Kings' suite holders get no refund

[hockeytown9321]

In another example of the NHL owners' beyond reproach business practices, Staples Center suite holders have not seen any refund from the cancelled season, nor does it appear one is on the way:

http://www.labusinessjournal.com/ar...531138.1142349.3149928.1120096.310&aID2=87864

On second thought, that article was probably written by Larry Brooks or Al Strachan and the irrefutable Levitt report almost surely wasn't consulted, so you should take it with a grain of salt.

Click to read more...

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Did you actually read the article?

They didn't get a refund because their suites were still good for the Lakers, Clippers, and every other little event that was put on in the building, including a bunch that were put on in place of hockey.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did read the article. BAsed on your ignorance of several quotes from fans in the article disgruntled with the situation, I have to question your comprehension of said article.

Let me ask this: Would it be cool with you if you spent $300K primarily for sporting events (and believe it or not, maybe a few of those suite holders even bought them primarily for hockey) and only got 2/3 (or nothing) of what you expected, or got women's tennis and the X Games instead? Would you be happy? Is that your idea of a good business practice?

 

[DW3]

Well, given the way the Lakers played this season, I'd be crying for a refund also, LOL.

But seriously, when you buy a suite, you buy it for every event that comes there. Some arenas have boxes and such that you can lease/rent for certain events (i.e. hockey, basketball, concerts, etc.), but most arenas that are have multiple teams sell the boxes by the year, not the event, counting on you being interested in more then just 1 particular event.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Well, given the way the Lakers played this season, I'd be crying for a refund also, LOL.

But seriously, when you buy a suite, you buy it for every event that comes there. Some arenas have boxes and such that you can lease/rent for certain events (i.e. hockey, basketball, concerts, etc.), but most arenas that are have multiple teams sell the boxes by the year, not the event, counting on you being interested in more then just 1 particular event.

Yeah, but there are at least some who buy the suite only for hockey or only for basketball or only for the X Games. They should at least have been given an option for a partial refund if they didn't care for the stunning replacement lineup Staples brought in. I know I'd be pissed if instaed of 41 major league hockey games I got 41 Elton John concerts.

 

[GSC2k2*]

You do realize that the owners of suites at the Staples Centre are all extremely large corporate customers (and the occasional insanely rich movie star), don't you? You are painting it as if they are ripping off grandma's social security check. If you have ever partaken of a luxury suite, you would also know that many such suites go unused on many evenings, particularly the seats for a mediocre hockey team.

 

[Mxpunk]

Yeah, but there are at least some who buy the suite only for hockey or only for basketball or only for the X Games. They should at least have been given an option for a partial refund if they didn't care for the stunning replacement lineup Staples brought in. I know I'd be pissed if instaed of 41 major league hockey games I got 41 Elton John concerts.

Most of the suites are owned by corporations or law firms for business purposes...They use the seats for all sports/concerts...I don't think the average fan is being affected too much....

 

[kdb209]

Yeah, but there are at least some who buy the suite only for hockey or only for basketball or only for the X Games. They should at least have been given an option for a partial refund if they didn't care for the stunning replacement lineup Staples brought in. I know I'd be pissed if instaed of 41 major league hockey games I got 41 Elton John concerts.

No, contractually they do not buy a suite only for hockey or only for basketball or only for the X Games - the boxes are sold on an annual basis for all Staples Center events (except the Grammy's) with a guarantee of some minimum number. The Kings/AEG were perfectly within their legal rights. And given that the Staples Center has a waiting list of over 40 companies and lease rates were based on when (what year) companies signed up, I'm sure AEG would actually be happy if anyone cancelled - they could probably re-lease the box at a higher rate now - 3 primary tenants (Lakers, Clippers, Kings) instead of two and a guarantee of 200-250 dates instead of 80.

Given the nature of LA, I'd be hard pressed to beleive that any of the boxes were purchased primarily because of the Kings - LA is Lakers, Lakers, Lakers. I'm sure even the Clippers are a bigger factor than the Kings - 40 more dates to see LaBron, et al, plus 4 more Laker Games.

 

[Reaper45]

Even had some of the companies bought the box strictly for the Kings, you could always seel the concert tickets, Lakers tickets, Clippers tickets and everyother event held there and still have enough money to get the box again when hockey rolls around.

 

[futurcorerock]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did read the article. BAsed on your ignorance of several quotes from fans in the article disgruntled with the situation, I have to question your comprehension of said article.

Let me ask this: Would it be cool with you if you spent $300K primarily for sporting events (and believe it or not, maybe a few of those suite holders even bought them primarily for hockey) and only got 2/3 (or nothing) of what you expected, or got women's tennis and the X Games instead? Would you be happy? Is that your idea of a good business practice?

Actually, yeah. Chances are whoever owns the suites bought them for the world champion LA Lakers a few years back, and not the LA Kings. Maybe in your backwards world of Anti-Bettman rhretoric-finding, there are suite holders who's #1 priority is the Kings. Otherwise, this is all moot.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I know I'd be pissed if instaed of 41 major league hockey games I got 41 Elton John concerts.

If this isn't a comprehensive commentary on the myopia of the hockey fan, I don't know what is.

I know you figure hockey is the best thing ever, but jeez, man. There is a reason why Elton John tickets go for $250 a pop. I'm not even an Elton fan, but for crying out loud...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

They should at least refund some of the money. If the 41 home games make up 1/5th of the events at the arena, than the suites should get 1/5th of their money back. Otherwise it's BS.

And on a side note, the fact that the LA owner doesn't consider a certain portion of suite money solely Kings revenue, it's probably possible that none of this is counted as hockey revenue for that team. And if a portion of the 300k for each box is counted as Kings revenue, than why shouldn't the fans get that portion back since there was no season?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

They should at least refund some of the money. If the 41 home games make up 1/5th of the events at the arena, than the suites should get 1/5th of their money back. Otherwise it's BS.

And on a side note, the fact that the LA owner doesn't consider a certain portion of suite money solely Kings revenue, it's probably possible that none of this is counted as hockey revenue for that team. And if a portion of the 300k for each box is counted as Kings revenue, than why shouldn't the fans get that portion back since there was no season?

Because:

Each contract guarantees that suite holders are entitled to 150 events per year – ...

The venue will host nearly 200 events during the current billing cycle and officials anticipate hosting close to 250 events next year if hockey returns.

It would be real nice of them to give some money back, but this seems to indicate the obligations under the contracts for the suites have been met, so it wouldn't seem to be required.

 

[R0CKET]

U2 played there and the tickets were going for allot of money.

They also are coming back again this year before this tour is over, I got tickets for that one 325 per seat (probably NOT a suite).

Those tickets alone are probably 3-4 times the face value of a Kings game.

Those suites are a great deal with or without the Kings.

 

[triggrman]

Who in their right mind that actually followed hockey would have bought a suite this year for hockey? The hand writting has been on the wall for over a year.

 

[danaluvsthekings]

Last summer, when most NHL teams were taking full prices for season tickets, the Kings took a $100 deposit per seat and the policy was that you wouldn't have to pay full price for your tickets until a CBA was done. If a CBA had been reached in December and the season was going to start in January, that's when they would have come calling for the money, not over last summer like most NHL teams took money last year. I'm guessing that the $100 per seat deposit policy cost them some money because if a person had 4 seats and their tickets were supposed to cost say $6000 total, LA took $400 to hold the seats. Other teams took the full price for season tickets, invested it somehow to make some money until the season was cancelled and they had to issue refunds. For the average fan that was debating, should I get tickets this year since there's going to be a lockout, it was a great deal. They didn't have to pony up the money up front for something they might not get, and people that buy season tickets aren't going to notice that missing $100 bucks like they would the $1000s that they would have shelled out if the Kings had been like other teams and made fans pay up front for tickets.

As for the suiteholders, sure Staples Center could have offered some sort of credit to be nice, but like others have posted, most companies that buy those suites buy them specifically for the basketball or concert tickets, to go to games and be seen, not to go to hockey games. The premiere seats, where you get access to the suite levels, the in seat waiters, etc are all sold in a package where if you wanted just the Kings tickets for those seats, you had to get the Lakers and Clippers tickets too. So when the arena first opened companies that couldn't afford suites but still wanted good basketball tickets for Laker games, bought those, even though they knew the Kings and Clipper tickets might not be used often, or they'd sell them on e-bay or to ticket brokers. I sincerely doubt anyone bought a suite just for Kings tickets. Sure some of the concerts or other events might not have been great or what people really wanted to see, but by the legal definition of events, they fulfilled their bargain with the suite holders. Should AEG have made nice and offered some sort of credit? Probably. But the arena is a cash cow, they've got waiting lists and Anschutz knows it. They know they can be arrogant and get away with it with the suiteholders because no one wants to give up their box. It's funny to see the contrast in the way they treated the suiteholders and then their normal season ticket base. They don't want to offend their non-suite ticket holders.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Many people think that the players and their agents using every loophole they could find in the CBA to drain every last drop of blood out of the NHL turnip was perfectly fine. They're entitled to it if they can get it. But here some seem to think it's not okay for a team to simply live up to the terms of a contract and expect the same in return from the folks that signed that contract. Seems to me the arena owners are entitled to the proceeds from that contract, too. Many say the owners should have been smart businessmen, had a budget & stuck to it when it came to player contracts. But here some want those same owners to simply give away revenue that they have rightfully earned.

Would have been a great PR move, sure, but they obviously made a business decision and didn't breach their contract in any way. (Assuming the contracts don't specify a certain number of hockey games, of course.)

 

[Weary]

Many people think that the players and their agents using every loophole they could find in the CBA to drain every last drop of blood out of the NHL turnip was perfectly fine. They're entitled to it if they can get it. But here some seem to think it's not okay for a team to simply live up to the terms of a contract and expect the same in return from the folks that signed that contract. Seems to me the arena owners are entitled to the proceeds from that contract, too. Many say the owners should have been smart businessmen, had a budget & stuck to it when it came to player contracts. But here some want those same owners to simply give away revenue that they have rightfully earned.

So you're not a fan of the rollback, I assume. You must feel the players are poor businessmen for giving back money the owners are contractually obligated to pay. How could the players "give away revenue that they have rightfully earned?"

Because it's good business.

The Staples Center gives 25% of the luxury box revenue to the Kings. That's the same percentage the Lakers get. If the Staples Center management feels that one quarter of box revenue is a fair deal for hockey, then why wouldn't they expect the box owners to be upset when their is no hockey?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

So you're not a fan of the rollback, I assume. You must feel the players are poor businessmen for giving back money the owners are contractually obligated to pay. How could the players "give away revenue that they have rightfully earned?"

Because it's good business.

The Staples Center gives 25% of the luxury box revenue to the Kings. That's the same percentage the Lakers get. If the Staples Center management feels that one quarter of box revenue is a fair deal for hockey, then why wouldn't they expect the box owners to be upset when their is no hockey?

It's not "good business" for the arena to give back money. It would, however, be good PR.

I didn't see in the article where it said Staples Center management considers hockey 1/4 of the deal for the suite renters, merely that the box renters are "guaranteed 150 events." As I've said, my observations are based on the assumption that is accurate and there is no specificity with regard to hockey v. basketball v. basket weaving. If they were guaranteed 41 hockey games, then that's a whole different story.

By the way, I never said they shouldn't expect the box owners to be upset because there was no hockey. I said they have met the legal obligations of the contracts with the box owners and aren't required to give them any refund. I see a difference, don't you?

Also seems to me the PA would want the arena to keep every cent of that money -- goes to revenue, ups the figures, more ammo for them in the CBA negotiations...

 

[Montrealer]

People are funny.

The contract guarantees 150 events - nothing more, nothing less. The Staples Center management could host 150 Spelling Bees and contractually be in the right (although they would lose all credibility and tenants)...

People love complaining about everything trying to get something for nothing. It's like people who wait 6 minutes in line at McDonalds instead of 3 and then demand compensation.

 

[tantalum]

No, contractually they do not buy a suite only for hockey or only for basketball or only for the X Games - the boxes are sold on an annual basis for all Staples Center events (except the Grammy's) with a guarantee of some minimum number. The Kings/AEG were perfectly within their legal rights. And given that the Staples Center has a waiting list of over 40 companies and lease rates were based on when (what year) companies signed up, I'm sure AEG would actually be happy if anyone cancelled - they could probably re-lease the box at a higher rate now - 3 primary tenants (Lakers, Clippers, Kings) instead of two and a guarantee of 200-250 dates instead of 80.

Given the nature of LA, I'd be hard pressed to beleive that any of the boxes were purchased primarily because of the Kings - LA is Lakers, Lakers, Lakers. I'm sure even the Clippers are a bigger factor than the Kings - 40 more dates to see LaBron, et al, plus 4 more Laker Games.

Shhh..stop talking facts some folks on this board don't like that.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Who cares, the only reason companies/people own these boxes is for the lakers anyway lol

 

[nyr7andcounting]

People are funny.

The contract guarantees 150 events - nothing more, nothing less. The Staples Center management could host 150 Spelling Bees and contractually be in the right (although they would lose all credibility and tenants)...

People love complaining about everything trying to get something for nothing. It's like people who wait 6 minutes in line at McDonalds instead of 3 and then demand compensation.

But that's the problem. You're saying that none of the 300k for the suite is actually paid by the holders for hockey, it's payed for 150 dates of whatever they put in the arena. If the owner is saying that none of that was paid for hockey so we aren't refunding any of it, wouldn't he use the same logic to say that none of it was paid for hockey so we aren't counting it as Kings revenue? If the Kings aren't refunding anything to the suite holders after no NHL season, than they obviously don't count much of it as Kings revenue when there is an NHL season.

It's why the numbers are so disputable and the same situation occurs for every team that shares a building with anything, even spelling bees. Also why the PA has disputed the numbers.

 

[Fishhead]

But that's the problem. You're saying that none of the 300k for the suite is actually paid by the holders for hockey, it's payed for 150 dates of whatever they put in the arena. If the owner is saying that none of that was paid for hockey so we aren't refunding any of it, wouldn't he use the same logic to say that none of it was paid for hockey so we aren't counting it as Kings revenue? If the Kings aren't refunding anything to the suite holders after no NHL season, than they obviously don't count much of it as Kings revenue when there is an NHL season.

It's why the numbers are so disputable and the same situation occurs for every team that shares a building with anything, even spelling bees. Also why the PA has disputed the numbers.

AEG isn't saying that none of that was paid for hockey. They aren't refunding it because they don't have to, simple as that. I would have done the same thing if I dumped as much money as they did into this team when they bought it. I'm not his biggest fan, but Anschutz assumed a whole lot of debt and rescued the Kings from bankruptcy. The income from the suites is included in the Kings revenue - the Kings have opened their books and it's there. If you want more info you can always read the audit of the Kings that was done by a fan a couple years back.

I hardly feel sorry for suite/premiere holders at the SC. I've been a season ticket holder since before Staples opened, and I've observed many of those suites and seats are empty for Kings games. If they aren't empty, they are sparsely populated. I've sat in the suites for a good 20 games since it opened through various friends I know, and every time me and the guy I was with were the only ones with any hockey gear on. 90% of those people dont even watch the game, they just sit and chat and eat. There are probably very few complaints that the Kings didn't play this year, and yeah it sucks for the few suite holders that actually utilize their tickets for the Kings, but those people are in the extreme minority.

 

[PecaFan]

If I were them, even though they don't have to, I'd be giving back a little something to everyone that complained. No need to give it to all. Of course there are many holders who didn't even notice that they didn't get their "normal" set of events, but you can also be sure that there are some who's purchase was majorly based on hockey, and they won't be happy.

In my businesses, I always kept my *best customers* happy.