PDA

View Full Version : Attendance vs Payroll


Fenway
08-26-2011, 10:00 AM
Peter Gammons has a formula which shows how attendance and payroll are tied together. While not exact it is does give an indication of what teams can and can not do.

You simply use the Team Marketing Research avreage ticket price

You take the capacity of the park, multiply that by the average ticket price and then multiply that by 81 openings.

Use the Red Sox as an example

37 000 x 57.38 x 81 = 171 967 860
Since the Red Sox sellout all their games they know they can budget $170M or so for payroll. As of now they are at $ 161,762,475

It also can give you an idea of a shortfall if a team is not drawing well

The White Sox are averging 25,148 a game in 2011 so their ticket revenue projects to

25 148 x 40.67 x 81 = 82,844,302

White Sox payroll is $ 127,789,000

So to make payroll the White Sox will have to use ALL of their CSN money (100 games @ 450,000 a game) to meet it.

So when Brooks talks about attendance and payroll he isn't kidding.

Look where the Twins are today ( you know they will be back soon as this year injuries killed them) Their ticket revenue for 2011 projects to 105,623,164..with a payroll of 112 M

The Flubs?
Ticket revenue projects to 141,972,491 with a payroll of $125,047,329

It does show the challenges the White sox have.

https://www.teammarketing.com/public/files/2011_mlb_fci.pdf

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

soxfan1965
08-26-2011, 01:38 PM
It does show the challenges the White sox have.

They need to be more circumspect with these big free agent signings that are busts and handcuff the team for several years. Or else sell a lot more Nacho Helmets.

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 04:32 PM
But Fenway claimed a few days ago that JR could afford to have a high payroll every year if he wanted to but he doesn't.

Peter "the Great's" numbers contradict that.

:?:

Lip

Fenway
08-26-2011, 04:58 PM
But Fenway claimed a few days ago that JR could afford to have a high payroll every year if he wanted to but he doesn't.

Peter "the Great's" numbers contradict that.

:?:

Lip

Lip - one takes new data tools and digest them..and these numbers paint a picture that shows the team's problem.

But it also shows Boston doesn't need the TV money for payroll...the fans are paying the bill.

Maybe MLB needs to start splitting the gate with the visiting team like it was years ago.

voodoochile
08-26-2011, 05:00 PM
What about TV and radio money? Don't the Sox have some of the better revenue from those in the majors? Also what about national TV money doesn't every team receive like 80M from MLB each and every year?

Is Gammons claiming that the rest of the money is needed to cover basic expenses beyond payroll, because if the Sox have $100M in overhead expenses to put it bluntly "they are doing it wrong".

Lip Man 1
08-26-2011, 05:02 PM
Voodoo:

The Sox have at the very least, the richest TV / Radio deals in the division. Don't know how they compare to the rest of baseball.

Lip

wassagstdu
08-26-2011, 05:46 PM
So in order to pay the payroll with ticket sales the average attendance per game would have had to be 38,791. Allowing for several weeks of sub-par attendance in April and a few with marginal weather later, that would have required quite a few sellouts. Might have worked if the Sox had led wire to wire. They really were all in.

Fenway
08-27-2011, 10:14 AM
Of course this raises the classic chicken or egg question. How much of the TV money does the team want to invest in payroll?

We know that the White Sox get 45 million from CSN for 100 games. What they get from WGN/WCIU is a closely guarded secret.

Radio income is very weak for the #3 market but since the team doesn't want to deal with WMVP anymore there really is no station that seems to be interested in bidding - (WLS, WBBM or WIND)

Now does the team or the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (http://www.isfauthority.com/) control the revenue of the advertising panels, scoreboard ads and the ribbon?

The team gets 1/30th of the 'MLB General Fund' which is national tv, internet and merchandising revenue.

In 2011 2 factors hurt the team right out of the gate...a slow start and the weather in April and May was nasty even by Chicago standards.

Still...the biggest problem the team has is getting fans to sit in the upper deck - it seems the team gets stuck at the 27,000 seat level and you see the lower bowl and bleachers full and upstairs ( even at a cheaper price ) almost empty.

From the Trib in 1993
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-11-28/features/0311280008_1_upper-deck-worst-seats-renovation

Even taking away the last 8 rows did not fix the basic design flaw that NO other stadium has....you enter the upper bowl seating area at the bottom.

Every stadium built since has made sure not to do this. It is also important to keep in mind the HOK who designed USCF never had a hit until Camden Yards ( they also at the same time as the new Comiskey designed Tropicana Field which opened in 1990 )

Now...(and try to be objective but I think this is an important point)

Since the PA will NEVER agree to a salary cap - how does MLB address this problem for the common good of all 30 teams. If the fans of New England are willing to bang out Fenway 81 times a year and the team in turn is taking that revenue and investing in payroll then it is what it is.

MLB COULD consider going back to the system that was in place for decades where the visiting team got a percentage of the gate - but otherwise what is the solution?

The irony here in Boston is that former owner John Harrington said the Red Sox could not survive in Fenway Park (http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/bb99har-5.htm)


"Fenway Park as we know it is no longer economically feasible. We need 10,000 more seats. It's as simple as that. And there is no way we can put 10,000 more seats in this ballpark. There are traffic and parking problems already without adding 10,000 more seats and the traffic problems that would come with them.

“When people ask about the future of Fenway Park, I say I just don't think we can expand it. I don't think it would be worth it to increase capacity and still end up with a 1912 ballpark. It wouldn't be worth it to knock the existing facility down and rebuild it unless there were a substantial change in the parking facilities and access.”
- John Henry and company have made Harrington look like an idiot.

roylestillman
08-27-2011, 10:32 AM
What about TV and radio money? Don't the Sox have some of the better revenue from those in the majors? Also what about national TV money doesn't every team receive like 80M from MLB each and every year?

Is Gammons claiming that the rest of the money is needed to cover basic expenses beyond payroll, because if the Sox have $100M in overhead expenses to put it bluntly "they are doing it wrong".

The formuls also does not take into account the Sox lack of debt nor their virtual free occupancy cost of the Cell.

On the other hand the communicative laws of math tells us that according to this formula Payroll / average ticket price = attendance. Seems to be the formula most owners think is right.

GABP
08-27-2011, 10:35 AM
Are you just multiplying the average attendance and average ticket price? Because that is a pretty poor way to calculate ticket revenue...

Fenway
08-27-2011, 10:47 AM
Are you just multiplying the average attendance and average ticket price? Because that is a pretty poor way to calculate ticket revenue...

No it isn't exact but it gives you a good estimate...

Stub Hub is something MLB hasn't quite figured out yet....it works fine for the NFL, NBA or NHL where is most markets those tickets are sold...but MLB has a lot of empty seats they have to fill.

Now say you are on ESPN looking at the White Sox schedule

http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/calendar/_/name/chw/chicago-white-sox

If you click tickets it brings you to Stub Hub -
http://www.stubhub.com/chicago-white-sox-tickets/?gcid=C12289x451&keyword=Tickets+Schedule

How can the White Sox expect to sell anymore seats when prices are that low on SH?

hawkjt
08-27-2011, 11:59 AM
If you add in the WGN/CIU telecast money (maybe 30 million) to the 45 million from ComCast...= 75 million + 82 million ticket sales + (parking,concessions,merchandise) maybe 20-25 million = roughly 180 million,tops. Payroll at 127 million plus minor leagues,front office, ect...maybe break even if lucky.

I expect payroll to dip to 100-110 next year,but JR will still try to win,he is too old for re-building projects.

Hitmen77
08-27-2011, 12:12 PM
Peter Gammons has a formula which shows how attendance and payroll are tied together. While not exact it is does give an indication of what teams can and can not do.

You simply use the Team Marketing Research avreage ticket price

You take the capacity of the park, multiply that by the average ticket price and then multiply that by 81 openings.

Use the Red Sox as an example

37 000 x 57.38 x 81 = 171 967 860
Since the Red Sox sellout all their games they know they can budget $170M or so for payroll. As of now they are at $ 161,762,475

It also can give you an idea of a shortfall if a team is not drawing well

The White Sox are averging 25,148 a game in 2011 so their ticket revenue projects to

25 148 x 40.67 x 81 = 82,844,302

White Sox payroll is $ 127,789,000

So to make payroll the White Sox will have to use ALL of their CSN money (100 games @ 450,000 a game) to meet it.

So when Brooks talks about attendance and payroll he isn't kidding.

Look where the Twins are today ( you know they will be back soon as this year injuries killed them) Their ticket revenue for 2011 projects to 105,623,164..with a payroll of 112 M

The Flubs?
Ticket revenue projects to 141,972,491 with a payroll of $125,047,329

It does show the challenges the White sox have.

https://www.teammarketing.com/public/files/2011_mlb_fci.pdf

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

I wonder how they factor in the fact that the White Sox are co-owners of CSN Chicago. Is $450k the amount that Comcast pays them? Do they equally split the profits of the station?

I also wonder how they factor in the $23 parking fee. The one table does have a column for parking, but obviously some teams have more parked cars/game than others.

Also, how much revenue do the Sox get from luxury suites, scout seats, patio and fan deck parties, etc?

Fenway
08-29-2011, 11:00 AM
If you add in the WGN/CIU telecast money (maybe 30 million) to the 45 million from ComCast...= 75 million + 82 million ticket sales + (parking,concessions,merchandise) maybe 20-25 million = roughly 180 million,tops. Payroll at 127 million plus minor leagues,front office, ect...maybe break even if lucky.

I expect payroll to dip to 100-110 next year,but JR will still try to win,he is too old for re-building projects.

The WGN/WCIU fees are far less than what CSN pays - what they pay is unknown but since the Yankees get $300K for games on WWOR it would have to be lower than that. Broadcast TV at the local level simply can not generate enough revenue to cover that amount. The RSN's can because of the monthly fees they get which over the air TV does not.

However WGN/WCIU may soon be out of the picture. Comcast wants to prevent Ricketts from starting his own Cubbie TV in a few years by starting a second CSN in Chicago and putting the White Sox/Bulls on one and Cubs/Blackhawks on the other. They did this in San Francisco to prevent the Giants from leaving CSN Bay Area (http://www.csnbayarea.com/) so they started CSN California (http://www.csncalifornia.com/) and put the A's there. The plus is both the White Sox and Cubs would then own a larger share of the channel they are on.

Tribune from all accounts would not fight this as long as WGN radio kept the Hawks/Cubs. You might see a 'small' number of Cubs and White Sox games remain on channel 9 ( The Giants have some games on NBC 11 ) but the reality is broadcast TV can not compete with cable on the local level anymore.

Comcast in any event wants to end the overflow situation with CLTV and the 2 baseball teams have their own issues with WCIU doing the WGN overflow,

Hitmen77
08-29-2011, 02:47 PM
In 2011 2 factors hurt the team right out of the gate...a slow start and the weather in April and May was nasty even by Chicago standards.

Still...the biggest problem the team has is getting fans to sit in the upper deck - it seems the team gets stuck at the 27,000 seat level and you see the lower bowl and bleachers full and upstairs ( even at a cheaper price ) almost empty.

From the Trib in 1993
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-11-28/features/0311280008_1_upper-deck-worst-seats-renovation

Even taking away the last 8 rows did not fix the basic design flaw that NO other stadium has....you enter the upper bowl seating error at the bottom.

Every stadium built since has made sure not to do this. It is also important to keep in mind the HOK who designed USCF never had a hit until Camden Yards ( they also at the same time as the new Comiskey designed Tropicana Field which opened in 1990 )


The upper deck didn't seem to be a big issue with fans after 2005. I think what's hurting the Sox is 5+ years of under-achieving on the field. For those early season games, remember that the Sox have dug themselves into an early season hole for 3 years in a row now. In 2009, they were 6.5 out in mid-May and of course we all know about the 2010 and 2011 early season woes. At least in 2009 and '10, they battled back to 1st place in July before their annual late season fade. This year, we didn't even get that.

Attendance has been down 5 years in the row. The only playoff appearance in that time was 2008. Usually, a team gets a ticket sales bounce the following season, but the economic meltdown after 2008 took the wind out of that. I think fans are fed up with management's more-of-the-same attitude more than they are fed up with the upper deck.

...that being said, you do bring up some valid weaknesses about the Cell's upper deck. I would think the entrance at Row 1 shouldn't be an issue for the first 8-10 rows. After that, people do notice that it's a haul from the concourse. There's no practical way to change that, but perhaps there are ways to make the UD more attractive.

I might get flamed for saying this, but maybe it's about time the Sox ended the "no entry to the 100 level" policy for upper deck ticket holders - at least for slow-selling games. I know over crowding in the lower concourse was one reason for the policy, but I doubt that's an issue when they're only drawing 25,000 per game. I don't care what people say about the UD food being good enough and people not needing to come down to the lower concourse, etc. It's still a mindset when you buy those upper deck tickets. You're in the steerage section and you're stuck there. If you want to enjoy some of the LD-only features, forget it.

Maybe there are other ways to improve the feel of the UD concourse. The Sox history murals are a nice touch (though they need to be updated since Sox history didn't end with the Maggs/Foulke era), but maybe they need to do more. How about bigger TV monitors since you can't see the field from the UD concourse. They added monitors a few years ago, but they look tiny up on the walls and it's difficult to see the game on them. Maybe it's the distance, but it just looks like they slapped 46" TV screens way up on the concourse wall. I can't imagine bigger monitors are going to bust their budget.

Just some random ideas: Would it be practical to fully enclose and climate control the upper deck concourse? For the part of the upper concourse along the 3rd base line, can they work in some views of the Chicago skyline from up there? I know the concessions currently block such a view, so this would involve some re-arranging of existing concessions. Maybe there are some fixes possible to make the UD more inviting.:dunno:

Fenway
08-31-2011, 09:34 AM
One attendance stat that would be important to know but impossible to determine is how many people actually attend a game each year? Of 2,000,000 admissions how many go to 30+ games and how many only go to 1 or 2.

Then you have to wonder how large the White Sox fanbase is. My guess is around 2,500,000. The USCF crowd is mainly from Chicagoland itself as the franchise never was able to attract a large fanbase outside of Chicago.

Truth is 35 years ago if Veeck could average 25,000 a game he would be the happiest person in Chicago.

Dan H
08-31-2011, 09:57 AM
The points about the upper deck are well taken. For anyone to say the upper deck doesn't pose a problem attendance-wise is in the ultimate state of denial. Of course, during really successful years people will grit their teeth and sit up there. But it is the frustrating years like this one when fans will be much more picky about whether they go to a game or not. And years like 2011 really hurt the team.

The White Sox have had a chronic attendance problem. Relative to the late '90's it not nearly as bad, but building a stronger fan base has been a problem. Short-term thinking has hurt the franchise, and it will still take time to turn this problem around.

Fenway
08-31-2011, 10:29 AM
The points about the upper deck are well taken. For anyone to say the upper deck doesn't pose a problem attendance-wise is in the ultimate state of denial. Of course, during really successful years people will grit their teeth and sit up there. But it is the frustrating years like this one when fans will be much more picky about whether they go to a game or not. And years like 2011 really hurt the team.

The White Sox have had a chronic attendance problem. Relative to the late '90's it not nearly as bad, but building a stronger fan base has been a problem. Short-term thinking has hurt the franchise, and it will still take time to turn this problem around.

As I pointed out earlier the White Sox seem stuck the 27,000 mark for many games. The proof of the problem is that the higher priced lower bowl will bang out often but the lower priced upper deck remains empty.

I know quite a few fans who will not go upstairs as it denies them full access to the park. The only other park that I can recall not allowing upper deck people downstairs was the Metrodome.

Hitmen77
08-31-2011, 11:08 AM
The WGN/WCIU fees are far less than what CSN pays - what they pay is unknown but since the Yankees get $300K for games on WWOR it would have to be lower than that. Broadcast TV at the local level simply can not generate enough revenue to cover that amount. The RSN's can because of the monthly fees they get which over the air TV does not.

However WGN/WCIU may soon be out of the picture. Comcast wants to prevent Ricketts from starting his own Cubbie TV in a few years by starting a second CSN in Chicago and putting the White Sox/Bulls on one and Cubs/Blackhawks on the other. They did this in San Francisco to prevent the Giants from leaving CSN Bay Area (http://www.csnbayarea.com/) so they started CSN California (http://www.csncalifornia.com/) and put the A's there. The plus is both the White Sox and Cubs would then own a larger share of the channel they are on.

Tribune from all accounts would not fight this as long as WGN radio kept the Hawks/Cubs. You might see a 'small' number of Cubs and White Sox games remain on channel 9 ( The Giants have some games on NBC 11 ) but the reality is broadcast TV can not compete with cable on the local level anymore.

Comcast in any event wants to end the overflow situation with CLTV and the 2 baseball teams have their own issues with WCIU doing the WGN overflow,

I wonder how well this will work out for the Sox? Would revenues from the two channels be split evenly among all the CSN Chicago partners? If not, I can imagine the Sox taking a revenue hit since the Cubs station would draw higher ratings than the Sox station.

Would the 2 stations be simulcasting programming during times when a game isn't being shown? How is this handled in the Bay Area?

As I pointed out earlier the White Sox seem stuck the 27,000 mark for many games. The proof of the problem is that the higher priced lower bowl will bang out often but the lower priced upper deck remains empty.

I know quite a few fans who will not go upstairs as it denies them full access to the park. The only other park that I can recall not allowing upper deck people downstairs was the Metrodome.

In the past, Sox management seemed dead set against ever lifting this policy. Wasn't it put into place because of the Ligue and Dubyas incidents?

As I said earlier, I agree that this has a negative impact on UD ticket sales. I also know some people who will not buy UD tickets since they're restricted from entry to the rest of the park. UD food options have improved in the last few years, but it's still pretty barren up there compared to all the LD has to offer (not just food, but the statues, the fan deck, being able to just hang out in the outfield concourse and watch the game from there). On low attendance games, it can look and feel really desolate in the upper concourse.

Overcrowding in the LD was another reason for the access restriction. If that's the case, then perhaps they can keep the restriction in place for games they expect to have big crowds.

Fenway
08-31-2011, 11:15 AM
Here is how it is split today in the Bay Area

CSN BAY AREA
http://www.csnbayarea.com/pages/tvlisting_bayarea

CSN California
http://www.csnbayarea.com/pages/tvlisting_california


They don't seem to simulcast anything

Hitmen77
08-31-2011, 11:45 AM
Here is how it is split today in the Bay Area

CSN BAY AREA
http://www.csnbayarea.com/pages/tvlisting_bayarea

CSN California
http://www.csnbayarea.com/pages/tvlisting_california


They don't seem to simulcast anything

Conveniently for them, they appear to be able to have 49ers programming on one channel and Raiders programming on the other.

As far as leaving WGN goes, I wonder if the Cubs/Ricketts feel there is something they'd lose there. Since the Cubs built a huge national following thanks to WGN, would they see it as a detriment long-term to no longer have people from all over following the Cubs since they no longer get them over satellite or cable? That makes the Cubs/WGN-TV relationship a bit different that any other team's relationship with their local TV station except for the Braves and WTBS. I know the Sox have been back on WGN for 21 years now, but that never really seemed to translate to a bigger following for them.

Lip Man 1
08-31-2011, 12:42 PM
It's never translated into more of a national following for them because of the day's and time slots that WGN has been giving them.

Like in the 1960's when the Sox originally left WGN, they are "stuck" for wont of a better word, with early Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon games for the most part.

This season for example, I believe there are only two, weekday, "prime-time" telecasts. One was against the Yankees.

Part of that is because the Cubs get first priority because of their relationship with WGN, the second is because there are only so many days when WGN wants to preempt their news and programming. (Although that is no longer the factor it was when they were part of that CW Network)

The issue for the Sox has been, is and will be in the future that there simply isn't the number of big-time independent stations in Chicago that would be willing to take a significant number of Sox games for showing in prime time during the week when fans generally are at home and watch games. On a weekend in the summer, many fans are out and about.

With all due respect channel 26 and channel 32 still have the stigma of being smaller in comparison to channels 2,5,7,9.

Lip

Fenway
09-01-2011, 08:02 AM
The reality of today is a team makes more money per game on cable than over the air.

MLB wants out of market fans to pay via Extra Innings, MLBTV or XM.

WGN will always favor the Cubs because of radio as the team has been on 720 for decades.

CSN Chicago almost has to go to the San Francisco model because of the number of teams involved.

Lip 32 now averages more viewers in prime time than 2,5,7 or 9. Nobody thinks of them as 32 but as Fox Chicago.

It's never translated into more of a national following for them because of the day's and time slots that WGN has been giving them.

Like in the 1960's when the Sox originally left WGN, they are "stuck" for wont of a better word, with early Saturday evening and Sunday afternoon games for the most part.

This season for example, I believe there are only two, weekday, "prime-time" telecasts. One was against the Yankees.

Part of that is because the Cubs get first priority because of their relationship with WGN, the second is because there are only so many days when WGN wants to preempt their news and programming. (Although that is no longer the factor it was when they were part of that CW Network)

The issue for the Sox has been, is and will be in the future that there simply isn't the number of big-time independent stations in Chicago that would be willing to take a significant number of Sox games for showing in prime time during the week when fans generally are at home and watch games. On a weekend in the summer, many fans are out and about.

With all due respect channel 26 and channel 32 still have the stigma of being smaller in comparison to channels 2,5,7,9.

Lip

TDog
09-01-2011, 10:31 AM
Conveniently for them, they appear to be able to have 49ers programming on one channel and Raiders programming on the other.

...

During Giants games, Comcast runs BART commercials with Giants and A's fans talking about how they get along and agree to use public transportion to get around the Bay Area and to the ballpark of their choice. Not that A's fans go to the games. I laughed thinking about how that would play out with 49ers and Raiders fans. There also is basketball and hockey and an overflow sports channel CSN-Plus that deals with conflicts when two channels can't do enough.

Chicago may be unique because the White Sox have a fan base that comes up with excuses not to go to games. Many people criticize the Sox for being cheap when they are actually increase payroll. They clamour for the team to sign overpriced free agents and announce they will have to wait to see if the team is a winner before deciding whether to support their team that signed the free agents they were clamouring for. Most big-money free agents are busts, but not signing them gives fans an excuse not to go to the games. And then when someone with the team makes a comment that hints at financial constraints, fans are offended that they are being blamed for the team's lack of success.

It's likely that people who don't go to games will criticize someone making such an observation.

White Sox payroll has increased since 2005 even if attendance has not. But, it seems, it's always something.

asindc
09-01-2011, 10:40 AM
During Giants games, Comcast runs BART commercials with Giants and A's fans talking about how they get along and agree to use public transportion to get around the Bay Area and to the ballpark of their choice. Not that A's fans go to the games. I laughed thinking about how that would play out with 49ers and Raiders fans. There also is basketball and hockey and an overflow sports channel CSN-Plus that deals with conflicts when two channels can't do enough.

Chicago may be unique because the White Sox have a fan base that comes up with excuses not to go to games. Many people criticize the Sox for being cheap when they are actually increase payroll. They clamour for the team to sign overpriced free agents and announce they will have to wait to see if the team is a winner before deciding whether to support their team that signed the free agents they were clamouring for. Most big-money free agents are busts, but not signing them gives fans an excuse not to go to the games. And then when someone with the team makes a comment that hints at financial constraints, fans are offended that they are being blamed for the team's lack of success.

It's likely that people who don't go to games will criticize someone making such an observation.

White Sox payroll has increased since 2005 even if attendance has not. But, it seems, it's always something.

This post is so full of truth is should be POTW and stickied.

CLUBHOUSE KID
09-01-2011, 11:14 AM
But it also shows Boston doesn't need the TV money for payroll...the fans are paying the bill.



This is exactly why the Yankees can spend a lot of $.

Hitmen77
09-01-2011, 12:04 PM
This post is so full of truth is should be POTW and stickied.

Um, not quite. It's rather distorted.

1. The White Sox aren't the only team that fails to see an attendance bump until there is success on the field. That's the standard trend in MLB. Anyone who expected the Sox to zoom to 35k per game just because they signed Dunn is out of touch with reality.

2. Who ever said they're not going to games because the Sox are cheap? Being angry over management incompetence isn't the same as calling JR cheap.

3. Who "announced" that they'll wait and see whether the team is a winner before they support the team? Feel free to show links to posts that say this.

4. It wasn't mentioned, but if anyone says "bad weather" is an excuse that only Sox fans use, that's B.S. The reality is that fans won't magically turn out until there is success . This is not unique to the Sox and it isn't Sox fans "announcing" their conditional support.

...and that's just scratching the surface. I could go on in poking holes in this holier than thou logic, but it's pointless. That's all I'm going to say on this. I've learned long ago that it's pointless to argue with tdog because he'll never back down on his credo that he's just so much smarter that the rest of us idiot Sox fans. You guys can continue with your self-satisfaction fest on how much dumber and unloyal the Sox fan base is than you are (or than other teams' fans are).:rolleyes:

SOX FANS ARE UNIQUE IN THEIR LOUSY SUPPORT OF THE TEAM!! Yayy!!! Post of the week and spot on!!:party:

Lip Man 1
09-01-2011, 12:41 PM
FREE NATE SCHIERHOLTZ, FREE T-DOG.

:rolleyes:

(Remember it's ALWAYS White Sox fans fault!)

I apologize for my arrogance in this next comment ahead of time.

---------------------------------------------------------

Let me spell it out for some of you folks, White Sox fans historically, going back decades WILL NOT SUPPORT, mediocrity or flat out garbage.

Period.

Hasn't happened in the past, will not happen today and WILL NOT HAPPEN in the future.

Losing isn't cute, cuddily or fun. Period.

Simply accept that historical fact and move on.

Thank You.

Lip

jdm2662
09-01-2011, 12:46 PM
People need to quit whinning about the upper deck. It's an old excuse that was created in the 90s when this town and media was looking for reason to bash the Sox. The best place to actually watch the game is behind home plate in the upper deck. I splugered for $45 tickets to sit in RF my last game. You know what, I couldn't see more than half of the scoreboard and pitches that looked like perfect strikes were called balls. The previous night, I sat behind home plate in the upper deck, and I saw everything. I can understand not being able to walk on the concourse. That part I get. But everything else is just another reason of laziness in today's world. I went to Miller Park a couple of years ago, and the experience sititng up there was no different than at Comiskey.

As for going up and down stairs, I do just as much if not more if I sit in the lower deck. So, I don't get that, either. The bottom line is the one and only reason, winning. It also doesn't help that we have drama queens in high end positions that people are sick of as well.

TDog
09-01-2011, 07:35 PM
This post is so full of truth is should be POTW and stickied.

Thank you for reading my post and paying attention to my point, despite the typo that I missed while racing through it before running out to the dentist office.

And thank you to the respondents who help make my argument in taking offense to it.

The White Sox might not be the only team whose fans make excuses not to go to the games, but I've lived a lot of places and seen a lot of fan bases, and I know of no fan base so smug and proud of the fact that they refuse to support their team. It's one of the reasons, I presume, why attendance threads are banned. (Call the White Sox and tell them that you won't go to the games unless Ozzie Guillen is fired and then call them next July and tell them you still won't go to the games because there are other issues. There are always issues.)

There are White Sox fans who go to see the White Sox any time their team is playing within 300 miles, whether the White Sox have or have not a winning record. It's not cute and cuddly to lose, but the White Sox are my team and I love baseball. Sometimes it's like being hit in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when it's over. For most teams, that's pretty much what being a baseball fan is all about.

Not going to games isn't going to slap management metaphorically in the face and get them to spend more money on players, especially when my biggest complaint with the team is that they signed Adam Dunn and the team has increased payroll every season since 2005.

And I'm guessing the personal attacks will continue. When they come from people who don't actually watch baseball, it doesn't bother me, though.

DSpivack
09-01-2011, 10:20 PM
Thank you for reading my post and paying attention to my point, despite the typo that I missed while racing through it before running out to the dentist office.

And thank you to the respondents who help make my argument in taking offense to it.

The White Sox might not be the only team whose fans make excuses not to go to the games, but I've lived a lot of places and seen a lot of fan bases, and I know of no fan base so smug and proud of the fact that they refuse to support their team. It's one of the reasons, I presume, why attendance threads are banned. (Call the White Sox and tell them that you won't go to the games unless Ozzie Guillen is fired and then call them next July and tell them you still won't go to the games because there are other issues. There are always issues.)

There are White Sox fans who go to see the White Sox any time their team is playing within 300 miles, whether the White Sox have or have not a winning record. It's not cute and cuddly to lose, but the White Sox are my team and I love baseball. Sometimes it's like being hit in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when it's over. For most teams, that's pretty much what being a baseball fan is all about.

Not going to games isn't going to slap management metaphorically in the face and get them to spend more money on players, especially when my biggest complaint with the team is that they signed Adam Dunn and the team has increased payroll every season since 2005.

And I'm guessing the personal attacks will continue. When they come from people who don't actually watch baseball, it doesn't bother me, though.

I think part of the attendance woes recently is the idiotic pricing model they have. I haven't done a complete study or anything, but I wouldn't be surprised if the White Sox have the most expensive cheapest seats in baseball, or at least they're probably among the top 3 or 4 teams in that regard. Even the Yankees have some seats that are more affordable than the cheapest White Sox tickets. Especially in a recession, I think some of the problems there can be blamed directly on the White Sox.

asindc
09-01-2011, 10:33 PM
Um, not quite. It's rather distorted.

1. The White Sox aren't the only team that fails to see an attendance bump until there is success on the field. That's the standard trend in MLB. Anyone who expected the Sox to zoom to 35k per game just because they signed Dunn is out of touch with reality.

2. Who ever said they're not going to games because the Sox are cheap? Being angry over management incompetence isn't the same as calling JR cheap.

3. Who "announced" that they'll wait and see whether the team is a winner before they support the team? Feel free to show links to posts that say this.

4. It wasn't mentioned, but if anyone says "bad weather" is an excuse that only Sox fans use, that's B.S. The reality is that fans won't magically turn out until there is success . This is not unique to the Sox and it isn't Sox fans "announcing" their conditional support.

...and that's just scratching the surface. I could go on in poking holes in this holier than thou logic, but it's pointless. That's all I'm going to say on this. I've learned long ago that it's pointless to argue with tdog because he'll never back down on his credo that he's just so much smarter that the rest of us idiot Sox fans. You guys can continue with your self-satisfaction fest on how much dumber and unloyal the Sox fan base is than you are (or than other teams' fans are).:rolleyes:

SOX FANS ARE UNIQUE IN THEIR LOUSY SUPPORT OF THE TEAM!! Yayy!!! Post of the week and spot on!!:party:

He didn't say that.

You're right, he didn't mention that, either.

There is nothing on my part about feeling self-satisfied for agreeing with TDog's assessment that some fans are hypocritical about their hue and cry in wanting the Sox to win the FA sweepstakes and then announcing withdrawal of support if those FAs don't perform well (that is, if such support was forthcoming before the FAs started playing).

If someone feels discouraged because of the high-priced players failing to perform up to expectations, that's more than understandable, that is to be expected. If someone wants changes in management because he recognizes recurring trends that probably have contributed the current 5-year malaise, that's just as understandable.

But do NOT expect me to understand how someone can clamor for management (this includes JR) to sign high-priced FAs while seemingly failing to recognize how often they fail, then blame that same management and decide to not support the team because of the subpar performance of those same high-priced FAs. I don't understand it. Either you were happy with the signings or you were not. Anything else is Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind.

gosox41
09-01-2011, 10:48 PM
But Fenway claimed a few days ago that JR could afford to have a high payroll every year if he wanted to but he doesn't.

Peter "the Great's" numbers contradict that.

:?:

Lip


JR could afford a high payroll every year (I mean $130 million high, not $200 million) but in order for that to happen the team needs to win. It's the only way fans come out.


Bob

gosox41
09-01-2011, 10:49 PM
I think part of the attendance woes recently is the idiotic pricing model they have. I haven't done a complete study or anything, but I wouldn't be surprised if the White Sox have the most expensive cheapest seats in baseball, or at least they're probably among the top 3 or 4 teams in that regard. Even the Yankees have some seats that are more affordable than the cheapest White Sox tickets. Especially in a recession, I think some of the problems there can be blamed directly on the White Sox.


If this team was on pace for 95 wins, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Bob

DSpivack
09-01-2011, 11:29 PM
If this team was on pace for 95 wins, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Bob

Well, of course the major reason the team isn't drawing is because of their poor performance.

But I do think that the pricing model means fewer butts in seats than there would be if they had some affordable seats on the low end, which many teams who draw similarly to the White Sox do have.

HomeFish
09-02-2011, 02:03 AM
I really doubt that the upper deck has much to do with anything. Does any team sell their upper deck tickets at a higher rate than their lower deck tickets? I doubt it. People want to be close to the action, no matter how awesome the UD is. The Upper Deck has had a lot of improvements and you can have a good game experience up there, with shorter bathroom and food lines to boot.

When I was in the upper deck for the ALCS and World Series in 2005, I didn't notice anyone complaining that they were far from the field or that they couldn't visit the fan deck.

HomeFish
09-02-2011, 02:11 AM
Also: as some of you know, I recently moved to the Washington DC area and now attend a lot of Nationals games.

Going to Nats games today is a lot like going to Sox games during the Gallas era. The team tries to drive up attendance by discounting their tickets. Whereas Gallas did half price nights, the Nats do various "do this and get cheap tickets" promotions. You can get discount tickets if you bring a student ID, a federal ID, a receipt from a local grocery store chain, etc. These promotions are easily abused.

And once you are in, there are no practical restrictions on moving around: you can move yourself from the $5 seats in the upper deck to a seat right behind the Nats dugout and nobody will stop you.

The Sox eventually figured out that really cheap tickets weren't a good business decision for them. I hope the Nats don't learn this lesson for a while.

Lip Man 1
09-02-2011, 12:01 PM
I respect anyone who thinks the best thing about baseball is the game itself... the romance of the game if you will, and things like if the beer is cold enough, the women look good and the sun is shinning. (Now my degree of respect depends on how many times they decide to pat themselves on the back and proclaim how smart they are but that's another story.)

As for me I could care less about any of those things save for one thing and one thing only...winning. Period.

Winning is the be all, end all to me. All the other stuff is superfluous.

Lip

doublem23
09-02-2011, 12:11 PM
Well, of course the major reason the team isn't drawing is because of their poor performance.

But I do think that the pricing model means fewer butts in seats than there would be if they had some affordable seats on the low end, which many teams who draw similarly to the White Sox do have.

Agree. I remember when I was in high school, and that's only about 10 years for me, you could still get bleacher seats for about $10-$15, and Upper Deck seats weren't much less. Now, anything in the lower bowl is going to cost you at least $25+.

doublem23
09-02-2011, 12:14 PM
I respect anyone who thinks the best thing about baseball is the game itself... the romance of the game if you will, and things like if the beer is cold enough, the women look good and the sun is shinning. (Now my degree of respect depends on how many times they decide to pat themselves on the back and proclaim how smart they are but that's another story.)

As for me I could care less about any of those things save for one thing and one thing only...winning. Period.

Winning is the be all, end all to me. All the other stuff is superfluous.

Lip

Agree and disagree with you, Lip. The price element has to be taken into account, IMO. I'm a lot more willing to be patient with bad players and a lethargic team if the product is priced fairly, but I understand this is a business, however, the Sox really haven't been that great going on 5 years now, and their ticket prices are astronomical. Unless I want to spend all my time cruising StubHub, we're talking around $50 minimum for me and my soon to be wife to just get into the stadium. For that price, they'd better be worth watching.

Fenway
09-02-2011, 12:16 PM
This is exactly why the Yankees can spend a lot of $.

Baseball passion runs deeper in the Northeast than other parts of the country ( including Chicago )

In New York baseball makes the front page of both tabloids often - seldom do you see that in Chicago. The real hard core baseball cities are New York, Boston and St. Louis ( with Philadelphia now entering that status as the Phillies are now getting as popular as the Eagles.

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/static/covers/frontpage_cover.jpg?1314979062http://www.nypost.com/rf/image_lowres/nypost/2011/09/02/covers/front.jpg

In both Boston and New York the teams have huge Hispanic coverage. The Red Sox broadcast all 162 games on 50,000 watt WWZN (1510 ) and also in a couple of other New England cities. NESN runs Spanish radio on SAP. The White Sox only do 56 games in Spanish on WRTO.

The White Sox have enhanced their Spanish website ( more than MLB demanded ) at
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41579_125476840806808_2531_n.jpg
with Ozzie as the center piece.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/2009/02/04/nisjnT8a.jpg

Lip Man 1
09-02-2011, 12:20 PM
Double:

I understand your point and it's a fair one. I don't completely understand the process of how the Sox determine what to charge and why and it does make a difference especially in these economic times.

Just another reason as you said, why if the team is mediocre, crappy or flat out garbage fans shouldn't be "condemmed" for not supporting it.

But perhaps the folks doing the condemming don't have to worry about such 'mundane' issues as money while they sit at home watching games on TV thousands of miles from Chicago and then act like an "expert".

:D:

Lip

doublem23
09-02-2011, 12:22 PM
Baseball passion runs deeper in the Northeast than other parts of the country ( including Chicago )

In New York baseball makes the front page of both tabloids often - seldom do you see that in Chicago. The real hard core baseball cities are New York, Boston and St. Louis ( with Philadelphia now entering that status as the Phillies are now getting as popular as the Eagles.


What a steaming load of revisionist ****. The ****ing Sawx and Yankees "greatest baseball fans of all time!!!" are nothing but a bunch of front-runners who just happen to be riding a wave now in the economics of baseball that basically ensures they will always be successful. Both Fenway and Yankee Stadium have had their runs as ghost towns within my lifetime when each team sucked. No doubt about it, if either team actually had to scale back and rebuild a bit (like, you know, the 28 other teams out there) those places would clear out so fast it'd make your head spin.

Red Sox and Yankee fans live in their own little bubble. Your experience gives you no insight into what it's like for the majority of baseball fans out there. Stop pretending like you can talk to us as an equal on this subject.

DSpivack
09-02-2011, 12:25 PM
Baseball passion runs deeper in the Northeast than other parts of the country ( including Chicago )

In New York baseball makes the front page of both tabloids often - seldom do you see that in Chicago. The real hard core baseball cities are New York, Boston and St. Louis ( with Philadelphia now entering that status as the Phillies are now getting as popular as the Eagles.

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/static/covers/frontpage_cover.jpg?1314979062http://www.nypost.com/rf/image_lowres/nypost/2011/09/02/covers/front.jpg

In both Boston and New York the teams have huge Hispanic coverage. The Red Sox broadcast all 162 games on 50,000 watt WWZN (1510 ) and also in a couple of other New England cities. NESN runs Spanish radio on SAP. The White Sox only do 56 games in Spanish on WRTO.

The White Sox have enhanced their Spanish website ( more than MLB demanded ) at
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41579_125476840806808_2531_n.jpg
with Ozzie as the center piece.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/2009/02/04/nisjnT8a.jpg

I think a lot of is that the Hispanic population in NY is predominantly Puerto Rican and Dominican, two places where baseball is the most popular sport.

Most of the Hispanic population here is Mexican, so soccer is the more popular sport.

DSpivack
09-02-2011, 12:26 PM
What a steaming load of revisionist ****. The ****ing Sawx and Yankees "greatest baseball fans of all time!!!" are nothing but a bunch of front-runners who just happen to be riding a wave now in the economics of baseball that basically ensures they will always be successful. Both Fenway and Yankee Stadium have had their runs as ghost towns within my lifetime when each team sucked. No doubt about it, if either team actually had to scale back and rebuild a bit (like, you know, the 28 other teams out there) those places would clear out so fast it'd make your head spin.

Red Sox and Yankee fans live in their own little bubble. Your experience gives you no insight into what it's like for the majority of baseball fans out there. Stop pretending like you can talk to us as an equal on this subject.

Just look at the Mets.

doublem23
09-02-2011, 12:35 PM
But perhaps the folks doing the condemming don't have to worry about such 'mundane' issues as money while they sit at home watching games on TV thousands of miles from Chicago and then act like an "expert".

:D:

Lip

Thanks, I will take a side of delicious irony with my lunch today

Lip Man 1
09-02-2011, 12:37 PM
Steinbrenner was talking about leaving New York for New Jersey as recently as in the early 90's. I have video in my library of the Sox playing at Yankee Stadium in 1990 and 1991 and the entire right field area both lower and upper decks are completely empty!

NOT ONE PERSON sitting in those sections for a night game.

When one of the Sox hit a home run into that area (I think it was Ventura) the ball rattled around in the seats unclaimed for a few seconds before someone ran over from another section to claim it.

Double said it pretty well in his post on a few fronts.

Lip

Lip Man 1
09-02-2011, 12:40 PM
Double:

You lost me with your post. Sorry I don't get it.

Lip

doublem23
09-02-2011, 12:44 PM
Double:

You lost me with your post. Sorry I don't get it.

Lip

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chicago,+IL+to+Idaho&saddr=Chicago,+IL&daddr=Idaho&hl=en&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.644047,84.375&geocode=FWICfwIdGuDG-inty_TQPCwOiDEAwMAJrabgrw%3BFWptoAId5ywp-SnpmeSFqP9YUzFYh_cVBTBr0A&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=5

Lip Man 1
09-02-2011, 12:48 PM
Double:

Never claimed to be an expert. What I do claim is the good fortune to know folks who are and to simply pass along what they tell me.

And I got that opportunity through WSI when George Bova and I discussed an idea I had to start doing interviews because of my background....that got me connected with individuals both with the Sox and with the mainstream media.

One of the luckiest breaks of my life.

Lip

doublem23
09-02-2011, 01:00 PM
Double:

Never claimed to be an expert. What I do claim is the good fortune to know folks who are and to simply pass along what they tell me.

And I got that opportunity through WSI when George Bova and I discussed an idea I had to start doing interviews because of my background....that got me connected with individuals both with the Sox and with the mainstream media.

One of the luckiest breaks of my life.

Lip

Nobody cares who is an expert and who is not, with the exception of Ranger, I guess, we're all just citizens in the Sox army. You are free to agree or disagree with any one's opinion on matters, but it's pretty ****in funny to watch someone completely ridicule another and essentially invalidate their opinion due to reasons that apply to themselves as well.

That'd be as stupid as me saying Poster XXX doesn't know what he or she is talking about because THEY'RE FROM THE NORTHSIDE. Guffaw guffaw guffaw, am I right, bros?

Fenway
09-02-2011, 01:02 PM
Red Sox and Yankee fans live in their own little bubble. Your experience gives you no insight into what it's like for the majority of baseball fans out there. Stop pretending like you can talk to us as an equal on this subject.

I have seen it both ways...Opening Day at Fenway against Chicago drew 8,000

The last time the Red Sox were an awful team was 1992 when they finished dead last in the old AL East.Same allplies to the Yankees ( who BTW had the best record in the AL in the strike year of 1994 )

Yankee Stadium into the early 90's was NOT a safe place to go to at night. Things only improved when Giuliani became Mayor and suddenly Yankee Stadium was the safest place to be in NY as he added hundreds of NYPD officers to work every game. The crowds picked up at that point.

Lip Man 1
09-02-2011, 01:11 PM
Double:

The difference is I don't condemm Sox fans for being who and what they are.

It bothers me tremedously that Sox fans, who I consider being among the best in baseball, are getting ripped by an individual in particular who should know better. It just really hit a nerve.

And you yourself have also gone after the same individual for 'patting themselves on the back' in certain matters.

Tell you what I'll be happy to tone down the rhetoric on this if others will too.

Fair enough?

Lip

Fenway
09-02-2011, 01:33 PM
If it is me you are talking about...I have never ripped Sox FANS but I do rip the way the team markets itself and have said this to Brooks upfront.

One simple fact...the economy of the country has been rocked the past 5 years and in Chicago the southern part of the metro area has been hit harder than the north. The White Sox were always more of a 'blue collar' team with their fanbase and people are watching their spending.

Obviously the play of the team hurts as well as TV ratings are down as well.

There are other factors that the team can not control.

Wrigley will always attract the tourist because of the history. Throw in that the park is within walking distance of many young adults looking for a 'fun' place to go.

The team HAS to improve the announcing on both radio and TV as they are the biggest 'sellers' of Sox baseball. Go to a national board like baseball-fever.com and Hawk is neck and neck with John Sterling as the worst announcer in the game. Farmer is not highly thought of either.

I also sense from talking to Chicago people I have known for years that fans are tired of Ozzie.

Kenny Williams would have been FIRED by most clubs because of the Dave Wilder situation. There seems to be a general belief outside of Chicago that KW had to know what was going on.

Funny thing is I still expect the White Sox to be be playing on September 30th....I sense they are going to have a very good September in spite of everything.


Double:

The difference is I don't condemm Sox fans for being who and what they are.

It bothers me tremedously that Sox fans, who I consider being among the best in baseball, are getting ripped by an individual in particular who should know better. It just really hit a nerve.

And you yourself have also gone after the same individual for 'patting themselves on the back' in certain matters.

Tell you what I'll be happy to tone down the rhetoric on this if others will too.

Fair enough?

Lip

Lip Man 1
09-02-2011, 01:36 PM
Fenway:

Not in this case.

Lip