Kings' suite holders get no refund

Status
Not open for further replies.

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Fishhead said:
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.
All I am saying is that whatever would normally be counted as Kings revenue should be refunded to the people. At least to the people who care about the Kings, or at least for the nights when there was no substitute for the cancelled Kings game.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
All I am saying is that whatever would normally be counted as Kings revenue should be refunded to the people. At least to the people who care about the Kings, or at least for the nights when there was no substitute for the cancelled Kings game.

WAKE UP!!!!! The entities "entitled" to refunds in your fantasy are almost exclusively substantial/enormous corporate entities. There are no "people" involved.

That is of course assumng there are more than sixty or so people in LA who are in the least bit perturbed by the NHL lockout.

Do you not realize that those dates were almost surely filled up in some way or other and the businesses who own the suites sent their customers to them in exactly the same way as they would have for NHL games - except, if it were an Elton John concert, they actually would have enjoyed themselves.

As someone who has been to many a corporate box at the Air Canada Centre, I can confirm that the attendees often pay only passing attention to the event - even for the hallowed Leafs. When you are in a box, you are doing business more or less - networking, talking business, etc. Even if you are a fan, you do not plunk yourself down and watch the game. That is not appropriate in my experience. It is disrespectful to either your guests (if you are the host) or the host (if you are a guest).

I move that this thread be discontinued on the grounds of complete inanity.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
gscarpenter2002 said:
WAKE UP!!!!! The entities "entitled" to refunds in your fantasy are almost exclusively substantial/enormous corporate entities. There are no "people" involved.
There are no people involoved, who sits in the boxes? You don't even make any sense. Replace the word "people" with paying customers if you wish, it's the same thing. Whoever or whatever payed for the boxes should get whatever amount that is normall considered to be Kings revenue refunded. At least for nights in which there was no substitute for a cancelled Kings game and at least as a nice gesture by the team.

gscarpenter2002 said:
Do you not realize that those dates were almost surely filled up in some way or other and the businesses who own the suites sent their customers to them in exactly the same way as they would have for NHL games - except, if it were an Elton John concert, they actually would have enjoyed themselves.

As someone who has been to many a corporate box at the Air Canada Centre, I can confirm that the attendees often pay only passing attention to the event - even for the hallowed Leafs. When you are in a box, you are doing business more or less - networking, talking business, etc. Even if you are a fan, you do not plunk yourself down and watch the game. That is not appropriate in my experience. It is disrespectful to either your guests (if you are the host) or the host (if you are a guest).
No, I don't realize actually. I live about as far away from LA as you can get and to tell you the truth outside of NBA games I have aboslutely no ****ing clue what has gone on in the Staples Center in place of cancelled Kings game. But if I had to guess I would probably say that Elton John didn't play 41 concerts at the Staples Center between October and April.

I mean MSG is in the biggest city in the world and hosts plenty of concerts and things all the time, and I don't think they had "replacement" events for even half of the dates that the Rangers would have been playing.

Bottom line is whatever amount is normally attributes to the Kings for their 41 home games should be returned to whoever or whatever payed for the suite if for no other reason than the Kings owner should not be receiving that revenue while he locked his team out.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
There are no people involoved, who sits in the boxes? You don't even make any sense. Replace the word "people" with paying customers if you wish, it's the same thing. Whoever or whatever payed for the boxes should get whatever amount that is normall considered to be Kings revenue refunded. At least for nights in which there was no substitute for a cancelled Kings game and at least as a nice gesture by the team.


No, I don't realize actually. I live about as far away from LA as you can get and to tell you the truth outside of NBA games I have aboslutely no ****ing clue what has gone on in the Staples Center in place of cancelled Kings game. But if I had to guess I would probably say that Elton John didn't play 41 concerts at the Staples Center between October and April.

I mean MSG is in the biggest city in the world and hosts plenty of concerts and things all the time, and I don't think they had "replacement" events for even half of the dates that the Rangers would have been playing.

Bottom line is whatever amount is normally attributes to the Kings for their 41 home games should be returned to whoever or whatever payed for the suite if for no other reason than the Kings owner should not be receiving that revenue while he locked his team out.

I would not use "paying customers", either. Most people in suites on any given night are guests (customers) of the suite holder.

More importantly, what the heck does this have to do with anything? Is it just another thing you want to use to slam the big bad owners with? Why do you care, if you are not a suite holder?

What a joke. I am sorry I started to read this thread.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
nyr7andcounting said:
Bottom line is whatever amount is normally attributes to the Kings for their 41 home games should be returned to whoever or whatever payed for the suite if for no other reason than the Kings owner should not be receiving that revenue while he locked his team out.

Then the suite renters should have to give up their boxes for 41 events during the course of their contract year. If they receive a refund for the 41 missed Kings games, they should only be allowed to use the suites for 109 events since they aren't paying for the 150 they were obligated to pay for under the terms of their contract.

The real bottom line is if the article is correct, they signed up for 150 unspecified events. They're getting them. No refunds are required.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Boltsfan2029 said:
The real bottom line is if the article is correct, they signed up for 150 unspecified events. They're getting them. No refunds are required.
I don't think anyone is saying they are legally obligated to refund part of the money. They are saying it's not good business to treat your customers that way.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Weary said:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029
The real bottom line is if the article is correct, they signed up for 150 unspecified events. They're getting them. No refunds are required.
I don't think anyone is saying they are legally obligated to refund part of the money. They are saying it's not good business to treat your customers that way.

Maybe it's not bad business. The Staples center has had a grand total turnover of only 10 luxury suites in its history, has a waiting list of 40 companies, and could quite possibly re-lease the suites for more than their current contracts, if any suite holder gets too pissed off.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
Weary said:
I don't think anyone is saying they are legally obligated to refund part of the money. They are saying it's not good business to treat your customers that way.

Which is all I wanted to point out. Some people only hear what they want to hear becuase of blind loyalty and hatred.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
gscarpenter2002 said:
I would not use "paying customers", either. Most people in suites on any given night are guests (customers) of the suite holder.

More importantly, what the heck does this have to do with anything? Is it just another thing you want to use to slam the big bad owners with? Why do you care, if you are not a suite holder?

What a joke. I am sorry I started to read this thread.

So what are they then? Robots who get the suite for free? Somebody somewhere along the line paid 300k for a suite at the Staples Center. Whoever the hell that somebody is should be refunded.

It has to do with the lockout and the owners, which is why you started the thread. Why do you care about the lockout, if you are not a player or an owner? Why did you start the thread, if you are not a suite holder?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Boltsfan2029 said:
Then the suite renters should have to give up their boxes for 41 events during the course of their contract year. If they receive a refund for the 41 missed Kings games, they should only be allowed to use the suites for 109 events since they aren't paying for the 150 they were obligated to pay for under the terms of their contract.

The real bottom line is if the article is correct, they signed up for 150 unspecified events. They're getting them. No refunds are required.

Or, as I have said in this thread, they should at least be refunded for nights when there was no substitute for the cancelled Kings game.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Weary said:
I don't think anyone is saying they are legally obligated to refund part of the money. They are saying it's not good business to treat your customers that way.

exactly
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
So what are they then? Robots who get the suite for free? Somebody somewhere along the line paid 300k for a suite at the Staples Center. Whoever the hell that somebody is should be refunded.

It has to do with the lockout and the owners, which is why you started the thread. Why do you care about the lockout, if you are not a player or an owner? Why did you start the thread, if you are not a suite holder?

I didn't start the thread. I started to read the thread. Bit of a difference. When I started to read the thread, I thought it might be relevant to the lockout, which I care about. I was wrong. It was just rantings by another player shill taking a business non-story and inventing a way for people to be angry at owners, and getting shot down in the process.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
gscarpenter2002 said:
I didn't start the thread. I started to read the thread. Bit of a difference. When I started to read the thread, I thought it might be relevant to the lockout, which I care about. I was wrong. It was just rantings by another player shill taking a business non-story and inventing a way for people to be angry at owners, and getting shot down in the process.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
Well no need to post like 5 times in the thread if you don't care about it.

I don't see how can't blame the Kings owner a little for not refunding some of the money to someone.
 

hockeytown9321

Registered User
Jun 18, 2004
2,358
0
gscarpenter2002 said:
I didn't start the thread. I started to read the thread. Bit of a difference. When I started to read the thread, I thought it might be relevant to the lockout, which I care about. I was wrong. It was just rantings by another player shill taking a business non-story and inventing a way for people to be angry at owners, and getting shot down in the process.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

If this thread is so irrelevent, why have you posted 5 times in it? And would you care to explain how NHL teams' polices on refunds because of the cancelled season have nothing to do with the lockout?
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
nyr7andcounting said:
I don't see how can't blame the Kings owner a little for not refunding some of the money to someone.

I guess because we can see that there's no necessity that he do so.

I'm curious to know how you feel about this side of the situation: If the arena does refund 41 events worth of $$ to the suite holders, should those suite holders then be required to forfeit their suites for the 41 events for which they will not have paid?

Or should they get 150 events for the price of 109?
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Boltsfan2029 said:
I guess because we can see that there's no necessity that he do so.

I'm curious to know how you feel about this side of the situation: If the arena does refund 41 events worth of $$ to the suite holders, should those suite holders then be required to forfeit their suites for the 41 events for which they will not have paid?

Or should they get 150 events for the price of 109?
Yes, the owner should give the suite holders the choice. Take your money back for the 41 Kings game that weren't played and forfeit the 41 replacement events.

Or even better, out of good faith and thanks that these people pay a ridiculous amount of money for a suite every year, the owner should refund the money for each Kings game when there was not a replacement event at the Staples Center. So let's say that there was 21 cancelled games not replaced by anything, the suite holder should get half of their money back.

Last summer when the companies had to renew/purchase their suites I am sure that the suites were advertised mainly as Lakers, Clippers, Kings and conerts. Those are the major events that everyone wants to go to or have a box for. I know that legally the suite holders pay for "150" events, but I am sure they are thinking "150 events including Lakers, Clippers and Kings". Without the Kings I am sure the suites have a little less value and the customers should be refunded at least a little bit.

If I went to MSG and got a suite for 200 events, I would expect half of that to be Rangers and Knicks. If they cancelled the Rangers games and replaced those nights with 20 dog shows and 20 Ashley Simpson concerts, I wouldn't be very happy and all though I legally paid for whatever 200 events MSG decided to host, I would be pretty pissed off that instead of NHL hockey I got some BS. I would think that some sort of a refund would be necessary simply out of good faith.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
nyr7andcounting said:
Yes, the owner should give the suite holders the choice. Take your money back for the 41 Kings game that weren't played and forfeit the 41 replacement events.

Fair enough.

Or even better, out of good faith and thanks that these people pay a ridiculous amount of money for a suite every year, the owner should refund the money for each Kings game when there was not a replacement event at the Staples Center. So let's say that there was 21 cancelled games not replaced by anything, the suite holder should get half of their money back.

Well, the article says 150 events are scheduled and somewhere said they actually anticipated 200 events (but I'm not sure if that's this year or next), but it appears there won't be any missed events (although not necessarily on the same calendar dates). But that's fair enough if it were the case, and I'm sure they would do that (refund money if they didn't meet the specified number of events in the contract). I'm also sure there's language in the contract to protect the suiteholders in that scenario.

I know that legally the suite holders pay for "150" events, but I am sure they are thinking "150 events including Lakers, Clippers and Kings".

No doubt. But I'm sure they're also told up front that "including" doesn't mean "guaranteed." That's the point several folks have been trying to make, that what they're "thinking" isn't what they signed up for, and they should have been aware of that from the get-go.

If I went to MSG and got a suite for 200 events, I would expect half of that to be Rangers and Knicks. If they cancelled the Rangers games and replaced those nights with 20 dog shows and 20 Ashley Simpson concerts, I wouldn't be very happy and all though I legally paid for whatever 200 events MSG decided to host, I would be pretty pissed off that instead of NHL hockey I got some BS. I would think that some sort of a refund would be necessary simply out of good faith.

And someone else might be equally thrilled to have NHL games replaced by concerts and other events. Like many, I highly doubt most suite holders in most arenas are particularly interested in the hockey games. Sadly, attendance and TV ratings in many areas seem to indicate that the suites would be fuller for a poker tournament than they would for a hockey game.

A refund isn't "necessary," of course, but, as I've said all along, it would be good PR. I'd love to know how much revenue you're actually asking the arenas to forfeit, but I'm sure there's no real way to find that out. In an industry that is hurting so badly for revenue, it might be "nice" to give that money back, but probably less than "wise" from a financial standpoint. :dunno:
 

Sammy*

Guest
Weary said:
I don't think anyone is saying they are legally obligated to refund part of the money. They are saying it's not good business to treat your customers that way.
God almighty, give it up. They do whats best for their busisness within the parameters of their legal obligations.
Its laughable that some know whats better for their busisness than those who actually own & run them.
 

Sammy*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
Or, as I have said in this thread, they should at least be refunded for nights when there was no substitute for the cancelled Kings game.
Do you not read? Thet didnt contract for any King games. They contracted for 150 dates. If the King games make up a portion ogf the 150, fine. If they dont, I guess the Staples has to find 41 events to cover it off.
You'd think was was rocket science
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Sammy said:
God almighty, give it up. They do whats best for their busisness within the parameters of their legal obligations.
Its laughable that some know whats better for their busisness than those who actually own & run them.
If you wish to agree with NHL owners 100% of the time, you should just change your signature line to indicate say "I agree 100% with the owner(s) in this case." You can just put empty replies for every subject and let your sig do the talking.

But there are those of us who wish to actually discuss the issues. Please don't try to dampen our enthusiasm for this. For as much as I respect your right to always agree with ownership, please respect my right to choose what opinions I agree with.
 

GSC2k2*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
Well no need to post like 5 times in the thread if you don't care about it.

I don't see how can't blame the Kings owner a little for not refunding some of the money to someone.

I posted 5 times to provided the courtesy of a response, since someone responded to my initial post. I assure you this is the last one for this thread.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Weary said:
If you wish to agree with NHL owners 100% of the time, you should just change your signature line to indicate say "I agree 100% with the owner(s) in this case." You can just put empty replies for every subject and let your sig do the talking.

But there are those of us who wish to actually discuss the issues. Please don't try to dampen our enthusiasm for this. For as much as I respect your right to always agree with ownership, please respect my right to choose what opinions I agree with.
So, by your rationale, I guess this decision is bad for business. Cant wait to hear the backup on that one.
And oh, If you wish to agree with NHLPA 100% of the time, you should just change your signature line to indicate say "I agree 100% with the NHLPA in this case." You can just put empty replies for every subject and let your sig do the talking.

And when your modus operandi is to hammer the owners for everything they do, irrespective of common sense, I will try to dampen your enthusiasim, cause I frankly have the opinion that often there is no common sense in the point that is trying to be made, as its all rhetoric.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
Sammy said:
So, by your rationale, I guess this decision is bad for business. Cant wait to hear the backup on that one.
And oh, If you wish to agree with NHLPA 100% of the time, you should just change your signature line to indicate say "I agree 100% with the NHLPA in this case." You can just put empty replies for every subject and let your sig do the talking.
Except that I don't agree with the NHLPA 100% of the time. Even if I did, I would never use the following argument:
God almighty, give it up. They do whats best for their union within the parameters of their legal obligations.
Its laughable that some know whats better for the union than those who actually manage & run them.​
 

Sammy*

Guest
Weary said:
Except that I don't agree with the NHLPA 100% of the time. Even if I did, I would never use the following argument:
God almighty, give it up. They do whats best for their union within the parameters of their legal obligations.
Its laughable that some know whats better for the union than those who actually manage & run them.​
No , you do agree with the NHLPA about 95% of the time.
And btw, I have not once suggested that the Union is not doing what they think is best for the players (thats part of the problem imo, cause what has been best for the players has not being whats best for the game & its fans. see the laughable one time 24% rollback.). I just happen to think that their leadership didnt bank on ownership being as resolute,& has taken too long for them to come to the realization that the owners wouldnt cave (thank god, for the health of hockey).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->