Attendence

r0nster · 02-05-2014, 02:48 PM

Am wondering will attendance be paid or just the ones who shows up and will we see how many season ticket holders per season??? Thinking on finacial aspect

Le Grande Orange · 02-05-2014, 03:27 PM

For the purposes of the game's financial system all that matters is paid attendance. (And doesn't the NFL only report paid attendance?)

r0nster · 02-05-2014, 08:13 PM

baseball does the same thing report only paid attendance but in real world for baseball the stands be packed when you have a winner of a team or even a team that would keep winning therefore the season ticket sales continues to go up and allowing for paid attendance to nearly 90% and allow for individual sales at the gate for the rest which is how baseball does it so the 10% is what really matters. In Football I don't know their financial method of handling things especially with both sports handle luxury seats differently but the only part that's the same is the owner keeps 100% of the money from them seats which is why every owner wants them plus parking revenue and consessions and advertising.

dave1927p · 02-05-2014, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For the purposes of the game's financial system all that matters is paid attendance. (And doesn't the NFL only report paid attendance?)

yeah, in terms of the NFL they don't care so much if the seats are filled as long as it's paid for.

Would be nice to see attendance for the teams history too so you can see how it increases or decrease after several seasons.

Le Grande Orange · 02-06-2014, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0nster

baseball does the same thing report only paid attendance...

The AL, I think, has reported paid attendance for a long time. The NL used to report turnstile counts but switched to paid attendance in the early 1990s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0nster

In Football I don't know their financial method of handling things especially with both sports handle luxury seats differently but the only part that's the same is the owner keeps 100% of the money from them seats which is why every owner wants them plus parking revenue and consessions and advertising.

That's not true insofar as MLB is concerned. ALL locally generated revenue is subject to the revenue sharing system, and has been since 1996.

In the NFL, ticket sales have been shared from almost the beginning, with the visiting team getting 40% of the gate.* In 2001 it was changed such that the visitor's share was pooled and each team in the NFL got an equal share of that pool. There is also some sharing of luxury suite revenue in the NFL, but it's not much. Concessions and local media contracts are not shared. However, these do not form a large proportion of locally generated revenue; in 1999 ticket sales comprised 59.1% of local revenue; local TV and radio, 8.5%; luxury suites, 9.4%; concessions, 3.9%; advertising, parking, and other, 13.3%; miscellaneous, 5.8%. Clearly, ticket sales are the primary source for local club revenue for NFL teams.

*Technically, that's 40% after the home team deducted 15% off the top for stadium and other costs, and after 2% from that was sent to the league office. The 'true' percentage of ticket sales going to the visiting team is thus 33.3%.

r0nster · 02-08-2014, 06:20 AM

the big reason I ask about luxury seats is because owners talk about it a lot when they get new stadium built and the Lions Owner Ford said they want out of the Silverdome because they do not have luxury seats. He later said the reason he wanted that and parking revenue as well as concessions is because he didn't have to share the money and gets to keep 100% of it. Admittedly the stadium was built around 2003 but I do not think the rules for luxury seating has changed that drastically ?? If it has I wonder what the owners will demand next ??

r0nster · 02-08-2014, 06:24 AM

I know baseball doesn't share luxury suites in revenue sharing and if I recall correctly they do not count season ticket holders as part of the 30% going to the visitor team only the days sale. This be due to respective teams receiving the money for the seats during the off season there by exempting them from being included from the 30% visitor compensation.
I can stand to be corrected with new rules which is no problem and if the rules did change always new reasons to learn for we learn new things everyday which is a good thing

Le Grande Orange · 02-08-2014, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0nster

I know baseball doesn't share luxury suites in revenue sharing...

Sorry, but this is not correct. ALL locally generated revenue is shared in baseball. It's right there in the CBAs from 1996 onwards.

Prior to then the only local revenue shared in MLB was ticket sales, which was shared with the visiting clubs (though the rules were different in each league), and some cable TV (not over-the-air TV) broadcast revenue was also shared.

In the NFL, however, ticket sales are the primary revenue source which is shared. There is also some sharing of what is called 'PSL' or 'premium seat licenses', which is essentially club seats and luxury suites. All other local revenue is kept by the club. (Do note, however, that national—that is, revenue which is shared almost equally between all the clubs—is the main source of revenue in the NFL. In 1999 national revenue accounted for 59% of total revenue; local revenue was only 41%.)

r0nster · 02-11-2014, 07:16 PM

Use in the NFL[edit]

Most notable in their use of luxury boxes is the National Football League. Under the NFL's current revenue sharing agreement, teams must forfeit a large portion of their ticket revenues so that the funds can be redistributed among all the teams, particularly those in smaller markets. However, the luxury boxes, quickly becoming a top source of revenue for the franchises, were exempted from this sharing requirement. Because of this as well as the NFL's blackout rule, there has been a rush in recent years to sacrifice seating capacity in favor of the luxury boxes. Teams have used the threat of relocation to press state and local governments for financial assistance to either build new stadiums or renovate older venues.[1] These new stadiums and renovations generally cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The two newest NFL stadiums, AT&T Stadium and MetLife Stadium, each cost over $1 billion. Of the three new NFL stadiums that are confirmed to be opening in the future, Levi's Stadium (2014) and the New Falcons Stadium (2017) are expected to cost at least $1 billion, and Vikings Stadium (2016) is estimated to cost just under that amount.
The luxury box conundrum is one of the reasons why Los Angeles, which has two older stadiums (the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum) that both seat over 90,000 but contain no luxury boxes, still does not have an NFL franchise 16 years after both the Rams and Raiders departed in 1995.

Le Grande Orange · 02-11-2014, 07:32 PM

See the leaked 2011-12 financial statements for the Carolina Panthers posted at Deadspin. In the notes on pages eight and nine it mentions PSL (Permanent Seat License) and supplemental revenue sharing.

In general, all sports clubs want stadiums with more luxury suites/club seats because in addition to the licensing fee charged for the suite/seat, the club also gets the ticket sale since the license usually does not include the ticket needed to see the game. More than likely the concessions and related items sold to patrons of luxury suites/club seats probably have a higher profit margin as well.

Kobeck · 02-15-2014, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

In the NFL, ticket sales have been shared from almost the beginning, with the visiting team getting 40% of the gate.* In 2001 it was changed such that the visitor's share was pooled and each team in the NFL got an equal share of that pool. There is also some sharing of luxury suite revenue in the NFL, but it's not much. Concessions and local media contracts are not shared. However, these do not form a large proportion of locally generated revenue; in 1999 ticket sales comprised 59.1% of local revenue; local TV and radio, 8.5%; luxury suites, 9.4%; concessions, 3.9%; advertising, parking, and other, 13.3%; miscellaneous, 5.8%. Clearly, ticket sales are the primary source for local club revenue for NFL teams.

*Technically, that's 40% after the home team deducted 15% off the top for stadium and other costs, and after 2% from that was sent to the league office. The 'true' percentage of ticket sales going to the visiting team is thus 33.3%.

good stuff. I am a Titan fan and one thing Bud Adams insisted on before moving the Oilers in 97 was a robust radio network. Bud wound up with the largest in the NFL, at least by affeliate count. I was certainly under the impression that Bud got that revenue and not the NFL. Combine that with the Titans controlling their 4 preseason broadcasts and I think local media is as big as ticket sales.

Le Grande Orange · 03-18-2014, 05:47 PM

The question raised in this thread of attendance at football games got me interested in the subject, so I decided to take a deeper look into it. The first thing I've noticed is that there seems to be very little data available online on the subject. The best I've been able to find so far was at The Football Database, which has game-by-game attendance figures for each season from 1996 onwards. (Just finding annual team total attendance figures has been tricky so far, never mind game-by-game data.)

Printed sources are better, i.e. the annual NFL Record & Fact Book and The Sporting News Pro Football Guide. But even then there are inconsistencies.

While the most recent NFL Record & Fact Book editions list the paid attendance figures for the individual clubs, earlier editions do not. The 1989 edition, for example, lists for each club what seems to be the in-stadium attendance, not the paid attendance, because in the section of the book listing paid attendance, the figures are different. So even the NFL itself—at least in its earlier own reference works—wasn't using uniform data.

I've gone through old editions of The Sporting News online and recorded the attendance, as listed in the published box scores, for each game of the 1969 and 1970 seasons. Interestingly, while from the mid-1980s and on in-stadium attendance was below paid attendance, in the 1969-70 seasons in-stadium attendance was above paid attendance. (Or at least, the total attendance from the individual games resulted in a figure above what the NFL published as total paid attendance for those seasons in its 2013 Record & Fact Book.)

Indeed, looking at the TSN box score attendance in 1969-70, it seems a number of NFL clubs had full capacity crowds for most or even all of their games.

There are other elements I could discuss, but I'll leave that for later. In terms of modelling attendance for BTS, having real-world reference data is, it seems to me, very valuable. So I'll most likely keep researching the TSN box score attendance data, along with attendance data I can find in printed references. (Along the way I'll try to dig up other info too, such as financial figures and rule changes. I've already found a few little things on these fronts.)

02-05-2014, 02:48 PM	#1
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,002	Attendence Am wondering will attendance be paid or just the ones who shows up and will we see how many season ticket holders per season??? Thinking on finacial aspect

02-05-2014, 03:27 PM	#2
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,403	For the purposes of the game's financial system all that matters is paid attendance. (And doesn't the NFL only report paid attendance?)

02-05-2014, 08:13 PM	#3
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,002	baseball does the same thing report only paid attendance but in real world for baseball the stands be packed when you have a winner of a team or even a team that would keep winning therefore the season ticket sales continues to go up and allowing for paid attendance to nearly 90% and allow for individual sales at the gate for the rest which is how baseball does it so the 10% is what really matters. In Football I don't know their financial method of handling things especially with both sports handle luxury seats differently but the only part that's the same is the owner keeps 100% of the money from them seats which is why every owner wants them plus parking revenue and consessions and advertising.

02-08-2014, 06:20 AM	#6
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,002	the big reason I ask about luxury seats is because owners talk about it a lot when they get new stadium built and the Lions Owner Ford said they want out of the Silverdome because they do not have luxury seats. He later said the reason he wanted that and parking revenue as well as concessions is because he didn't have to share the money and gets to keep 100% of it. Admittedly the stadium was built around 2003 but I do not think the rules for luxury seating has changed that drastically ?? If it has I wonder what the owners will demand next ??

02-08-2014, 06:24 AM	#7
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,002	I know baseball doesn't share luxury suites in revenue sharing and if I recall correctly they do not count season ticket holders as part of the 30% going to the visitor team only the days sale. This be due to respective teams receiving the money for the seats during the off season there by exempting them from being included from the 30% visitor compensation. I can stand to be corrected with new rules which is no problem and if the rules did change always new reasons to learn for we learn new things everyday which is a good thing

02-11-2014, 07:16 PM	#9
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,002	Use in the NFL[edit] Most notable in their use of luxury boxes is the National Football League. Under the NFL's current revenue sharing agreement, teams must forfeit a large portion of their ticket revenues so that the funds can be redistributed among all the teams, particularly those in smaller markets. However, the luxury boxes, quickly becoming a top source of revenue for the franchises, were exempted from this sharing requirement. Because of this as well as the NFL's blackout rule, there has been a rush in recent years to sacrifice seating capacity in favor of the luxury boxes. Teams have used the threat of relocation to press state and local governments for financial assistance to either build new stadiums or renovate older venues.[1] These new stadiums and renovations generally cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The two newest NFL stadiums, AT&T Stadium and MetLife Stadium, each cost over $1 billion. Of the three new NFL stadiums that are confirmed to be opening in the future, Levi's Stadium (2014) and the New Falcons Stadium (2017) are expected to cost at least $1 billion, and Vikings Stadium (2016) is estimated to cost just under that amount. The luxury box conundrum is one of the reasons why Los Angeles, which has two older stadiums (the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum) that both seat over 90,000 but contain no luxury boxes, still does not have an NFL franchise 16 years after both the Rams and Raiders departed in 1995.

02-11-2014, 07:32 PM	#10
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,403	See the leaked 2011-12 financial statements for the Carolina Panthers posted at Deadspin. In the notes on pages eight and nine it mentions PSL (Permanent Seat License) and supplemental revenue sharing. In general, all sports clubs want stadiums with more luxury suites/club seats because in addition to the licensing fee charged for the suite/seat, the club also gets the ticket sale since the license usually does not include the ticket needed to see the game. More than likely the concessions and related items sold to patrons of luxury suites/club seats probably have a higher profit margin as well.

03-18-2014, 05:47 PM	#12
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,403	The question raised in this thread of attendance at football games got me interested in the subject, so I decided to take a deeper look into it. The first thing I've noticed is that there seems to be very little data available online on the subject. The best I've been able to find so far was at The Football Database, which has game-by-game attendance figures for each season from 1996 onwards. (Just finding annual team total attendance figures has been tricky so far, never mind game-by-game data.) Printed sources are better, i.e. the annual NFL Record & Fact Book and The Sporting News Pro Football Guide. But even then there are inconsistencies. While the most recent NFL Record & Fact Book editions list the paid attendance figures for the individual clubs, earlier editions do not. The 1989 edition, for example, lists for each club what seems to be the in-stadium attendance, not the paid attendance, because in the section of the book listing paid attendance, the figures are different. So even the NFL itself—at least in its earlier own reference works—wasn't using uniform data. I've gone through old editions of The Sporting News online and recorded the attendance, as listed in the published box scores, for each game of the 1969 and 1970 seasons. Interestingly, while from the mid-1980s and on in-stadium attendance was below paid attendance, in the 1969-70 seasons in-stadium attendance was above paid attendance. (Or at least, the total attendance from the individual games resulted in a figure above what the NFL published as total paid attendance for those seasons in its 2013 Record & Fact Book.) Indeed, looking at the TSN box score attendance in 1969-70, it seems a number of NFL clubs had full capacity crowds for most or even all of their games. There are other elements I could discuss, but I'll leave that for later. In terms of modelling attendance for BTS, having real-world reference data is, it seems to me, very valuable. So I'll most likely keep researching the TSN box score attendance data, along with attendance data I can find in printed references. (Along the way I'll try to dig up other info too, such as financial figures and rule changes. I've already found a few little things on these fronts.)