Calgary Flames Experiencing Attendance Issues

[blueandgoldguy]

Why is this excusable in the north but not the south?

I'm thinking it's because it's a recent phenomenon in Canada that has only been happening for a short period of time whereas in many US cities it had been happening for several consecutive years.

Also, there is the matter of gate revenue. Some of those American teams had incredibly low gate revenues on top of low attendance...kind of a double whammy. See Phoenix when they applied for bankruptcy and how low their revenues were at the time as reported in that document. I also thought back in 2011-12 there were reports of Atlanta's incredibly low gate revenues released compared to Winnipeg's early seasons...like less than half even though the average crowds were only 1500 - 2000 apart between the 2 cities, and Atlanta having 30 more suites and probably a thousand more club seats.

I guess this thread is some kind of parody? The Flames will have a new arena in 3 or so years that will have more suites which will likely be more spacious and have their own separate level as opposed to being shoe-horned into the lower bowl of the present arena. The new arena will also feature multiple club areas that will be more expensive, more spacious and have more seats than the present arena. An arena with larger concourses (new arena will be over 300,000 square feet larger than the present arena) and larger screens will provide far greater revenue streams than the Saddledome. Even if they draw 15,000 - 16,000 at this new arena (as opposed to sellouts of 18,500), these advantages alone would likely provide them with an additional $20 - $30 million per year in revenues.

Bottom line - thousands of empty seats now and several years into the future will not result in the flames relocating or becoming a bottom-5 revenue team that is a drag on the NHL. Even with a Canadian dollar valued at .75 US

 

[New User Name]

Good, then they'll get some revenue sharing.

Don't worry folks, Flames will be okay. So will the Jets. We know some of y'all don't wanna see that.

 

[jkrdevil]

There seems to be a theme with all the teams seeing attendance drop…they are all bad. Someone should investigate.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

I'm thinking it's because it's a recent phenomenon in Canada that has only been happening for a short period of time whereas in many US cities it had been happening for several consecutive years.

Also, there is the matter of gate revenue. Some of those American teams had incredibly low gate revenues on top of low attendance...kind of a double whammy. See Phoenix when they applied for bankruptcy and how low their revenues were at the time as reported in that document. I also thought back in 2011-12 there were reports of Atlanta's incredibly low gate revenues released compared to Winnipeg's early seasons...like less than half even though the average crowds were only 1500 - 2000 apart between the 2 cities, and Atlanta having 30 more suites and probably a thousand more club seats.

I guess this thread is some kind of parody? The Flames will have a new arena in 3 or so years that will have more suites which will likely be more spacious and have their own separate level as opposed to being shoe-horned into the lower bowl of the present arena. The new arena will also feature multiple club areas that will be more expensive, more spacious and have more seats than the present arena. An arena with larger concourses (new arena will be over 300,000 square feet larger than the present arena) and larger screens will provide far greater revenue streams than the Saddledome. Even if they draw 15,000 - 16,000 at this new arena (as opposed to sellouts of 18,500), these advantages alone would likely provide them with an additional $20 - $30 million per year in revenues.

Bottom line - thousands of empty seats now and several years into the future will not result in the flames relocating or becoming a bottom-5 revenue team that is a drag on the NHL. Even with a Canadian dollar valued at .75 US

I keep seeing here the low attendance for some clubs is due to the economic conditions. In 2011, we were towards the end of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

 

[11Messier]

I keep seeing here the low attendance for some clubs is due to the economic conditions. In 2011, we were towards the end of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

Exactly. Edmonton was in their decade of suckage during that bad economic time and we still sold out the building year after year. If you want your team to be around, you need to support them (good. or bad, good economy or bad economy). Winnipeg obviously hasn't learned their lesson. They begged and begged to have their team back and promised they would support them through think and thin. By some miracle they got their team back and now that the normal up and down cycle of the team starts trending towards mediocrity, the excuses of why not to go to the games are supposed to be justifiable (roll eyes). For Calgary, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. If they think a new arena is going to be the fix attendance, they are wrong. After the Oilers got their new arena, prices to go to the game, eat at the game, park, etc. skyrocketed. If people are not going the game now because of the economy, just wait for the new ticket prices. If people are not going to the game because the flames suck, well with those long term locked in "star" contracts, I don't think things will be much better in a couple of years. Add both together and I see doom. But I guess as long as city tax payers are on the hook for the building everyone will be happy.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Exactly. Edmonton was in their decade of suckage during that bad economic time and we still sold out the building year after year. If you want your team to be around, you need to support them (good. or bad, good economy or bad economy). Winnipeg obviously hasn't learned their lesson. They begged and begged to have their team back and promised they would support them through think and thin. By some miracle they got their team back and now that the normal up and down cycle of the team starts trending towards mediocrity, the excuses of why not to go to the games are supposed to be justifiable (roll eyes). For Calgary, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. If they think a new arena is going to be the fix attendance, they are wrong. After the Oilers got their new arena, prices to go to the game, eat at the game, park, etc. skyrocketed. If people are not going the game now because of the economy, just wait for the new ticket prices. If people are not going to the game because the flames suck, well with those long term locked in "star" contracts, I don't think things will be much better in a couple of years. Add both together and I see doom. But I guess as long as city tax payers are on the hook for the building everyone will be happy.

So you are agreeing with AtlantaWhaler about low ticket sales being caused by poor economic conditions? And you are solely attributing the decline in attendance to the mediocrity of the Jets? Have you been paying attention to the economy in Canada? We are now in a recession and we have seen prices for things like food and housing increase dramatically over the past 3 years while wages have not kept up (something that didn't happen during the Great Recession in the US). Maybe, just maybe that factors into peoples' and some business choices in buying tickets?

As for the Flames, they can still have thousands of empty seats in the new arena, but it won't matter. They will still pull in tens of millions in additional revenues for the reasons I stated previously - larger and a greater number of suites, larger concourses and larger screens for greater revenue opportunities, larger number of club seats. All of these will be purchased by larger businesses which are less affected by inflation like middle and upper-middle income individuals. I didn't even get into the additional concerts Calgary will be able to attract with the new arena. That should add millions to their coffers as well.

 

[Hank Plank]

Kadri has to stay embrace the tank.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

I keep seeing here the low attendance for some clubs is due to the economic conditions. In 2011, we were towards the end of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

Sure...it doesn't explain the low attendance in the club's early years before the Atlanta Spirit Group bought the team though...

1999-2000 - 17200 per game - owned by AOL-Time Warner
2000-2001 - 15200 per game - still owned by AOL-Time Warner
2001-2002 - 13600 per game - still owned by AOL-Time Warner
2002-2003 - 13,400 per game - still owned by AOL-Time Warner
2003-2004 - 15,100 per game - Owned by Atlanta Spirit Group

It looks like the honeymoon for the Atlanta Thrashers lasted 1 season under AOL ownership. Then attendance dropped by 2,000 per game also under AOL ownership. Then it dropped another 1600 per game under AOL ownership. Still no Atlanta Spirit Group in sight. Then attendance dropped another 200 per game to 13,400 under AOL.

Funny thing is, the following year when ASG had taken over the team the attendance actually rose by 1700 per game, and it's not like the team was good that season. They were still pretty bad finishing 13 points outside the playoffs. We were years away from the Great Recession at this point.

So why did attendance dip so quickly under the great ownership of AOL and why did it improve in the early years of the evil ASG?

 

[Sorry]

I keep seeing here the low attendance for some clubs is due to the economic conditions. In 2011, we were towards the end of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The 2008 collapse and what is going on right now are very different.

 

[jcs0218]

Canada is experiencing crazy inflation.

Food and housing are barely affordable, even for people and families making decent income.

Spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on a 3-hour hockey game isn't the #1 priority, especially when the product on the ice is bad.

 

[Paper]

I got upgraded from the press level seating to lower bowl tonight. When we got upgraded there was not a lot of people in the PL zones so I'm assuming a lot of us got moved down.

But best bang-for-buck I've had at a hockey game since the mid 1990s. $60 CAD (so like maybe 30 cents American) for 2x 5th row tickets, popcorn, pops, hot dogs and malts. Kid doesn't have the attention span to care if they win the game, so works out alright for me.

 

[Skeksis25]

Bad teams will and should have attendance issues. You shouldn't get to rely on a fanbase willing to pour money into your organization even for a terrible product out of a sense of loyalty to the team. Provide a product that will entice people to want to invest their time and money into. Its dumb how many people act like the solution should instead be, "We'll just move somewhere where the people's fandom is more willingly exploited."

 

[Paper]

Its dumb how many people act like the solution should instead be, "We'll just move somewhere where the people's fandom is more willingly exploited."

Those people are Murray Edwards.

Or at least his bullshit bluffs he likes to do.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

The 2008 collapse and what is going on right now are very different.

Sure, the reasons for the bad conditions are different.

Both inflation and having an unemployment rate above 9% for two years both make it pretty difficult for a mass of people to buy tickets.

America has also been experiencing inflation for years as well.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Its dumb how many people act like the solution should instead be, "We'll just move somewhere where the people's fandom is more willingly exploited."

Tell me about it.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Sure...it doesn't explain the low attendance in the club's early years before the Atlanta Spirit Group bought the team though...

1999-2000 - 17200 per game - owned by AOL-Time Warner
2000-2001 - 15200 per game - still owned by AOL-Time Warner
2001-2002 - 13600 per game - still owned by AOL-Time Warner
2002-2003 - 13,400 per game - still owned by AOL-Time Warner
2003-2004 - 15,100 per game - Owned by Atlanta Spirit Group

It looks like the honeymoon for the Atlanta Thrashers lasted 1 season under AOL ownership. Then attendance dropped by 2,000 per game also under AOL ownership. Then it dropped another 1600 per game under AOL ownership. Still no Atlanta Spirit Group in sight. Then attendance dropped another 200 per game to 13,400 under AOL.

Funny thing is, the following year when ASG had taken over the team the attendance actually rose by 1700 per game, and it's not like the team was good that season. They were still pretty bad finishing 13 points outside the playoffs. We were years away from the Great Recession at this point.

So why did attendance dip so quickly under the great ownership of AOL and why did it improve in the early years of the evil ASG?

Those are some big swings. Though, three of those years would have been total sellouts in Peg and all of them higher than current attendance in some markets.

For the early years, I hadn't moved to Atlanta yet, so I'll defer to some of the experts, @nhlfan79 @dj4aces and @GreenHornet

As far as the following year after ASG bought the team, they made the playoffs (the only time) a couple years after they got the team. That did help (slightly) the attendance, but after that, they started 0-6, fired teh coach, and started losing about ~1,000 in attendance every season thereafter. Stuck to the cap floor, dealt Kovalchuk, was suing each other, it was a disaster.

This was a good piece from ESPN after the sale (though I think it's too harsh on Peg):

Burnside: Ownership to blame for Thrashers' failure

 

[nhlfan79]

Those are some big swings. Though, three of those years would have been total sellouts in Peg and all of them higher than current attendance in some markets.

For the early years, I hadn't moved to Atlanta yet, so I'll defer to some of the experts, @nhlfan79 @dj4aces and @GreenHornet

As far as the following year after ASG bought the team, they made the playoffs (the only time) a couple years after they got the team. That did help (slightly) the attendance, but after that, they started 0-6, fired teh coach, and started losing about ~1,000 in attendance every season thereafter. Stuck to the cap floor, dealt Kovalchuk, was suing each other, it was a disaster.

This was a good piece from ESPN after the sale (though I think it's too harsh on Peg):

Burnside: Ownership to blame for Thrashers' failure

Attendance drops in the early years are entirely because the team was objectively terrible by Don Waddell's intentional design. I think they won 14 games the first year, and lost most of the rest by wide margins. It was a horrible, unentertaining product. Hiring a coach for your expansion team who has never coached a single game in the NHL (Curt Fraser) was moronic.

The stated goal was to be competitive by Year Five by building slowly through the draft. They didn't want to go all in so quickly like the Florida Panthers had done in the early 1990s, only to be left without any organizational depth for the next decade. Also, favorable expansion rules currently enjoyed by Vegas and Seattle weren't a thing at the time. Once Ted Turner was out of the picture, the faceless corporate ownership of AOL-TW treated the Thrashers as a meaningless line item on its balance sheet and iced a bargain-basement product as the company itself was collapsing. From a hockey perspective, poor scouting and drafting and a historically terrible 1999 entry draft didn't help. When Patrik Stefan is your best player for a string of years, and (former Flame) Petr Buzek is your all-star representative, your franchise has deep issues.

The start of Year Five was the Heatley-Snyder tragedy, which killed any momentum and generated tons of negative publicity for the team based on Heatley's utter recklessness that cost someone a life. He then negotiated a sweetheart resolution of his legal case (community service, which he never even began) and immediately begged for a trade, and they accommodated him by sending him to Ottawa. Then the following entire season was lost to the lockout. By the time games returned again, ASG had taken over and began its process of disposing of any valuable assets in order to tank attendance and evict/relocate them at the earliest legal opportunity to do so.

 

[dj4aces]

Those are some big swings. Though, three of those years would have been total sellouts in Peg and all of them higher than current attendance in some markets.

Attendance drops in the early years are entirely because the team was objectively terrible by Don Waddell's intentional design. I think they won 14 games the first year, and lost most of the rest by wide margins. It was a horrible, unentertaining product. Hiring a coach for your expansion team who has never coached a single game in the NHL (Curt Fraser) was moronic.

The team was objectively terrible, but it had less to do with Waddell than one may think. First, there was the ever-present reality that most hockey fans exist north of the perimeter, which is where most of the money in metro Atlanta exists. It was true even in 1999, and remains true today.

With that said, Yes, Waddell was ultimately the one who made the signings, but I would also point out what Ferraro said when interviewed for The Athletic's article about the NHL's possible return back in June:

“There was nothing that was right or set up to succeed,” Ferraro said. “(Waddell) was telling me about the budget. They didn’t have one, basically. (Turner was) like, ‘Here are the Hawks, here are the Braves, and you guys get whatever is left over.’”

"What's left" was as follows:
1999-2000: $16,700,000
2000-2001: $17,818,175
2001-2002: $15,220,000
2002-2003: $22,972,500
2003-2004: $28,547,500

The bump in attendance you see between 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 is due exclusively to some optimism fans felt because Turner Broadcasting no longer owned the franchise, that maybe things would be different. In 2005-2006, Atlanta Spirit spent to the salary cap. The fans responded in kind.

It would later be discovered they did that in an attempt to maximize return for the franchise (See: King & Spalding vs Atlanta Spirit LLC), but the franchise couldn't be sold at that time because of the lawsuit between Atlanta Spirit and estranged part-owner Steve Belkin.

The Thrashers had terrible ownership for their entire history in Atlanta. The lesson one can reasonably learn here is, fans will make the trip into town, but only if they feel some sort of optimism, if they think the team shows promise, or if the team is actually any good at all.

 

[robertmac43]

Tickets are pricey, the team is not performing, and life is generally really expensive right now.

Want more people in seats, lower ticket prices.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Fan apathy in Canada.

Uh oh, NHL.

 

[GreenHornet]

The team was objectively terrible, but it had less to do with Waddell than one may think. First, there was the ever-present reality that most hockey fans exist north of the perimeter, which is where most of the money in metro Atlanta exists. It was true even in 1999, and remains true today.

With that said, Yes, Waddell was ultimately the one who made the signings, but I would also point out what Ferraro said when interviewed for The Athletic's article about the NHL's possible return back in June:



"What's left" was as follows:
1999-2000: $16,700,000
2000-2001: $17,818,175
2001-2002: $15,220,000
2002-2003: $22,972,500
2003-2004: $28,547,500

The bump in attendance you see between 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 is due exclusively to some optimism fans felt because Turner Broadcasting no longer owned the franchise, that maybe things would be different. In 2005-2006, Atlanta Spirit spent to the salary cap. The fans responded in kind.

It would later be discovered they did that in an attempt to maximize return for the franchise (See: King & Spalding vs Atlanta Spirit LLC), but the franchise couldn't be sold at that time because of the lawsuit between Atlanta Spirit and estranged part-owner Steve Belkin.

The Thrashers had terrible ownership for their entire history in Atlanta. The lesson one can reasonably learn here is, fans will make the trip into town, but only if they feel some sort of optimism, if they think the team shows promise, or if the team is actually any good at all.

To add on to @dj4aces' assessment on how underwhelming AOL/Time Warner's ownership was, lets remember that following the merger with Turner in the mid-90s, the new board of directors slowly, but surely began to push Ted into the background. And by the time the Thrashers debuted in 1999-2000, it was becoming pretty clear that the new Turner/TW/AOL had little interest in Turner Sports, and had begun the process of divesting itself of the sports teams (it took a little longer with the Braves than it did with the Thrashers/Hawks and Philips Arena).

Lets also remember the shenanigans that took place when TW/AOL began the process of selling off the Thrashers/Hawks/Philips trifecta. They had a handshake deal with David McDavid, but screwed him over in favor of what would become the Atlanta $pirit Septocluster™ (which, BTW, included Ted Turner's son (Beau Turner) and son-in-law (J. Rutherford Seydel). I don't know if they did that to try to throw Ted a bone just to keep him happy or if Ted had any active role in negotiating that. My guess, and it's only a guess, would be the former). Remember also that situation ended up costing TW/AOL nearly $300 million for the lawsuit that McDavid won as a result.

Bottom line is that, as @dj4aces points out, the Thrashers ownership was pretty much always incompetent and either disinterested at best and conniving at worst. About the only thing that would've given them a fighting chance is if McDavid had been allowed to purchase the trifecta, as he had stated interest in all three. It also would've helped if both the NHL and NBA Board of Governors would've better vetted the Septocluster™ and maybe tried to use it's cachet to nudge TW/AOL.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

On another note....how the hell does Edmonton jam 27,511 people into a 19,581 person arena? Standing room for 8,000?

this is including the Heritage Classic...which was 55,000 in attendance

 

[FrankMTL]

this is including the Heritage Classic...which was 55,000 in attendance

Awwwww thanks for clarifying!

 

[SEALBound]

Mediocrity, very high taxes and cost of living in Canada, reduced disposable income, high ticket prices...it all makes sense.

 

[Beerz]

Lower

Ticket

Prices

It's not that simple.. teams have to have ticket prices at a certain point im order to collect revenue from the league.

Buffalo Sabres: Why do they keep raising ticket prices every year?

The Buffalo Sabres have once again raised ticket prices, but is it justified, especially after six seasons without playoff hockey?

tipofthetower.com