|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 13, 2009 2:06:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Feb 13, 2009 9:26:36 GMT -5
Great article Darren! Just one point to consider. The per game total gate revenues chart you used does not include luxury suite revenues in them. This is the other major revenue stream that the rink creates. In-game advertizing is the top 3. A more recent TorStar article broke down the Leafs revenues and their per game seat revenue (as shown in the chart you reference) does not include luxury suites rentals. manitobamythbusters.com/facts_figures/MLSE.pdfI should point out that TN and the new team will receive 100% of all luxury box revenues. Whereas, if you are the LA Kings (LA Clippers, LA Lakers) or Atlanta Thrashers (Atlanta Hawks) you share this total box amount with the other major tenants of the arena. (The NHL CBA has clear parameters on how HRR is determined for shared tenant luxury box suite rentals.) College basketball would also get some sort of cut since those sports are so attractive in the US. So all in all, those hockey teams are probably only getting the hockey portion of the luxury box revenue plus a shared amount for all other events hosted. And this could mean those US NHL teams take is much less than most Canadian teams are or in the case of Winnipeg would be.The new Winnipeg team will be either a contributor to revenue sharing but probably never a revenue sharing drag. But to show that attendances aren't absolutely critical to a new team's success, we used several different attendance averages to prove that point. See page two of: www.manitobamythbusters.com/facts_figures/ManitobaMythbusters.pdfAll the Best! Chris
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 14, 2009 15:44:49 GMT -5
Interesting.
I keep getting conflicting answers with regards to whether luxury suites are counted in gate receipts. Personally I thought it was not, and so that is how I had the numbers crunched. Then I changed it. Now I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by selanne405 on Feb 14, 2009 19:22:58 GMT -5
My only concern though is, as i've previsouly said the seats I had for the Ducks/Flames game were like $235 and were the 2nd priciest in the house, there arent any tickets that expensive on there so do you think we'd make enough money from sales to ice a competitive team?
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Feb 14, 2009 23:22:08 GMT -5
Interesting. I keep getting conflicting answers with regards to whether luxury suites are counted in gate receipts. Personally I thought it was not, and so that is how I had the numbers crunched. Then I changed it. Now I'm confused. We went through the line of thinking over the course of 2008: do these per game gate receipts include or disclude luxury suite rentals? Alot of research found very little info either way. Then this seemingly useless G&M article in fall 08 comes out about the MLSE being worth $1.6 billion. And the story had a related graphic that broke down revenues which clearly show that suites aren't included in the gate numbers we have. Based on that hard fact, we believe the boxes to be outside of those numbers. Now at first I was disappointed, I wanted the Winnipeg numbers to look that much better. So teams having very poor numbers on these charts like say a Chicago, now also have around 200 plus suites for rental too. So they probably are bringing in more money per game than what Winnipeg would bring in, because our potentially better gate numbers would be more than offset by their higher take for luxury boxes. But having started the chase for similar per game reveneus for luxury suites, we realized that shared tenancy is a real bite out of most US teams. And so the story isn't as bad as I imagined before. Especially when you consider that last year the highest season long box rental was over $450,000 USD at MSG. (Can't remember which article I read that out of.) Now when you take the Knicks cut of that out, the Rangers would say get at best half of that, $225K. Or say $435,000 for the Hawks but half of that goes to the Bulls, leaving the Blackhawks over $200K. However, and heres where things get really interesting, we can't assume these boxes are sold out at a given percentage. Firstly, they may go unsold. Probably not in New York or Chicago but we don't need to beat cities this big to prove Winnipeg's case to return to the NHL. Secondly, just because the NHL CBA splits HRR as a given percentage, it doesn't mean that the NHL tenant truly gets that cut. eg. It maybe that the LA Kings might get 33% of total luxury box revenue via the CBA's definition of HRR, but the contract they might have with the Lakers and Clippers may only give the Kings 20 or 25% of the total cut. So having to share your luxury box revenues with say an NBA team (or 2) or a very lucrative college sporting conference such as basketball, really helps the arena owner out by ensuring more nights are filling the building. But if you're an NHL team that isn't owned by the rink owner (or in a relationship that doesn't "share" money back and forth) then that NHL team truly is in an uphill battle compared to NHL team's where no other major tenant exists or where the rink owners are also the team which helps float the NHL team. Many US NHL teams face this scenario, including the troubled ones. So it is conceivable that you can argue that the $7.2 million box revenue the MTSC will pull into TN and hence the new team, will be near average to above average for the NHL. While we continue to hunt for data to prove this gut feel, it does stand to reason when you multiply the number of boxes in each rink, then figure out the number of major tenants and prorate accordingly. So hearing news how busy the MTSC is and how quickly the rink was paid off, gives us much reason to think that the value is there for sustaining luxury box rentals (more concerts = more $$ for season rentals) and also helps build up TN's non-HRR. Chris PS> If anyone has info or articles relating to this topic, by all means, post or email to us!
|
|
|
Post by Darren Ford on Feb 20, 2009 18:38:49 GMT -5
As you'll notice I changed my chart to reflect both revenue totals. Even without suites, we fall into the top 12. With suites Top 8.
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Mar 16, 2009 16:09:37 GMT -5
I really liked the article, but my question is the same. Some suites are super pricey and if the MTS centre has them below $150, will that be good enough?
|
|
|
Post by gee on Apr 7, 2009 12:54:04 GMT -5
I really liked the article, but my question is the same. Some suites are super pricey and if the MTS centre has them below $150, will that be good enough? i didn't see that $150 amount, where was it listed? Was it for ticket cost per seat within the suite? if so, wouldn't that be in addition to the actual suite fees.
|
|
|
Post by ~Jiffy~ on Apr 7, 2009 13:22:53 GMT -5
Posted that awhile ago, can't think where I seen it. I have been in the suites but never paid for it. So I am not sure how much a suite is to begin with. I would assume they are worth well over a couple hundred.... $400 -$500?
|
|
|
Post by Dcmac on May 22, 2009 22:56:26 GMT -5
Just a thought but were radio rights included in the revenue? I'm guessing they're not a lot but it's still revenue!
|
|