SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The artificiality of the "sellout streak" is well-documented and ownership will almost certainly continue to buy-up any unsold tickets. As for next season, I don't expect there to be all that great of a drop in ticket sales and fan interest in the Vancouver market. However, I also don't think that the Canucks are quite as insulated as they used to be and fan displeasure might eventually start noticeably effecting the bottom line. For that to really happen though, the Canucks would likely need to miss the playoffs (which is certainly possible, depending on what management does over the next few seasons). That all said, I do sense that fan loyalty has shifted into a little more of a precarious position for the Canucks and hopefully ownership is taking notice of this. It's probably hard for the Aquilinis to imagine the franchise not drawing the usual support from the hockey mad Vancouver market (or possibly this market is better stated as "big league sports mad" because if one of the other leagues in the North American big-four were to come to town, I think the Canucks would be vulnerable and their market share would take a hit). The Canucks are the big game in town and, with respect to the Lions and Caps, they are the only prestige sports brand in this city. The public financials are pretty impressive, with Forbes' latest report showing the Canucks with $143 million in annual revenue and an operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) of $30.4 million. And those numbers fail to take into account the widespread creative/Hollywood accounting practices (where expenditures are inflated and profits are hidden) in professional sports. I really hope that Canucks fans are sincere about voicing their displeasure through their pocketbooks. If the franchise fails to properly navigate the dangerous waters ahead and the Canucks fail to produce a good on-ice product and results, then ownership needs to bear the consequences and feel a squeeze to their bottom line. Some recent rumblings have concerned me however. I've heard mention, from a few different sources, that the Aquilinis may be very reluctant to take on compliance buyouts and might force Gillis to retain a guy like Ballard if he's untradeable. If this is truly the case, and ownership isn't willing to eat a contract or two (if all other options are exhausted) to allow the team the cap space to ice the most competitive roster possible, then maybe the Aquilinis deserve to lose some money. Hopefully, ownership realizes that it's better to spend money themselves than to lose more (than they'd save by not spending) if the fans are unhappy enough to stay away from the games and stop buying merchandise. Unfortunately, given how profitable the team has been up to now, and the fact that the new CBA only increases ownership's piece of the pie, it would take a monumental shift in fan attitudes and practices before the Canucks would really feel any kind of pinch to their profits. The Aqualinis have, to date, shown a great willingness to spend money (annual player salaries are consistently near the cap ceiling and there's been significant spending in non-cap areas) so hopefully that continues and they'll spend the maximum the system allows--including compliance buyouts--if it'll make the team better. For ownership to maintain the trust of the fans, they need to give the impression that they're doing everything they can to make the hockey team as good as it can possibly be. While the franchise has given this city the most competitive and successful period of NHL hockey it's ever experienced, the disappointments of the past two playoffs have started to erode the goodwill that was banked by multiple division titles, a couple Presidents' Trophies, and the Stanley Cup run. The Canucks certainly aren't yet facing anything like a major backlash from the fanbase as a whole, but it feels like they are on shakier ground than they've been for quite a while and ownership would be well-advised to tread carefully. It's better business (even with the cost of compliance buyouts and the like) for ownership to maintain the current relationship with the fans rather than pursue a course where they risk having to rebuild the relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Well, after 15 years as an ice pack holder, my wife and I just cancelled. Take it for what it's worth, though. We live in Abbotsford, and are just about to have our second kid. But, the reality is that ice packs are all but unaffordable for young families like mine, especially when you are forced to buy a terrible pre-season game and a handful of other awful games like Nashville, Phoenix, Columbus, etc, etc. I am not naive enough to think that me cancelling my tickets will have any kind of serious impact, but, rest assured, if the team continues to trend in the wrong direction, others will follow suit. Rising ticket prices+ poor quality hockey+ an underachieving team will eventually lead to some sort of backlash. What's wrong with Nashville? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbdoubleu Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I didn't even know Canucks faithful got out to games. If winning the division and re-tooling is dark times I guess you weren't around in the late 90's. It was so bad, people almost gave basketball a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I don't think they'll have a problem selling the 1,200 tickets per game that are not designated as seasons tickets. Season tickets that aren't renewed will just be picked up by someone on the 10,000 name long waiting list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The artificiality of the "sellout streak" is well-documented and ownership will almost certainly continue to buy-up any unsold tickets. As for next season, I don't expect there to be all that great of a drop in ticket sales and fan interest in the Vancouver market. However, I also don't think that the Canucks are quite as insulated as they used to be and fan displeasure might eventually start noticeably effecting the bottom line. For that to really happen though, the Canucks would likely need to miss the playoffs (which is certainly possible, depending on what management does over the next few seasons). That all said, I do sense that fan loyalty has shifted into a little more of a precarious position for the Canucks and hopefully ownership is taking notice of this. It's probably hard for the Aquilinis to imagine the franchise not drawing the usual support from the hockey mad Vancouver market (or possibly this market is better stated as "big league sports mad" because if one of the other leagues in the North American big-four were to come to town, I think the Canucks would be vulnerable and their market share would take a hit). The Canucks are the big game in town and, with respect to the Lions and Caps, they are the only prestige sports brand in this city. The public financials are pretty impressive, with Forbes' latest report showing the Canucks with $143 million in annual revenue and an operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) of $30.4 million. And those numbers fail to take into account the widespread creative/Hollywood accounting practices (where expenditures are inflated and profits are hidden) in professional sports. I really hope that Canucks fans are sincere about voicing their displeasure through their pocketbooks. If the franchise fails to properly navigate the dangerous waters ahead and the Canucks fail to produce a good on-ice product and results, then ownership needs to bear the consequences and feel a squeeze to their bottom line. Some recent rumblings have concerned me however. I've heard mention, from a few different sources, that the Aquilinis may be very reluctant to take on compliance buyouts and might force Gillis to retain a guy like Ballard if he's untradeable. If this is truly the case, and ownership isn't willing to eat a contract or two (if all other options are exhausted) to allow the team the cap space to ice the most competitive roster possible, then maybe the Aquilinis deserve to lose some money. Hopefully, ownership realizes that it's better to spend money themselves than to lose more (than they'd save by not spending) if the fans are unhappy enough to stay away from the games and stop buying merchandise. Unfortunately, given how profitable the team has been up to now, and the fact that the new CBA only increases ownership's piece of the pie, it would take a monumental shift in fan attitudes and practices before the Canucks would really feel any kind of pinch to their profits. The Aqualinis have, to date, shown a great willingness to spend money (annual player salaries are consistently near the cap ceiling and there's been significant spending in non-cap areas) so hopefully that continues and they'll spend the maximum the system allows--including compliance buyouts--if it'll make the team better. For ownership to maintain the trust of the fans, they need to give the impression that they're doing everything they can to make the hockey team as good as it can possibly be. While the franchise has given this city the most competitive and successful period of NHL hockey it's ever experienced, the disappointments of the past two playoffs have started to erode the goodwill that was banked by multiple division titles, a couple Presidents' Trophies, and the Stanley Cup run. The Canucks certainly aren't yet facing anything like a major backlash from the fanbase as a whole, but it feels like they are on shakier ground than they've been for quite a while and ownership would be well-advised to tread carefully. It's better business (even with the cost of compliance buyouts and the like) for ownership to maintain the current relationship with the fans rather than pursue a course where they risk having to rebuild the relationship. Good write Sid. It (fan reaction) won't all happen overnight, rather it will be a slow shift based upon how Gillis performs in the summer and the new coach prepare the team for the playoffs next season. Fans in this market are fickle. We are many poor management decisions away from a return to the hollowed out arena of the 90's, but a partially filled arena is a reality that begins with scalpers releasing some of their seats to wait list fans, then regular folk like The Vancouver Connection and smith80 releasing theirs. That 5 year (if that is what it is now) wait list will get chipped away at pretty quickly. I do not think that the sky is falling mind you, just slipping a little at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I don't think they'll have a problem selling the 1,200 tickets per game that are not designated as seasons tickets. Season tickets that aren't renewed will just be picked up by someone on the 10,000 name long waiting list. They had trouble selling playoff games this year... to the extent they had a 50% off code Why would anyone pay $150 to go see the Wild? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 They had trouble selling playoff games this year... to the extent they had a 50% off code Why would anyone pay $150 to go see the Wild? That's true enough, but those were first round playoff tickets whose prices were jacked up by a ridiculous amount. The team got greedy and @#$!%'ed right up. The discounts were last minute when they realized they'd messed up. I personally know season ticket holders who didn't buy first round tickets because of the huge mark up. And the general public just wouldn't pay the same prices for those first round tickets. Having said that, I agree with many who say the team really alienated a lot of people this past season and that there is a lot more discontent out there. This won't stop the season ticket holders I know from renewing for next season, but they are not happy with the price increases, especially in light of the cap coming down. I think you'll see empty lower bowl seats more often next season for some games, but with the new division realignment bringing teams and stars that we don't see that often, there will be more reasons for people to want to go to games. Factor in the excitement of a new coaching staff, new players and young prospects in the lineup and I think things will be fine with regards to empty seats next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 They had trouble selling playoff games this year... to the extent they had a 50% off code Why would anyone pay $150 to go see the Wild? Even at 50% off they were still more expensive than the regular season. A lot of people's interest in hockey this year was also a result of the lockout, pair that with uninspiring play and you got a problem. If the team makes some changes it will likely perk everyone up. Even though management said they are trading their core, MG only stated his core as being Burrows Kesler Hamhius; he didn't even name the Sedins in that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Okay, this thread mentions something I have read on this site a few times. the opinion that ownership buys tickets to create an artificial sellout. Anyone have real proof of this anywhere? Be an interesting read. I haven't been able to find anything as of yet. (except links to here and other boards) Or is this just a forum opinion that gained truth by being repeated enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Okay, this thread mentions something I have read on this site a few times. the opinion that ownership buys tickets to create an artificial sellout. Anyone have real proof of this anywhere? Be an interesting read. I haven't been able to find anything as of yet. (except links to here and other boards) Or is this just a forum opinion that gained truth by being repeated enough? I think the latter is true, Ive never read or heard any truth to it; I'd put that rumour up there with Eklund. Teams though often give out comp tickets as a way of getting the less fortunate and children out to games but I doubt it's related to making sure the game is sold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 That's true enough, but those were first round playoff tickets whose prices were jacked up by a ridiculous amount. The team got greedy and @#$!%'ed right up. The discounts were last minute when they realized they'd messed up. I personally know season ticket holders who didn't buy first round tickets because of the huge mark up. And the general public just wouldn't pay the same prices for those first round tickets. Having said that, I agree with many who say the team really alienated a lot of people this past season and that there is a lot more discontent out there. This won't stop the season ticket holders I know from renewing for next season, but they are not happy with the price increases, especially in light of the cap coming down. I think you'll see empty lower bowl seats more often next season for some games, but with the new division realignment bringing teams and stars that we don't see that often, there will be more reasons for people to want to go to games. Factor in the excitement of a new coaching staff, new players and young prospects in the lineup and I think things will be fine with regards to empty seats next season. You might be right in that the results of an end to a sell out streak may take longer than a year as even if many of the people DONT renew this year, there is still a rather long list of people ready to take their spots... However, I do feel that there will be a huge movement in the waitlist this year and management will see that as signs of the decline and make changes accordingly. These guys should technically be smarter than us so I'm sure they thought about all this and will use the movement in the waitlist as a buffer that buys them (1 year) to fix things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only reason I lost interest in the nhl is the corrupt officating. There's only so much a gm can do to deal with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only reason I lost interest in the nhl is the corrupt officating. There's only so much a gm can do to deal with that! Yup, its not really fun watching a game where the people in charge have zero accountability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only reason I lost interest in the nhl is the corrupt officating. There's only so much a gm can do to deal with that! He could get rid of the players that give us a bad reputation, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 He could get rid of the players that give us a bad reputation, Yeah he got rid of the coach who let that be a culture of this team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only reason I lost interest in the nhl is the corrupt officating. There's only so much a gm can do to deal with that! I lost interest in the league but not the team. I now only follow the Canucks and don't support the NHL in any other capacity. The NHL needs an audit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Yeah he got rid of the coach who let that be a culture of this team... I honestly think that players on this team forced that culture on this team and the coach/management couldn't stop it; yet we still keep these players. These players were definitely talked to but it's their responsibility to change. They don't change yet they still remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baka Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 It's unlikely that sales take that big of a hit even if the Canucks have a bad season. For reference the last time Vancouver missed the playoffs they averaged 18,630 per game. This season they averaged 18,947 per game (100.2%). The 18,630 is actually more impressive because the Canucks had a little less seating back then if my sources are accurate (that would have been around 101%). Also for reference Vancouver is a bigger hockey city than places like Philadelphia and when Philadelphia finished in last place with a 22-48-12 record and 56 points they only dropped to an attendance of 98.9% (which in a bigger stadium was still an average of 19,282 people per game which was still 7th highest in the NHL) Realistically the worst thing that may happen to the Canucks is prices slightly dip. Even if they stopped selling out it wouldn't be a really noticeable amount of seats at first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 It's unlikely that sales take that big of a hit even if the Canucks have a bad season. For reference the last time Vancouver missed the playoffs they averaged 18,630 per game. This season they averaged 18,947 per game (100.2%). The 18,630 is actually more impressive because the Canucks had a little less seating back then if my sources are accurate (that would have been around 101%). Also for reference Vancouver is a bigger hockey city than places like Philadelphia and when Philadelphia finished in last place with a 22-48-12 record and 56 points they only dropped to an attendance of 98.9% (which in a bigger stadium was still an average of 19,282 people per game which was still 7th highest in the NHL) Realistically the worst thing that may happen to the Canucks is prices slightly dip. Even if they stopped selling out it wouldn't be a really noticeable amount of seats at first. The ticket prices back then are much lower than ticket prices now... it's debatable whether the price increase was worth that much better of an on ice product and that miscalculation could be what results in the sellout streak ending. Dont get me wrong, if prices were lower, canucks would sell out with a .500 team. But if you factor taking a family of 4 could potentially cost you $800-$1000 for a night out, you might as well not go to the 2-3 games you go each year and take your family to Disneyland instead. I'm starting to feel the same way about hockey and pro sports in general. I used to spent quite a bit but after dropping lots of money and being dissapointed, now I actually really enjoy getting premium seats to concerts instead because you get what you expect and always have a good time. Also, I would say it would be easier to sell out back than compared to now because there are less seats available. I'm not sure what percentages you are calculating because selling out 18630 out of 18630 is still a 100% and selling out 18947 out of 18 947 is still a 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Isn't there a 5 year waiting list for season's tickets, and even game packs? They started trying shifty things with people on the wait list this year. I know that they offered to bump people up on the list if they bought like 3 crappy games that nobody was interest in seeing, etc. So stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.