successful team in minor pro hockey. Market size isn't as important as market saturation. I've been in the rink formerly known as Riverfront Coliseum where you could put the entire crowd in one end-zone section for weeknight playoff games.

Lot's of good, quality excuse making.

The Cyclones drew 4000 last Wednesday. About 8 times what the Fuel had Tuesday. The Cyclones haven't had a crowd as pitiful as the Tuesday night Fuel crowd since a blizzard years ago when Reading was in town. In actual attendance, the Cyclones may outdraw the Fuel by 100%.

Week night ECHL playoff games in the early rounds are dreadful draws for anyone not named The Walleye. What would a Fuel fan know about playoffs anyway?

The Fuel is very profitable? Do you have access to their books?

500-700 people at a game is not indicative of a healthy franchise. Sorry. The previous midweek game I went to had about 1500 (announced around 2200 IIRC) and any teacher and guests got in free.

 

[crimsonace]

Lot's of good, quality excuse making.

The Cyclones drew 4000 last Wednesday. About 8 times what the Fuel had Tuesday. The Cyclones haven't had a crowd as pitiful as the Tuesday night Fuel crowd since a blizzard years ago when Reading was in town. In actual attendance, the Cyclones may outdraw the Fuel by 100%.

Week night ECHL playoff games in the early rounds are dreadful draws for anyone not named The Walleye. What would a Fuel fan know about playoffs anyway?

The Fuel is very profitable? Do you have access to their books?

500-700 people at a game is not indicative of a healthy franchise. Sorry. The previous midweek game I went to had about 1500 (announced around 2200 IIRC) and any teacher and guests got in free.

Again, you're using attendance on a random Tuesday night as evidence of the health of a team, and comparing it to Wednesday (a different day - anyone in retail and entertainment tell you Wednesdays and Thursdays draw more customers than Mondays and Tuesdays). It was a Tuesday, a night with bad weather, two nights after the Super Bowl, in a run of four weeks with 10 home games and a MAJOR promotional night coming up three nights later. On the aforementioned Thursday night, the crowd of 2,200 tickets distributed was opposite a Pacers home game three miles down the road, and was the day after New Year's Day. There were 5,764 tickets distributed (and almost all used) 24 hours later - 94% of capacity - for a Friday game.

To compare, Indy just drew 4,162 on a Sunday afternoon - traditionally a very weak attendance day - and is averaging 4,882 for weekend games - counting two Sundays - since Christmas (with every Saturday crowd being 5K+). That's 80% of capacity for prime dates, with the Saturday attendance being 85-95% of capacity almost every night from January forward.

I don't have access to the books, but the ownership has stated multiple times the team turns a profit, and attendance and sponsorship have both gone up substantially in recent years. There is a healthy, well-run front office. Fans tend to obsess over attendance because that's public, but revenue is more important. Indy has a lot of premium seat options, and the team team draws a lot of revenue through sponsorships in addition to ticket revenue (the naming rights for the Coliseum alone is worth $6 million over 10 years), and annual average attendance has been pretty constant, hovering around the 4,000 range since the IHL Ice moved back to the Coliseum in 1998, through the CHL & USHL Ice and now the ECHL eras, with it usually rising significantly after Christmas and after the NFL (Colts) season ends.

Nice snark about the playoffs, but I've been around this city's hockey teams for nearly 40 years and have witnessed six championships in that time, so I've seen more than a few playoff games. It's been an issue throughout minor pro hockey for decades, as postseason attendance is usually low except in a few markets where the team is the show, like Toledo or Fort Wayne.

I really like the Cyclones front office people and am treated very well every time I go to the old Riverfront Coliseum. Indy is also a very well-run, professionally-run franchise. This doesn't have to be an Indy-Cincy comparison. They have two different business models and two vastly different cities, but Indy is doing pretty well.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Again, you're using attendance on a random Tuesday night as evidence of the health of a team, and comparing it to Wednesday (a different day - anyone in retail and entertainment tell you Wednesdays and Thursdays draw more customers than Mondays and Tuesdays). It was a Tuesday, a night with bad weather, two nights after the Super Bowl, in a run of four weeks with 10 home games and a MAJOR promotional night coming up three nights later. On the aforementioned Thursday night, the crowd of 2,200 tickets distributed was opposite a Pacers home game three miles down the road, and was the day after New Year's Day. There were 5,764 tickets distributed (and almost all used) 24 hours later - 94% of capacity - for a Friday game.

To compare, Indy just drew 4,162 on a Sunday afternoon - traditionally a very weak attendance day - and is averaging 4,882 for weekend games - counting two Sundays - since Christmas (with every Saturday crowd being 5K+). That's 80% of capacity for prime dates, with the Saturday attendance being 85-95% of capacity almost every night from January forward.

I don't have access to the books, but the ownership has stated multiple times the team turns a profit, and attendance and sponsorship have both gone up substantially in recent years. There is a healthy, well-run front office. Fans tend to obsess over attendance because that's public, but revenue is more important. Indy has a lot of premium seat options, and the team team draws a lot of revenue through sponsorships in addition to ticket revenue (the naming rights for the Coliseum alone is worth $6 million over 10 years), and annual average attendance has been pretty constant, hovering around the 4,000 range since the IHL Ice moved back to the Coliseum in 1998, through the CHL & USHL Ice and now the ECHL eras, with it usually rising significantly after Christmas and after the NFL (Colts) season ends.

Nice snark about the playoffs, but I've been around this city's hockey teams for nearly 40 years and have witnessed six championships in that time, so I've seen more than a few playoff games. It's been an issue throughout minor pro hockey for decades, as postseason attendance is usually low except in a few markets where the team is the show, like Toledo or Fort Wayne.

I really like the Cyclones front office people and am treated very well every time I go to the old Riverfront Coliseum. Indy is also a very well-run, professionally-run franchise. This doesn't have to be an Indy-Cincy comparison. They have two different business models and two vastly different cities, but Indy is doing pretty well.

I'm not going to go into circles about "tickets distributed" vs. real attendance.

Aren't the Fuel responsible for the operating costs of the Coliseum? That would basically make the naming rights revenue a wash if they are.

Fort Wayne's playoff attendance numbers announced for weeknight games have been about twice the actual number for the games which I've attended. Toledo's announced numbers for the playoffs seemed accurate for the game that I attended last season.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the ECHL does a 4 round playoff format. A 3 of 5 first round and then 2 best of 7 rounds would make a ton more sense from a financial standpoint.

I wish the Fuel well. I love the refurbished arena. I've been attending games in Indy since the CHL Checkers. I saw the Ice win their Turner Cup Championship in 1990. I saw Tonya Harding at a CHL Ice game. LOL. I hope that they have a long run in Indy.

 

[Royalsflagrunner77]

Is there anywhere to see the attendance numbers anymore . The league site doesn't post the average attendance anymore

 

[JMCx4]

Is there anywhere to see the attendance numbers anymore . The league site doesn't post the average attendance anymore

One source is: LeagueStat still publishes an ECHL daily report of stats. This report includes the previous day's attendance numbers as reported by home teams or the League offices, as well as team-by-team running totals & averages for the current season.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Is there anywhere to see the attendance numbers anymore . The league site doesn't post the average attendance anymore

ECHL 2020-02-12

1) Go to echl.com
2) Click Menu
3) Click Stats
4) Click Daily Report