Season Ticket Prices

[spndnchz]

Well, my quandary is over. My ticket partner, and the tickets were in his name, has decided not to renew. So I guess it's to the back of the line for me.

 

I'm sure StubHub will have some seats available for ya. lol

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, my quandary is over. My ticket partner, and the tickets were in his name, has decided not to renew. So I guess it's to the back of the line for me.

 

So you're pro-tank now? :P ;)

[Eleven]

So you're pro-tank now? :P ;)

 

Heh--never thought about whether it would change my opinion on that! I'll have to think it over.

[Weave]

Well, my quandary is over. My ticket partner, and the tickets were in his name, has decided not to renew. So I guess it's to the back of the line for me.

 

My dad elected to not renew. We bought seasons together in 87. He's continued to buy seasons every year since. He's had his fill of paying to watch poor-to-mediocre hockey. He figures by the time they are good enough to be worthy of going to every game again he'll be too old to want to walk the stairs and sit for most of 3 hours in a cramped seat. As it is those stairs and seats are an issue for him now.

[IKnowPhysics]

I'm sure StubHub will have some seats available for ya. lol

 

Heh, maybe cheaper than season ticket prices.

[beerme1]

My dad elected to not renew. We bought seasons together in 87. He's continued to buy seasons every year since. He's had his fill of paying to watch poor-to-mediocre hockey. He figures by the time they are good enough to be worthy of going to every game again he'll be too old to want to walk the stairs and sit for most of 3 hours in a cramped seat. As it is those stairs and seats are an issue for him now.

 

Club seats. Front has great leg room!

 

 

 

Heh, maybe cheaper than season ticket prices.

 

Heh, sure as hell was last year and most likely this year too. In fact they have the club seats now priced where it's very difficult to break even if you have to sell a gameas a season ticket holder.

 

Eleven you looking for someone else to split tickets with? I know someone who's been looking but I think he is looking 300 level

 

[Eleven]

And now he has reversed course. We're back in, apparently. At least for today.

[Taro T]

And now he has reversed course. We're back in, apparently. At least for today.

My condolences. At least for today.

[beerme1]

And now he has reversed course. We're back in, apparently. At least for today.

 

Dammit! I was gonna get rid of a mini pack to you.

 

Seriously though wont the seats be gone? Deadline was a long time ago.

 

[Andrew Amerk]

I used my mini pack to purchase tix to one game. Yay.

[Eleven]

 

 

Dammit! I was gonna get rid of a mini pack to you.

 

Seriously though wont the seats be gone? Deadline was a long time ago.

 

He had put the deposit down.

[Stoner]

According to section 49.3(d) of the CBA, teams that have gate receipts less than 75% of the league average are eligible for revenue sharing, as subject by the Revenue Sharing Oversight Comittee. Clubs that are eligible must submit a business plan to the RSOC, and funds are subject to plan approval and successful execution of the plans.

 

According to Forbes, Sabres are 20th in revenue. The total gate receipts for the NHL are $906M, averaging $30.2M. Sabres gate receipts are $22M, 72.8% of the league average. That makes us eligible for revenue sharing, but those funds are subject to providing RSOC with a plan ans successfully executing that plan. Hence the Sabres' ticket price increase. Note that gate receipt increases trail ticket price increases by about 1%, so the Sabres effectively have planned to increase ticket prices 4%, expecting a gate receipt increase of 3%. This plan, added to the 72.8%, safely meets the required 75%.

 

Within 1%, they're executing the plan that RSOC required of them to be eligible for revenue sharing. I couldn't find the revenue sharing amounts, but it's definitely more than the planned ($22M x 3%) $0.66M increase of the gate receipts.

 

And the season ticket holders, who pay for much of the increase in ticket prices, are getting rebates in SabreBucks to the tune of 6.5%, which by my math is probably between $1M and $1.5M, more than the actual increase in gate receipts.

 

I think it's a good circumvention of the CBA: increase the gate receipts to appease the league and remain eligible for revenue sharing and give the money back in rebates to season ticket holders. The only downsides are that only STH's are benefitted and rebate are only in SabreBucks.

Thanks iknowphysics,

Great summary.

 

Great summary, except totally wrong.

 

I rest my case.

[X. Benedict]

Great summary, except totally wrong.

 

I rest my case.

In a world where "required" means "optional" and Ted Black is simply lying about a "mandate," and players unions create oversight committees that do nothing of importance to insure their revenues, you are right.

 

I rest too.

[Stoner]

In a world where "required" means "optional" and Ted Black is simply lying about a "mandate," and players unions create oversight committees that do nothing of importance to insure their revenues, you are right.

 

I rest too.

 

This isn't about semantics. You praised someone who had it totally wrong. Own it.

[X. Benedict]

This isn't about semantics. You praised someone who had it totally wrong. Own it.

 

 

I still think he's got it right. Sabres tickets are under-priced. The Players get to see the books as they share that gate. Sabres have to have a plan.

 

Unions win. Collective bargaining wins.

 

(Fans lose in this case, but Unions win.)

 

Done.

[Stoner]

I still think he's got it right. Sabres tickets are under-priced. The Players get to see the books as they share that gate. Sabres have to have a plan.

 

Unions win. Collective bargaining wins.

 

(Fans lose in this case, but Unions win.)

 

Done.

 

The CBA doesn't require the Sabres to have a plan unless their ticket revenues fall below 75% of the league average. And they don't even lose their revenue sharing if that happens.

 

That's a small, esoteric debate. The larger question is how Ted Black manipulates the indifference of the media to get the story right and the tendency of most fans to accept "conventional wisdom." Ted is more than happy to allow the perception to be out there that the Sabres have to raise ticket prices in order to get revenue sharing. He knows it isn't true, which is why he slips in slimy, lawyerly words like "jeopardize" revenue sharing (by not raising ticket prices). He's not gutsy enough to say what Hank and others said: "we can raise ticket prices and get away with it, so we're going to."

 

I just heard a clip of Ted on WGR praising John Vogl's story about how revenue sharing works. No wonder Ted praised it. John got it wrong, and it served Ted's purposes perfectly.

 

While it’s possible fans could catch a break on tickets, the league’s collective bargaining agreement makes it unlikely. Here’s why:

 

1. Teams such as Chicago, Philadelphia and Toronto are expected to spend to the cap. To make up for the hike, they’ll probably raise ticket prices.

 

2. The CBA dictates that clubs that receive revenue sharing must keep pace with the league’s average ticket price. If the teams fall below 75 percent of the average they “shall be required to submit to the league and Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee a forward-looking three-year business plan to establish a framework for improving its financial performance.”

 

In other words, if a bunch of teams charge more, the Sabres need to follow suit in order to get a revenue-sharing check ....

 

http://www.buffalone...mplate=printart

 

John, the Sabres already have their revenue sharing check. In order to keep it? Maybe. Even that's questionable, if you read the CBA, which is much less punitive in this area than the previous CBA.

Edited September 20, 2014 by PASabreFan

[X. Benedict]

The CBA doesn't require the Sabres to have a plan unless their ticket revenues fall below 75% of the league average. And they don't even lose their revenue sharing if that happens.

 

That's a small, esoteric debate. The larger question is how Ted Black manipulates the indifference of the media to get the story right and the tendency of most fans to accept "conventional wisdom." Ted is more than happy to allow the perception to be out there that the Sabres have to raise ticket prices in order to get revenue sharing. He knows it isn't true, which is why he slips in slimy, lawyerly words like "jeopardize" revenue sharing (by not raising ticket prices). He's not gutsy enough to say what Hank and others said: "we can raise ticket prices and get away with it, so we're going to."

 

I just heard a clip of Ted on WGR praising John Vogl's story about how revenue sharing works. No wonder Ted praised it. John got it wrong, and it served Ted's purposes perfectly.

 

 

 

http://www.buffalone...mplate=printart

 

John, the Sabres already have their revenue sharing check. In order to keep it? Maybe. Even that's questionable, if you read the CBA, which is much less punitive in this area than the previous CBA.

 

You are reading a quid pro quo where there isn't one.

 

Required is the language that Sabres must submit a plan. It doesn't guarantee any league check at all. (If you keep reading the contract).

 

The original revenue shortfall is the revenue the Sabres have to collect through operations to share with players.

 

You think the club can simply opt out and forego a tidy check. That's not how it works. They still need a plan whether they get a growth fund check or not.

[Stoner]

You are reading a quid pro quo where there isn't one.

 

Required is the language that Sabres must submit a plan. It doesn't guarantee any league check at all. (If you keep reading the contract).

 

The original revenue shortfall is the revenue the Sabres have to collect through operations to share with players.

 

You think the club can simply opt out and forego a tidy check. That's not how it works. They still need a plan whether they get a growth fund check or not.

 

What's so hard about cutting and pasting the section of the CBA that says the Sabres are required to submit a plan to the players?

 

Widening out:

 

I'm not saying that because Terry is wealthy that ticket prices should never go up. I object to the annual increases, some of them quite healthy, that have added up to a significant ding on season ticket holders while the product has gone into the ditch. It's ham-handed. But these are the guys who gave us a "sorry, fans" after the lockout that amounted to a discount in the Sabres Store, a ticket increase letter that arrived on Fan Apprecation Night (Day), the turdburger third jersey and so on.

 

I've never blamed Terry for any of this. He came in aware that raising ticket prices right away would look bad, but someone (Ted Black cough cough) talked him out of it. Terry meddles so much on the hockey side, he probably doesn't have much energy left to get involved in the business side.

 

There wouldn't have been anything wrong with no ticket increase in Terry's first year (acting on the spirit of his remarks on Day One that he wasn't in it to make money and he didn't want to ride into town as some rich dude, with the recession still going full steam, and raise prices) or after last season's aborted fetus. It could have cost the Sabres between 25 and 50% of their revenue sharing check the first season, but not raising ticket prices after last season wouldn't have cost them anything. (Which is why I also object to Ted Black blaming revenue sharing and the CBA for the increase.)

 

I understand the unwritten obligation to the players to increase revenues. Is it the right thing to do? I suppose. Doing the right thing for the fans also should come into play, if only for the PR value of it. And who's to say a one-year hold on ticket prices couldn't be offset by other revenue streams? Are corporate sponsors and advertisers also being nicked like the little guy?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Wouldn't a valid plan to increase revenues be:

 

1) We plan on spending to the cap as to field the most competitive team possible

 

2) By spending to the cap, given our pronouncement that we already have 800 scouts, the greatest facility and training regiment in the world, and the advantage of a rabid Hockey Heaven fanbase that would be of great advantage in the playoffs, we foresee the team to make it to the 2nd round of the NHL playoffs on average.

 

3) Because there is no player salary in the playoffs under the CBA, we forsee no cost, and (6 games x 18,000 tickets x $80 seat avg.) , when along with merchandise sales, will bring in an extra $13 million in revenue for the team.

 

4) Given that with us actually attempting to win and spending to the cap, we will increase the overall competitiveness of the league, thus leading to anticipated longer playoff series for all involved, thus raising league revenues, and net profits given no salary needs to be paid out.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

5) Ahhhh...who we kidding? I'll just spend $15 million under the cap, hand out patronage jobs at $75K a year to every ex-Sabre still alive....and let those suckers line up the next 5 years as we suck balls....

[MattPie]

Wouldn't a valid plan to increase revenues be:

 

1) We plan on spending to the cap as to field the most competitive team possible

 

2) By spending to the cap, given our pronouncement that we already have 800 scouts, the greatest facility and training regiment in the world, and the advantage of a rabid Hockey Heaven fanbase that would be of great advantage in the playoffs, we foresee the team to make it to the 2nd round of the NHL playoffs on average.

 

3) Because there is no player salary in the playoffs under the CBA, we forsee no cost, and (6 games x 18,000 tickets x $80 seat avg.) , when along with merchandise sales, will bring in an extra $13 million in revenue for the team.

 

4) Given that with us actually attempting to win and spending to the cap, we will increase the overall competitiveness of the league, thus leading to anticipated longer playoff series for all involved, thus raising league revenues, and net profits given no salary needs to be paid out.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

5) Ahhhh...who we kidding? I'll just spend $15 million under the cap, hand out patronage jobs at $75K a year to every ex-Sabre still alive....and let those suckers line up the next 5 years as we suck balls....

 

Spending to the cap now reduces flexibility later unless you find a bunch of good players (that are UFA, no less) that'll take 1-yr deals. Or, we have cap room to take on bad contracts. You want Stafford for a second? How about Stafford for a first and your underachiever on the last year of a contract?

[LastPommerFan]

Ghost, you could improve your argument by not conflating Hockey Related Revenue, Average Ticket Receipts, and Operational Margin.

 

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Ghost, you could improve your argument by not conflating Hockey Related Revenue, Average Ticket Receipts, and Operational Margin.

 

I don't understand. Is it as simple as increasing THEIR gross revenue? The leagues' gross revenue? If so, it's simple. I'm just showing that it not only increases revenues, but could increase the bottom line. Does the league make more money if buffalo has a playoff game or Columbus? If they get a take of the merchandise...i'm guessing Buffalo.

 

The increase in salary outlay can be argued will retain highly skilled players from bolting overseas, and keep older players playing longer. A more competitve league....more teams in the hunt during the regular season for longer....more fans in the stands...longer playoff series...

 

They just need a PLAN....it doesn't have to work, for them to get the revenue sharing money.Heck, they can submit it and document Richards, Callahan, whoever, rejecting them and their gazillion dollar offer....they can say..."that was the plan, we tried, see?"

 

This is as valid of a plan as raising ticket prices. The problem is....the fans eat all the risk as it currently stands.

 

Spending to the cap now reduces flexibility later unless you find a bunch of good players (that are UFA, no less) that'll take 1-yr deals. Or, we have cap room to take on bad contracts. You want Stafford for a second? How about Stafford for a first and your underachiever on the last year of a contract?

 

We played this game 2 offseasons ago when the cap went down. Darcy could have traded Miller/Vanek/Stafford/Myers/Ehrhoff and cut Leino. He could have acquired 5 extra 1st round picks in the 2013 draft, which was deemed much deeper than 2014. He then could have taken advantage of the DECREASE in cap where teams had to release quality players to get under. He could have had 7 1st round picks developing in juniors the past 2 years on top of Girgensons and Grigorenko....then had over $30 million per year to sign 6 or 7 REAL players in the $3-7 million per year range for 3 years. You let all the kids develop those 3 years and sprinkle some in....and meanwhile you have an actual team capable of winning out on the ice.

 

Instead....you got what you got.....and a healthy increase in ticket prices each year.....

[LastPommerFan]

Ghost, good faith negotiations and adherence to the contract are cornerstones of Collective Bargaining and Labor Rights in North America. The players are only interested in seeing league wide revenue improve. Buffalo playoff games at the expense of another team playing are a wash as far as they are concerned. Buffalo must submit a plan in good faith that they believe will increase the size of the pie. Without ticket prices included, it absolutely could not be considered a good faith effort. But they don't care if Pegula gives that money right back to me (like he did this year) because they don't care about margin, only revenue.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Ghost, good faith negotiations and adherence to the contract are cornerstones of Collective Bargaining and Labor Rights in North America. The players are only interested in seeing league wide revenue improve. Buffalo playoff games at the expense of another team playing are a wash as far as they are concerned. Buffalo must submit a plan in good faith that they believe will increase the size of the pie. Without ticket prices included, it absolutely could not be considered a good faith effort. But they don't care if Pegula gives that money right back to me (like he did this year) because they don't care about margin, only revenue.

 

The players would see an extra $10-15 million in salary.....it would keep more tenured players in the game....it would make the league more competitive....thus having more ###### in the seats in February, March, and April, and would most likely extend the average playoff series. Not just for the Sabres....for the entire league.

 

How is that not a good faith plan? Those are all variable revenue streams.

 

It's called Investment.

 

And we went through this....Pegula didn't give the money right back to you. He gave you a credit voucher that can only be used at HIS establishment....which in turn gives a % to the league...with hopes that when you take that extra $20 voucher to the SabreStore along with your son, you hear, "Dad? Why do I have to get the $19 pennant? Why can't I have the Cody McCormick jersey? (ERV $159)"

[LastPommerFan]

The players receive the exact same amount of salary regardless of whether the Sabres are at the cap or at the floor. The league wide salary is the same, no matter what.

 

The sabres being better doesn't make the league more money. Not enough to not include ticket prices. They are the single biggest lever that can be pulled. Any economic analysis would show that it will increase revenues, the sabres will still have a waiting list. There is no way you could formulate a plan that would pass "good faith" muster that did not include ticket prices.

 

And I by food and beer at every game. As far as my wallet is concerned, he gave it right back to me.