|
|
Post by JETStender on Feb 18, 2009 18:57:28 GMT -5
Hurricanes offer three-year freeze on season ticket pricesThree years after winning the Stanley Cup, the Carolina Hurricanes are offering their fans a three-year freeze on season ticket prices. The offer, one of several announced Wednesday by the National Hockey League team, locks in 2008-09 season ticket prices through the 2011-12 season for fans who place a 30 percent deposit now on their 2009-10 season tickets. Season ticket prices for the current season ranged from a low of $946 for seats in the upper corners of the RBC Center, to $5,912.50 for first row seats. The team on Wednesday also introduced a new payment plan for season ticket holders. Fans who buy season tickets now can spread their payments over 11 months, interest free, starting with their deposits in March. The Hurricanes’ other ticket initiatives concern the playoffs. If the team advances beyond the second round, season ticket holders would be able to buy conference finals and Stanley Cup Finals tickets at the same price they paid for second round tickets. One of the few fan complaints during Carolina’s run to the Stanley Cup in 2006 was the dramatic escalation of ticket prices for each round of the playoffs. Carolina hasn’t made the playoffs since 2006. In another change, the Hurricanes will allow season ticket holders for the 2008-09 or 2009-10 seasons to pay up front only for playoff games that definitely will be played. If the team makes the playoffs this year, for example, it will be guaranteed at least two home games. Season ticket holders purchasing playoff seats would be charged only the cost of the tickets for those two games unless the Hurricanes win enough games in the series to guarantee another home game.
|
|
|
|
Post by subwayscoundrel on Feb 19, 2009 10:09:40 GMT -5
Smart marketing without giving away the keys. With the salary cap going down most likely, little downside....especially after 3 years of lackluster play. And fans get the benefits of locking in costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Feb 19, 2009 11:55:22 GMT -5
If teams did this starting three years ago, HHR would not have increased as dramatically which would have reduced the cap increase. The horse is halfway out of the barn by now but it's smart thinking on the part of the 'Canes none the less.
(Yes, I now the cap hikes were due to a lot of other things than ticket prices, namely the Cdn $$$, corporate revenues, increased attendance etc - my point is that things wouldn't have been as accelerated as they were.)
m.
|
|
|
|
Post by WpgJets2008 on Feb 19, 2009 12:05:31 GMT -5
If teams did this starting three years ago, HHR would not have increased as dramatically which would have reduced the cap increase. The horse is halfway out of the barn by now but it's smart thinking on the part of the 'Canes none the less. (Yes, I now the cap hikes were due to a lot of other things than ticket prices, namely the Cdn $$$, corporate revenues, increased attendance etc - my point is that things wouldn't have been as accelerated as they were.) m. But the flipside is, if any team needs revenue sharing and their revenues don't grow at least as fast as a percentage as the rest of the league, then their rev share is clawed back 25% for the first year, 40% for two consecutive years and 50% for 3 years running. If you team doesn't need rev sharing then this is a mute point, but if it does, your hope is that a ticket price cut or price freeze will be more than offset by additional ticket sales. Maybe maybe not. Also, (off topic for sure) this illustrates why the "partnership" between the players and owners really isn't the case. Why? Because business partners would have a say in determining this. Most likely, the players (as the other main partner) weren't consulted with this even though 56% + of every dollar is theirs. But for the players to be considered true business partners, they would also have to shell out for team losses, collect team profits and most importantly put an equal amount into each of the 30 clubs' ownership costs. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Feb 19, 2009 13:53:37 GMT -5
It's a good idea however; the thing is bothers me is the fact this Franchise is stuggling....3 years after winning a CUP!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Feb 19, 2009 14:19:35 GMT -5
It's a good idea however; the thing is bothers me is the fact this Franchise is stuggling....3 years after winning a CUP! Doesn't bother me at all! The more the sunbelt teams struggle the better it is for our cause. It made me sick that during their cup run you could get tickets for their games on a walk-up basis. In Winnipeg ducats would be going for 10x face value on eBay. m. |
|
|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Feb 19, 2009 14:21:25 GMT -5
Doesn't bother me at all! The more the sunbelt teams struggle the better it is for our cause. It made me sick that during their cup run you could get tickets for their games on a walk-up basis. In Winnipeg ducats would be going for 10x face value on eBay. m. No kidding! I should also add that the reason it "bothers me" is due to the fact they are STILL in Carolina!  |
|
|
|
Post by subwayscoundrel on Feb 19, 2009 16:27:49 GMT -5
It's a good idea however; the thing is bothers me is the fact this Franchise is stuggling....3 years after winning a CUP! Sturggling ? Then so is Colorado and even Dallas after cup win and years of success. let's start a sepcial section for them. Canes are going nowhere. For a small market, they do better than most and have more upside potential when the economy turns around than many teams.. Why is this program smart? Because the biggest issue for businesses is to have "Fixed" ocsts This is why so many companies salary plans have moved to sectioned off into "location" and "performance" against job description pay scale....instead of performance to net income. It fixes costs in the future. If a company has 4 seats on the glass tickets ( I know such a company) and their sales are dropping fast with the bad economy, but expect sales to rebound when the economy gets stronger, they know they can lock into same costs for the next 3 years. They can lock a cost for 3 years with only a 30% payment. Really helps keep companies not jumping ship for one year and then look at coming back the following year or when things turn around. Great example and a huge one for cities like Raleigh,Nashville, Dallas and even PHX and even to a sense San Jose ( and others) fast growing cities that have seen development/construction fall of the table. Development will be back , Big and medium contruction and speciality sub-contractors companys along with the Developers who don't get wiped out, are just waiting to get back in the game when the tied turns around. Retention of customers/clients. What smart businesses are doing today. My company is doing it by huge discounts while we pound the suppy chain below us to help make up the margin. |
|
|
|
Post by subwayscoundrel on Feb 19, 2009 16:28:49 GMT -5
If teams did this starting three years ago, HHR would not have increased as dramatically which would have reduced the cap increase. The horse is halfway out of the barn by now but it's smart thinking on the part of the 'Canes none the less. (Yes, I now the cap hikes were due to a lot of other things than ticket prices, namely the Cdn $$$, corporate revenues, increased attendance etc - my point is that things wouldn't have been as accelerated as they were.) m. But the flipside is, if any team needs revenue sharing and their revenues don't grow at least as fast as a percentage as the rest of the league, then their rev share is clawed back 25% for the first year, 40% for two consecutive years and 50% for 3 years running. If you team doesn't need rev sharing then this is a mute point, but if it does, your hope is that a ticket price cut or price freeze will be more than offset by additional ticket sales. Maybe maybe not. Also, (off topic for sure) this illustrates why the "partnership" between the players and owners really isn't the case. Why? Because business partners would have a say in determining this. Most likely, the players (as the other main partner) weren't consulted with this even though 56% + of every dollar is theirs. But for the players to be considered true business partners, they would also have to shell out for team losses, collect team profits and most importantly put an equal amount into each of the 30 clubs' ownership costs. Chris If Winnipeg gets a team, you will change your mind about that "partnership" |
|
