Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

[G. Host]

http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2007/12/24/daily22.html

Per game average was 71,054, or 96.1 percent capacity, up from 67,646 (91.5 percent capacity) in 2006, and slightly lower than the 71,906 per game average in the 2005 season.

2007 and 2005 the Bills sold out but the difference between 2007 and 2005 is 852 people per game. Is that from preseason games which did not sell out? Less club seats? Return tickets from opposing teams? More bands and other groups which do not count as sold tickets but take up seats?

[Ebenezer]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

non-significant....


it is all irrelevant until the Bills can charge more per ticket.

[Wys Guy]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

non-significant....


it is all irrelevant until the Bills can charge more per ticket.

They may as well charge more for tickets. A good reason for all of our sellouts is the number of fans that travel here from opponent markets, and most of them don't come from economically depressed regions.

So while it may sound illogical, it's actually a good idea. It may knock down the number of season tickets sold, but the tix will apparently eventually sellout anyway.

Who knows, perhaps one day we can be "the league's home-away-from-home" team for our opponents with the "home crowd" actually being for teams that travel to Buffalo. What a warming thought, eh.

[Ebenezer]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

They may as well charge more for tickets. A good reason for all of our sellouts is the number of fans that travel here from opponent markets, and most of them don't come from economically depressed regions.

So while it may sound illogical, it's actually a good idea. It may knock down the number of season tickets sold, but the tix will apparently eventually sellout anyway.

Who knows, perhaps one day we can be "the league's home-away-from-home" team for our opponents with the "home crowd" actually being for teams that travel to Buffalo. What a warming thought, eh.

I blame that directly on the folks who left the area for "better places". They have created a brain-drain that has permanently hurt this area. There isn't a reason why, in most cases, they couldn't run their business from here once it was established.

[Mr. Pink]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

We've had this discussion before Eb...very hard for a lot of business to start and pay their dues here. Many restrictions are involved, taxes, bureaucracy, etc..

I do agree tickets need to be raised though. A 10% hike on season tickets wouldn't hurt anyone around here. If you're paying 400 for seasons now, what's the real difference in paying 400 or 440? spread that 40 bucks out over 30,000 season ticket holders and you're talking another million of income.

Easily attainable and wouldn't meet that much resistance. But then Ralphie couldn't cry poverty as much. I still think the average fan who pays 400 now, could easily pay 500. 10 bucks per game more? Oh no!

[realdealryan]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

Ya'lls cigarettes is too spensive.

[Ebenezer]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

We've had this discussion before Eb...very hard for a lot of business to start and pay their dues here. Many restrictions are involved, taxes, bureaucracy, etc..

I know...it was a harmless dig at those that are so concerned about the area but have left and don't even try to come back

I do agree tickets need to be raised though. A 10% hike on season tickets wouldn't hurt anyone around here. If you're paying 400 for seasons now, what's the real difference in paying 400 or 440? spread that 40 bucks out over 30,000 season ticket holders and you're talking another million of income.

Easily attainable and wouldn't meet that much resistance. But then Ralphie couldn't cry poverty as much. I still think the average fan who pays 400 now, could easily pay 500. 10 bucks per game more? Oh no!

People in this area clog the streets waiting in line daily for their $2.00 Tim Horton's coffee. This area could afford a ticket price hike without problem, especially with one of the games moving to Toronto.

They are insuring sellouts by keeping tickets that low but there is another reason. RW gets aid from the league based on how much HE personally grosses from the Bills. Make too much money and that aid disappears - hence the reason why there are no naming rights to the stadium. He must maximize revenue without making an amount that will take away his aid.

[Mr. Pink]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

They are insuring sellouts by keeping tickets that low but there is another reason. RW gets aid from the league based on how much HE personally grosses from the Bills. Make too much money and that aid disappears - hence the reason why there are no naming rights to the stadium. He must maximize revenue without making an amount that will take away his aid.

I get the insuring sellouts part, well at least the theory of it, seeing it didn't work last year. And that's one thing I never got, if Ralphie has to maximize profits to get the hand outs...a. how does he get away with being well below league average on ticket prices? and b. how does he get away with not selling naming rights?

Both of those factors would indeed "maximize" his profit margin. I'm not well versed on that portion of the CBA. But it seems like common sense that if he doesn't do certain things like a. and b. above, he should not be eligible for corporate welfare.

[Ebenezer]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

I get the insuring sellouts part, well at least the theory of it, seeing it didn't work last year. And that's one thing I never got, if Ralphie has to maximize profits to get the hand outs...a. how does he get away with being well below league average on ticket prices? and b. how does he get away with not selling naming rights?

Both of those factors would indeed "maximize" his profit margin. I'm not well versed on that portion of the CBA. But it seems like common sense that if he doesn't do certain things like a. and b. above, he should not be eligible for corporate welfare.

you're a little wrong...he has to make (maximize) as much money as he can but not so much that he passes the point at which he gets aid. For example, there might be a free lunch program at school. To qualify a family of four might have to make under $35K a year. The husband and wife might take on odd jobs but only enough to get to $34,999. They could work more but they would have to figure out if that extra work would get them more money than the aid. I am sure RW gets more in aid than he does by selling all the other stuff he could and raising ticket prices.

[G. Host]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

Both of those factors would indeed "maximize" his profit margin. I'm not well versed on that portion of the CBA. But it seems like common sense that if he doesn't do certain things like a. and b. above, he should not be eligible for corporate welfare.

It is not corporate welfare - it is due to the disparity in markets, a market generated by the league not just the top teams. Bills are now funding more expensive stadiums in other areas like NYC which is part of Ralph's complaint. Teams which have smaller stadiums are not being forced to build larger ones and some like the Lions have built smaller ones which provide less funding to visiting teams.

[Mr. Pink]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

you're a little wrong...he has to make (maximize) as much money as he can but not so much that he passes the point at which he gets aid. For example, there might be a free lunch program at school. To qualify a family of four might have to make under $35K a year. The husband and wife might take on odd jobs but only enough to get to $34,999. They could work more but they would have to figure out if that extra work would get them more money than the aid. I am sure RW gets more in aid than he does by selling all the other stuff he could and raising ticket prices.

See, I thought it was that teams had to do as much as they could to maximize their own profits before turning to the "free lunches." Thanks for clarifying.

So is the amount he gets a set figure? Or could he charge less per ticket and get more of a handout?

[Ebenezer]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

See, I thought it was that teams had to do as much as they could to maximize their own profits before turning to the "free lunches." Thanks for clarifying.

So is the amount he gets a set figure? Or could he charge less per ticket and get more of a handout?

Not sure on that...

[G. Host]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

The details on the "sharing" agreement have been vague and purposefully it appears in some cases. There was a general agreement passed by league but details were not worked out which is why Ralph Wilson and one other owner voted "No" on latest CBA. It is like international politics where there are a lot of general agreement on subjects but when it comes down to the details the parties never agree so original agreement has little value.

Of course we are not seeing full documents passed out between teams and only can see press reports and leaks which often have questionable and unreliable sources.

[Typ0]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

They may as well charge more for tickets. A good reason for all of our sellouts is the number of fans that travel here from opponent markets, and most of them don't come from economically depressed regions.

So while it may sound illogical, it's actually a good idea. It may knock down the number of season tickets sold, but the tix will apparently eventually sellout anyway.

Who knows, perhaps one day we can be "the league's home-away-from-home" team for our opponents with the "home crowd" actually being for teams that travel to Buffalo. What a warming thought, eh.

if they lose season ticket sales they loose the preseason ticket sales they are able to stick the season ticket holders with.

[Typ0]

Re: Attendence - games sold out so why the differences?

The details on the "sharing" agreement have been vague and purposefully it appears in some cases. There was a general agreement passed by league but details were not worked out which is why Ralph Wilson and one other owner voted "No" on latest CBA. It is like international politics where there are a lot of general agreement on subjects but when it comes down to the details the parties never agree so original agreement has little value.

Of course we are not seeing full documents passed out between teams and only can see press reports and leaks which often have questionable and unreliable sources.

it's funny that during this process the larger market teams came to the table asking RW to do things like naming rights to generate more revenues and create less of a strain on revenue sharing. They basically said they believed in the revenue sharing model but RW was taking advantage of it by keeping his revenues down.