Kings' suite holders get no refund

[PecaFan]

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.

Taking your customers for granted just because times are good and there's lots of customers in waiting is still a horrible policy.

Times won't always be good.

 

[Sammy*]

Taking your customers for granted just because times are good and there's lots of customers in waiting is still a horrible policy.

Times won't always be good.

God help us all if honoring the terms of the written contract can be bad for business.

 

[Mess]

God help us all if honoring the terms of the written contract can be bad for business.

Don't NHL players have signed guaranteed written contracts.?

Aren't the NHL owners telling us all that those contracts are bad for business ??

 

[djhn579]

Don't NHL players have signed guaranteed written contracts.?

They had contracts that were valid under the previous CBA. Those contracts may or may not be valid under a new CBA...

 

[djhn579]

Does that make all players UFA if they are no longer valid ??

Ask a lawyer...

P.S. That again depends upon the new CBA...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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.

The only thing I disagree with because this doesn't really make sense. It doesn't matter how thrilled you are at the replacement event, because no one buys a suite in order to have it for possible replacement events. The suite owners are definetly not big hockey fans, but the normal product that they are buying the suite for are NBA and NHL. That's why whatever the replacement events are, they have less value than the originally schedueled event (otherwise the Kings would never play and they would have dog shows 41 nights every year)

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.

How much the Kings should give back would depend on how much the Kings get out of what is paid to the arena for those suites. If the Kings get 75k this year on a 300k box, I think they should refund up to half of that depending on what events replaced hockey games.

 

[Mess]

Ask a lawyer...

P.S. That again depends upon the new CBA...

A standard players contract is separate from the CBA .. The CBA is the just the set of rules that the league agrees to play under .. A players contract is subject to negotiated items within and CBA like for example a 24% rollback ..

A players contract is not voided because a CBA has expired ..

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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

Do you not read?

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.

No one is disputing that the suites legally paid for 150 events of whatever the Staples Center wanted to hold. But it's pretty clear that without the Kings the 150-event package has a diminished value. It's also pretty clear that the Kings owner is getting suite revenue while he has locked his team out. So why shouldn't he refund some of it out of good faith.

You are right, you don't hafta be a rocket scientist to figure out that it would be good PR to refund something to companies who obviously paid for a suite thinking that the Kings were part of the events that would be held.

 

[djhn579]

A standard players contract is separate from the CBA .. The CBA is the just the set of rules that the league agrees to play under .. A players contract is subject to negotiated items within and CBA like for example a 24% rollback ..

A players contract is not voided because a CBA has expired ..

How many of those standard player contracts are being paid right now?



If a CBA is signed that calls for a 50% rollback, the players whose contracts are affected can play under the contract with the 50% rollback or they can find work elsewhere. The CBA governs how contracts are paid. Ask yourself why the NHLPA would offer it if the CBA didn't govern it...

 

[Boltsfan2029]

The only thing I disagree with because this doesn't really make sense. It doesn't matter how thrilled you are at the replacement event, because no one buys a suite in order to have it for possible replacement events. The suite owners are definetly not big hockey fans, but the normal product that they are buying the suite for are NBA and NHL. That's why whatever the replacement events are, they have less value than the originally schedueled event (otherwise the Kings would never play and they would have dog shows 41 nights every year)

Not necessarily. As many are aware, shows travel, they are cyclical. What may be available now might not have been available last year. Josh Groban sells out arenas multiple nights in a row for higher ticket prices than hockey & with more butts in the seats. That's a higher value, not lower. If U2 wasn't touring last year but is this year, you're saying that suite holders would rather have a refund and forfeit the chance to shmooz clients with tickets to U2?

I don't think so.

The suite holders got what they paid for. Any suite renter who signed on the dotted line without knowing what he/she/it was getting has only him/her/itself to blame.

I doubt a single suite owner gives a horse's patoot what happens to "regular" ticket holders, it's nice to see so many are so concerned about the expenditures incurred by the likes of Pepsi, Xerox and Coca-Cola for their suites.

Enough for me on this topic.

 

[Sammy*]

Don't NHL players have signed guaranteed written contracts.?

Aren't the NHL owners telling us all that those contracts are bad for business ??

What a joke. The owners are well within their rights to lock them out & not pay them. The CBA & contracts provide for it.
Ridiculous statements like this are part of the reason the NHLPA has lost the P.R. war.

 

[Mess]

What a joke. The owners are well within their rights to lock them out & not pay them. The CBA & contracts provide for it.
Ridiculous statements like this are part of the reason the NHLPA has lost the P.R. war.

Like you said

" God help us all if honoring the terms of the written contract can be bad for business.".

I guess this is the exception to the rule ..

or perhaps you misspoke ..and meant

" God help us all if honoring the terms of the written contract can be bad for business, unless you are an Owner.".

 

[garry1221]

Do you not read?



No one is disputing that the suites legally paid for 150 events of whatever the Staples Center wanted to hold. But it's pretty clear that without the Kings the 150-event package has a diminished value. It's also pretty clear that the Kings owner is getting suite revenue while he has locked his team out. So why shouldn't he refund some of it out of good faith.

twisting your facts to try to make us buy into your way of thinking.

fact. aeg owns the staples center
fact. the anshutz corporation owns the la kings

the aeg corporation which owns the kings is a subsidiary of the anshutz corporation, philip anshutz is the owner of the kings. you're right when you say that he gets all this suite revenue, but regardless if the kings played there or not, he'd be getting all that suite revenue. your statement that he's getting all this revenue while he has locked out his team is a moot point.

 

[Sammy*]

Like you said


I guess this is the exception to the rule ..

or perhaps you misspoke ..and meant

Are you suggesting that they are contractually bound to pay the players during the lockout?
If so, there goes your credibility (again) being flushed down the toilet.

 

[PecaFan]

God help us all if honoring the terms of the written contract can be bad for business.

*Only* honouring the terms of the written contract *is* bad for business. That's the entire essence of customer service. McDonalds doesn't count how many bites you've had from your burger or how many fries you ate to decide if your complaint about the food is "legitimate".

In my experience, any business that spends more time thinking about whether they've fulfilled their contractual obligations than making their customers happy ultimately becomes a failed business.

 

[CGG]

If you can afford to buy a box at Staples, then 300k should be pennies to you.

Doesn't make it right though, does it?

If you can afford to buy a hockey team then a $49 million cap should be pennies to you. Same thing, right?

 

[mackdogs*]

Doesn't make it right though, does it?

If you can afford to buy a hockey team then a $49 million cap should be pennies to you. Same thing, right?

If you're making, on average, 36 times the average person's salary taking a large pay cut should be nothing to you, right?

Gee, I can play this stupid game of twisting things to make my point. What a stupid thread.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

twisting your facts to try to make us buy into your way of thinking.

fact. aeg owns the staples center
fact. the anshutz corporation owns the la kings

the aeg corporation which owns the kings is a subsidiary of the anshutz corporation, philip anshutz is the owner of the kings. you're right when you say that he gets all this suite revenue, but regardless if the kings played there or not, he'd be getting all that suite revenue. your statement that he's getting all this revenue while he has locked out his team is a moot point.

What facts am I twisting exactly.

It doesn't matter if Anshutz owns the whole building or just the team, he certainly does not account all of the suite revenue under the Kings. A defined percentage probably goes to the Kings, the same with the Lakers or whatever. Just like Dolan...a certain % of MSG suite revenue goes onto the Rangers books.

So, that amount of revenue is that is going on to the Kings books is really not being earned and it would be a smart idea to refund some of it.

One top of that...."but regardless if the kings played there or not, he'd be getting all that suite revenue."
But would he be getting as much revenue for the suites? I definetly think that without the Kings in the building those suites don't have as much value, especially if the Kings are being replaced by BS events most of the time.

And, now that it is clear to me exactly how rich and how much Anshutz owns, what does it hurt to refund some of the money that was payed for Kings games that were cancelled? The good PR would definetly seem more valuable than a couple thounsand dollars to a guy that rich.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I definetly think that without the Kings in the building those suites don't have as much value, especially if the Kings are being replaced by BS events most of the time.

It is easily possible and quite likely that those "BS events" are more popular than the Kings themselves in LA.

Don't forget hockey's poor standing amongst the general public at large. It's easy to claim HERE that the suites were going to be more used for Kings games; out in the real world it can be a much different story.

 

[Boltsfan2029]

I wasn't going to participate in this thread any longer because it's gotten to the point of being simply too ridiculous, but the coincidence of the e-mail I just received was too much not to share. Different events, diminishment of the suites' value... Here's one coming up in Tampa. While it would only be a "replacement" for next season (God forbid), I can't see where anyone could say this event would lower the value of the suites...

This is the e-mail (account info & other ordering info deleted) season ticket holders received for tickets pre-purchase, barring some exclusionary language in their contracts, I'd assume suite holders get this as part of their package...

Ameriquest presents
The Rolling Stones
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005
SHOW TIME 7:30 PM~ DOORS 6:00PM

You may order UP TO EIGHT (8) seats on the Plaza Level/Jeep Club for this event.

# of Plaza Side Level tickets _________@ $441.75

# of Plaza Endzone Level tickets _________@ $195.75

# of Jeep Club Level tickets _________@ $195.75

# of VIP West Garage Parking Passes _________@ $12.00

Handling Fee: ____$3.00___________

Total: ___________________

I'm sure those suite holders would much rather have 1/150th of their money refunded and pass on this event!

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Of course they wouldn't, but how many times to the Stones play there, just one night and just in one arena? I would say for big markets half of the replacement events are much worse than an NHL game and I bet that in markets like Toronto every replacement event is worse than an NHL game.

 

[me2]

So, that amount of revenue is that is going on to the Kings books is really not being earned and it would be a smart idea to refund some of it.

So they should refund them for lost Kings games, then send them a bill for replacement events?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

So they should refund them for lost Kings games, then send them a bill for replacement events?

We don't know if there were replacement events, what they were or when they were. But in all probability suites to those 41 events probably weren't as valuable as suites to 41 Kings games and most of those suites were purchased with the Kings in mind. So, some % of whatever amount would normally be attributed as Kings revenues should be refunded if for no other reason than good PR. Why are the Kings taking in ticket revenue when they haven't played a game? No reason not to give a little back.

Or, your idea really isn't that bad. Suites to the 41 replacement events are probably cheaper than suites for the 41 Kings game, so doing that would be the same as just a straight up refund. Good idea.

 

[Montrealer]

*Only* honouring the terms of the written contract *is* bad for business. That's the entire essence of customer service. McDonalds doesn't count how many bites you've had from your burger or how many fries you ate to decide if your complaint about the food is "legitimate".

In my experience, any business that spends more time thinking about whether they've fulfilled their contractual obligations than making their customers happy ultimately becomes a failed business.

This is exactly right.

My point was that they

-fulfilled their contractual obligations (by having apparently 200 events, needed to have 150)

AND

-they have very little turnover, AND a waiting list - indicating a happy clientele.

I need to ask - who is complaining here? The corporations that are leasing the boxes? I'm absolutely sure that if ANYONE called up and asked for some sort of consideration because the Kings were gone, AEG would have done something.

I just doubt that anyone actually did.

 

[kdb209]

This is exactly right.

My point was that they

-fulfilled their contractual obligations (by having apparently 200 events, needed to have 150)

AND

-they have very little turnover, AND a waiting list - indicating a happy clientele.

I need to ask - who is complaining here? The corporations that are leasing the boxes? I'm absolutely sure that if ANYONE called up and asked for some sort of consideration because the Kings were gone, AEG would have done something.

I just doubt that anyone actually did.

Yes, some of the corporations have been complaining. That was the whole point of the article - or at least the reason it was written.

That’s ticked off some suite holders who believe they are being treated unfairly. All Kings season-ticket holders received their money back or credits for the next billing cycle, while corporate sponsors that committed to additional ad space at Kings games were not billed for the hockey season.

“They should have come forward with some form of compensations for the missed Kings games,†said Norris Bishton, president and chief executive of the Noarus Auto Group, which owns five area dealerships. “I am surprised and disappointed. There has been no communication – nothing.â€

While they’re mad, there’s nothing much that suite holders can do, with the exception of giving up their suites to one of the 24 parties on the waiting list to grab them up. (So far, no one’s done so.)