PDA

View Full Version : Unsubstantiated MediaTroll B.S.: "No More Half-price Nights"


pinwheels3530
10-20-2004, 03:39 AM
I was listening to the score at work earlier, when they had information on Murphy's radio show that the Sox were doing away with half-price Mondays & Tuesdays. They also mentioned that the Sox would be moving Sunday home games back to 1:00pm, and finally this I find very interesting (good or bad) the Sox will have cheerleaders be part of the game day experience......good girls wear black!!!!

MUsoxfan
10-20-2004, 04:10 AM
Way to go JR! There's no need for all that extra revenue that comes with 1/2 price nights. Looks as though we're doomed for another decade of substandard product.

DrCrawdad
10-20-2004, 06:25 AM
I was listening to the score at work earlier, when they had information on Murphy's radio show that the Sox were doing away with half-price Mondays & Tuesdays. They also mentioned that the Sox would be moving Sunday home games back to 1:00pm, and finally this I find very interesting (good or bad) the Sox will have cheerleaders be part of the game day experience......good girls wear black!!!!

Is this a joke? Was this posted on April 1st?

SSN721
10-20-2004, 06:55 AM
Well, thats nice, if true that will probably cut the amount of games I got to in half next year.

DumpJerry
10-20-2004, 08:16 AM
No more half price nights? How will we draw rowdy drunk Flub fans to Comiskey?

Bobby Thigpen
10-20-2004, 08:25 AM
"and finally this I find very interesting (good or bad) the Sox will have cheerleaders be part of the game day experience......good girls wear black!!!!"

Hopefully Bad Girls Wear Black.:smile:

soxtalker
10-20-2004, 08:30 AM
I landed on WSCR for a few minutes while driving, missed the initial report heard, but heard some of the discussion afterwards. Was there any mention of the Granton ticket promotion? If they keep that promotion or something similar, I'll cheer the move. While I went to many games via the Granton tickets, I started avoiding the rowdy Monday and Tuesday crowds.

soxnut
10-20-2004, 10:34 AM
As much as I enjoyed paying only 1/2 price on those nights, I think it did devalue the product. Of course that's whem most people seemed to show up, but that's seemed to be the only time people were packing the place. There was no incentive for fans to go to games other than those nights. So you might as well make all games 1/2 price.


There were too many flubs fans coming to the games just to root for the opposing team and the last time I went to 1/2 price night I had 3 Cubs fans sitting behind me. It was the "Tori Hunter" game, and those guys were driving me crazy.

Of course winning should take care of the attendance problem, if there is a problem on nights other than Monday and Tuesday.


As for the cheerleaders, they do that at Turner Field.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 10:45 AM
If this is true, it's the worst possible news for working class Sox fans who have already been priced out of attending most games in the season.

If there is not a corresponding creation of a budget section (say, $5 for the upper reaches of the UD), I'm sad to say the White Sox can go to hell for all I care. I'll join the legions of other fans who 'vote with their wallets' by staying home to watch on Cable and not lining the greedy coffers of Satan and his minions. Those are the seats that Jerry and his cadre of marketing idiots have priced me into. My couch offers a pretty comfy view, and since more games will be in HD on Comcast, I guess it's just as well. No rude off-duty cops will try to frisk me upon entry to my living room.

:angry:

The idea that half price nights devalued the "product" is absurd. I've been to many a full price night over the past 5 years with 12,000 fans - those games felt pretty "valueless" to me. Half price nights with 30,000 were much more exciting, much more energy, more positive vibes, fan rowdiness notwithstanding. I guess there are plenty of apologists who will say that a game with a stadium only a third filled is somehow better than one that's 3/4 filled. There's a word for these people: idiots. They can watch their underfunded, underattended team, and wonder why revenues never climb high enough to go after big free agents.

Those who complain that half price nights merely created large crowds of rowdies have obviously never been to games played by a team that regularly draws 30k-plus.

soxnut
10-20-2004, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=mweflen]If this is true, it's the worst possible news for working class Sox fans who have already been priced out of attending most games in the season.
QUOTE]

I wonder how many games you would attend if you were a Red Sox or Yankee fan. Their tickets prices don't "accomodate the working class".

Paxson93
10-20-2004, 10:56 AM
This would be great news, if it were true. As a split season ticket holder, I hate going to Monday/Tuesday games where I have to sit next to obnoxious drunks/Cub fans (is that redundant?) who paid less for the ticket than I did. Our tickets are in left field too, so I also always have to deal with people in our seats and a lack of beer vendors making the concourse a mob scene. Half-price nights totallly screw loyal season ticket holders.

However, our ticket agent claims that there will be no change this year, and that Monday and Tuesday will continue to be half price in 2005.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 11:03 AM
I wonder how many games you would attend if you were a Red Sox or Yankee fan. Their tickets prices don't "accomodate the working class".
Funny thing - they also have $185 and $125 mm payrolls. What a coincidence. Cost of living also happens to be much higher on the East Coast than here.

soxnut
10-20-2004, 11:09 AM
Funny thing - they also have $185 and $125 mm payrolls. What a coincidence. .
Yes, they do. But yet we have people on here who want the Sox to spend money like that, but don't want to pay higher prices for higher quality baseball, so what is supposed to be done?

mweflen
10-20-2004, 11:13 AM
Yes, they do. But yet we have people on here who want the Sox to spend money like that, but don't want to pay higher prices for higher quality baseball, so what is supposed to be done?Kind of an odd concurrence that high prices and high payrolls happen to fall in areas with high median incomes, costs of living, and a low proportion of local manufacturing and service jobs.

Do the people of Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Cincinatti, and Kansas City NOT want to see winning baseball? No. They want to win. Can they afford $40 per ticket? No, they can't. They just plain can't. So should they be blamed for their teams' ill fortunes? Personally, I don't think so.

I think the same can be said for the South Side of Chicago.

I think there has to be some sort of marketing formula of price, supply, and demand, which will allow people in these lesser-income areas attend baseball games in force, and generate enough revenue to field a winning team.

Half price nights seemed to be much more heavily attended, which common sense says must have generated more revenue, since a good half of the crowd at any given monday or tuesday game still paid full price anyway with their season or split season plans. And this is not to mention increased parking and concession revenue.

CubKilla
10-20-2004, 11:19 AM
I heard the reasoning for doing away with half-price Monday's and Tuesday's will be to pay the big money contracts to C. Beltran and C. Pavano :rolleyes: .

1951Campbell
10-20-2004, 11:25 AM
Isn't this what many folks here wanted?

I always find this argument to be strange. When there's a rowdiness incident, it's "keep the unwashed masses out of the Cell!" Now that those memories are a little fainter, it's "JR is screwing the working man!"

Make up your mind, folks.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 11:29 AM
Isn't this what many folks here wanted?

I always find this argument to be strange. When there's a rowdiness incident, it's "keep the unwashed masses out of the Cell!" Now that those memories are a little fainter, it's "JR is screwing the working man!"

Make up your mind, folks.
I don't think people here are wishy washy. There is just a very divided opinion among forum users. I've never expressed a desire to keep 'unwashed' masses out of the Cell. And I'm sure those who have have never expressed an opinion that they'd like to see more people attend games. Unless they're hypocrites, that is.:wink:

gosox41
10-20-2004, 11:36 AM
Funny thing - they also have $185 and $125 mm payrolls. What a coincidence. Cost of living also happens to be much higher on the East Coast than here.
They also have a lot higher ticket prices. If I remember correctly, Boston has the highest average ticket price in MLB at about $35 per seat.


Bob

SOXSINCE'70
10-20-2004, 11:39 AM
I heard the reasoning for doing away with half-price Monday's and Tuesday's will be to pay the big money contracts to C. Beltran and C. Pavano :rolleyes: .


No,actually,Dave Steib,Jaimie Navarro,Scott Sanderson,
Tim Belcher and David Wells are signing with the team. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

CubKilla
10-20-2004, 11:40 AM
Yes, they do. But yet we have people on here who want the Sox to spend money like that, but don't want to pay higher prices for higher quality baseball, so what is supposed to be done?
I, for one, wouldn't mind paying higher prices if the price increases translated towards the onfield product. They don't. Last year saw price increases in tickets, concessions, and parking to coincide with blockbuster pick-ups like Juan Uribe and Cliff Politte.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 11:40 AM
They also have a lot higher ticket prices. If I remember correctly, Boston has the highest average ticket price in MLB at about $35 per seat.


BobThat's my point! Higher incomes lead to higher ticket prices lead to higher payrolls.

Conversely, higher ticket prices combined with lower incomes lead to vast seas of empty blue seats.

If the sox are going to raise prices and/or eliminate discount dates, they may as well auction off 15,000 or so plastic blue chairs. Because that's all the revenue that will be generated by them.

I, for one, wouldn't mind paying higher prices if the price increases translated towards the onfield product. They don't. Last year saw price increases in tickets, concessions, and parking to coincide with blockbuster pick-ups like Juan Uribe and Cliff Politte.
Cubkilla - that's a mighty big IF you've got there :smile:

soxnut
10-20-2004, 11:46 AM
I wouldn't say that the cost of living in the Chicagoland area is relatively low at all. I think that maybe the Sox need to market more to areas that have the $ to spend as well as others. I don't think that all of the South Side can't afford to go to ballgames. I suppose it depends on how large of an area is considered "The South Side".

mweflen
10-20-2004, 11:49 AM
I wouldn't say that the cost of living in the Chicagoland area is relatively low at all. I think that maybe the Sox need to market more to areas that have the $ to spend as well as others. I don't think that all of the South Side can't afford to go to ballgames. I suppose it depends on how large of an area is considered "The South Side".
You're right. There are at least 7,000 people on the South Side who can afford to attend 81 games per year.


"Marketing more to areas who have the $ to to spend" sounds suspiciously like "marketing to the North side yuppies" to me. If that's the plan, relocating the park about 70 blocks North will have to be pencilled in, too.

munchman33
10-20-2004, 11:53 AM
You're right. There are at least 7,000 people on the South Side who can afford to attend 81 games per year.

"Marketing more to areas who have the $ to to spend" sounds suspiciously like "marketing to the North side yuppies" to me. There are plenty of south and southwest suburbs full of sox fans who are in the income bracket able to afford going to that many games.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 11:56 AM
There are plenty of south and southwest suburbs full of sox fans who are in the income bracket able to afford going to that many games.
Then where are they? I went to 30 games this year, from April thru September, and the average attendence was maybe 20,000. This average was skewed considerably by opening day and 2 Flubs games, as well.

FightingBillini
10-20-2004, 12:03 PM
Yes, they do. But yet we have people on here who want the Sox to spend money like that, but don't want to pay higher prices for higher quality baseball, so what is supposed to be done?
That is a bunch of ****. Dont ever make a comment like that again unless you provide some sourch that says Reinsdorf is spending any more than HALF his revenue. This organization, like many others, makes much more money thant they lead you to believe. THE QUALITY OF BASEBALL IS NOT HIGHER. The ticket prices have increased a lot since 2000, and the quality of baseball certainly hasn't increaseed. You fall into Reinsy's trap if you honestly believe that the organization loses money, and that he only raises ticket prices to "stay competetive"

:reinsy " Hey soxwon, I've got some 'lakefront property' to sell you."

CubKilla
10-20-2004, 12:05 PM
Then where are they? I went to 30 games this year, from April thru September, and the average attendence was maybe 20,000. This average was skewed considerably by opening day and 2 Flubs games, as well.
At home, like me, because I've had a buttload of JR's crap.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 12:08 PM
At home, like me, because I've had a buttload of JR's crap.
You can count me in as a "Couch Seats 2005" subscriber, too, if the rumor in this thread is true.

Wealz
10-20-2004, 12:13 PM
Then where are they? I went to 30 games this year, from April thru September, and the average attendence was maybe 20,000. This average was skewed considerably by opening day and 2 Flubs games, as well.
If you think the way to increase attendance is to keep ticket prices low you are essentially saying that Chicago cannot support the White Sox.

thepaulbowski
10-20-2004, 12:15 PM
That is a bunch of ****. Dont ever make a comment like that again unless you provide some sourch that says Reinsdorf is spending any more than HALF his revenue. This organization, like many others, makes much more money thant they lead you to believe. THE QUALITY OF BASEBALL IS NOT HIGHER. The ticket prices have increased a lot since 2000, and the quality of baseball certainly hasn't increaseed. You fall into Reinsy's trap if you honestly believe that the organization loses money, and that he only raises ticket prices to "stay competetive"

:reinsy " Hey soxwon, I've got some 'lakefront property' to sell you."
Then shouldn't you have a source who says Reisndorf is making money? Or is it just a one way street? I don't know either way, but apparently you do. So, where's your source?

thepaulbowski
10-20-2004, 12:18 PM
That's my point! Higher incomes lead to higher ticket prices lead to higher payrolls.

Conversely, higher ticket prices combined with lower incomes lead to vast seas of empty blue seats.

If the sox are going to raise prices and/or eliminate discount dates, they may as well auction off 15,000 or so plastic blue chairs. Because that's all the revenue that will be generated by them.


Cubkilla - that's a mighty big IF you've got there :smile:
Talk about stereotyping. "Sox fans don't make enough money to pay full price." Well, speak for yourself.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 12:20 PM
If you think the way to increase attendance is to keep ticket prices low you are essentially saying that Chicago cannot support the White Sox.
There are two and only two factors which dictate the attendance of any event, sporting or otherwise: quality of the event, and price of the event.

Quality of the event, as mentioned, has not increased appreciably in the years since 2000. (or 1991, for that matter)

Price of the event has, significantly higher than the rate of inflation.

Attendance is down.

If the Sox are not going to go after top flight talent and field a superior team, they should maintain or decrease prices to bolster both attendance and revenue. To do otherwise is the reverse of your statement: the White Sox do not support Chicago.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 12:22 PM
Talk about stereotyping. "Sox fans don't make enough money to pay full price." Well, speak for yourself.I never said "Sox fans don't make enough money to pay full price."

I said that increasing prices will keep many lower-income people (Like ME) from attending ballgames. I also said that the Sox happen to be located near and appeal to a fan base with a lower average income than some "bigger market" teams. There are certainly some Sox fans who can afford full price. Seems to be about 10-15,000 people on any given night. Look at the attendance of full price dates. But looking at the much higher attendance of half price dates seems to indicate that there is a larger market of fans who will attend games for a lower price. Having been to over 150 games since 2000, I can tell you from experience - half price nights draw 30,000 plus, full price nights it's a stretch to make 20,000. Try reading complete sentences before you spout off.

And I am speaking for myself - the reduction or elimination of half price nights will be followed by a corresponding reduction or elimination of ticket purchases by ME.

pinwheels3530
10-20-2004, 12:23 PM
Then shouldn't you have a source who says Reisndorf is making money? Or is it just a one way street? I don't know either way, but apparently you do. So, where's your source?

If JR wasn't making money with the Sox he wouldn't be owning the team right now...................


:sellreinsy

wdelaney72
10-20-2004, 01:09 PM
Exactly.



If JR wasn't making money with the Sox he wouldn't be owning the team right now...................


:sellreinsy

gosox41
10-20-2004, 01:19 PM
That is a bunch of ****. Dont ever make a comment like that again unless you provide some sourch that says Reinsdorf is spending any more than HALF his revenue. This organization, like many others, makes much more money thant they lead you to believe. THE QUALITY OF BASEBALL IS NOT HIGHER. The ticket prices have increased a lot since 2000, and the quality of baseball certainly hasn't increaseed. You fall into Reinsy's trap if you honestly believe that the organization loses money, and that he only raises ticket prices to "stay competetive"

:reinsy " Hey soxwon, I've got some 'lakefront property' to sell you."
So it's OK for you to make comments like that without having a source that says JR spends less then half his revenue. OK.

And you, like others here, confuse 2 different issues. The quality of baseball isn't higher because of the GM. The owner has increased payroll.



Bob

hold2dibber
10-20-2004, 01:30 PM
If JR wasn't making money with the Sox he wouldn't be owning the team right now...................


:sellreinsy

Maybe, maybe not. The value of the franchise has sky-rocketed since JR and his ownership group bought the team. That could keep them from selling even if they were only breaking even or losing $ on a year-to-year basis. I'm not saying that's the case, but I don't know and either do you (I suspect).

JB98
10-20-2004, 01:34 PM
I can't believe some of the things people post on here.

First of all, good riddance to half-price night. Most of the people who go to those games are not Sox fans. They are either Cubs fans looking for a place to drink or casual fans more interested in a social experience. Typically, those types of fans make the overall experience worse for those of us who are there to cheer for the Sox.

Secondly, this talk of the Sox pricing the common fan out of the market is ridiculous. I'm not going to post my salary on here, but let's just say it's very modest and working-class. Still, I attended 19 White Sox games in 2004 and saw 14 victories. By my count, only three were half-price nights. I went on quite a few Sunday afternoons, and I thought I got good value for my investment. The only part of the ballpark that I really feel is overpriced is the parking, and a lot of that has to do with the city from what I understand.

Third, for those of you who want to sit on the couch and avoid the ballpark for all of 2005: Fine. That's your right, and good riddance. Just don't come crying to me about how the Cubs are taking over the city. As Sox fans, we have to stand up and be counted. I know JR doesn't put the best quality team on the field. That being said, I'm still going to go the ballpark and I'm still going to wear my Sox gear around town. I'll do that because I love the White Sox. It's a passion that has been in my family for three generations. I want other people to love the Sox too. I'm not willing to hand the city over to the Cubs and their legion of drunken idiots just because I'm bitter about how JR won't rubber stamp a $140 million payroll.

thepaulbowski
10-20-2004, 01:38 PM
Try reading complete sentences before you spout off.
I'll be sure to take your constructive criticism under advisement. You state :


"Marketing more to areas who have the $ to to spend" sounds suspiciously like "marketing to the North side yuppies" to me. If that's the plan, relocating the park about 70 blocks North will have to be pencilled in, too.

This statement in ridiculous. I know plenty of people who do rather well that are Sox fans and don't live on the North side & aren't these yuppies you speak of. No amount of marketing will bring them to the park. Win and they show. There were plenty of games when the Sox were still in it that had great crowds during full price nights. Winning brings crowds. Period.

You translate what soxnut says, but if does that to your statements you whine. Sounds reasonable to me. :whiner:

thepaulbowski
10-20-2004, 01:39 PM
So it's OK for you to make comments like that without having a source that says JR spends less then half his revenue. OK.


Bob
Now Bob, don't be reasonable. Take that talk elsewhere.

GiveMeSox
10-20-2004, 01:45 PM
I was listening to the score at work earlier, when they had information on Murphy's radio show that the Sox were doing away with half-price Mondays & Tuesdays. They also mentioned that the Sox would be moving Sunday home games back to 1:00pm, and finally this I find very interesting (good or bad) the Sox will have cheerleaders be part of the game day experience......good girls wear black!!!!
This is an absolute disaster move from white sox managment. I gurantee attendance drops on those night becuase of it and drops overall. This is the anit-casual fan anti-make the fans happy crap that we have been seeing for too long. Why in gods green earth cant they just do something to make us all happy. That doensn't make them look like robber barons. There goes the 12 games i go to every year. Ill be lucky to make it to 3 in 05. My family cant even afford to go now, there is no way my dad is gonna buy 5 tickets at $24 to take us all there when for the same product it used to cost $11. Absoutly ridicolous. Id say the half price nights are something that put the sox on the map as more casual fans started going and more butts were in the seats in the early months when the weather stunk and the kids were still in school. This is one of the worst things this ownership could do!!!

ZachAL
10-20-2004, 01:58 PM
mweflen, realize that the most supportive fans of this organization, (literally ie: financially; not figuratively) are the season ticket holders. These half-price nights are an insult to them and their loyalty to this team. Having someone sitting right next to you who paid half price when you're paying thousands of dollars for the season (including full price for that night) is a joke. and it will end up losing revenue for this franchise in the long run as season ticket holders decide to start dropping their packages.

Go to most any other ballpark in all of baseball and see what the ticket prices for seats are compared to those same seats at comiskey, and you will see that the Sox prices are on the low end, what more do you want? The White Sox, whether you or I like it or not, are a business. They are trying to raise revenue and put out a decent product. It's not like there is an extremely high demand for whitesox baseball as it is right now and they know this better than you or I, so i'm pretty sure they're NOT trying to screw over the average customer. I'm sure you're a smart guy, but a major business organization such as the Sox definately has economists and other specialists dealing with this and analyzing possibilities who are much more credible and probably accurate than a message board poster.

If you're unhappy that the whitesox have stopped screwing over their most loyal supporters, then please dont come to the games.

pinwheels3530
10-20-2004, 02:04 PM
This is an absolute disaster move from white sox managment. I gurantee attendance drops on those night becuase of it and drops overall. This is the anit-casual fan anti-make the fans happy crap that we have been seeing for too long. Why in gods green earth cant they just do something to make us all happy. That doensn't make them look like robber barons. There goes the 12 games i go to every year. Ill be lucky to make it to 3 in 05. My family cant even afford to go now, there is no way my dad is gonna buy 5 tickets at $24 to take us all there when for the same product it used to cost $11. Absoutly ridicolous. Id say the half price nights are something that put the sox on the map as more casual fans started going and more butts were in the seats in the early months when the weather stunk and the kids were still in school. This is one of the worst things this ownership could do!!!

The Sox could have passed the same discount of half price tickets to season ticket holders for Mondays and Tuesdays to make everything fair...that way season ticket holders don't feel cheated.

santo=dorf
10-20-2004, 02:07 PM
No more half price nights? How will we draw rowdy drunk Flub fans to Comiskey?
Tell them their bond will be half price after they run up against an umpire. :)

Flight #24
10-20-2004, 02:13 PM
This is an absolute disaster move from white sox managment. I gurantee attendance drops on those night becuase of it and drops overall. This is the anit-casual fan anti-make the fans happy crap that we have been seeing for too long. Why in gods green earth cant they just do something to make us all happy. That doensn't make them look like robber barons. There goes the 12 games i go to every year. Ill be lucky to make it to 3 in 05. My family cant even afford to go now, there is no way my dad is gonna buy 5 tickets at $24 to take us all there when for the same product it used to cost $11. Absoutly ridicolous. Id say the half price nights are something that put the sox on the map as more casual fans started going and more butts were in the seats in the early months when the weather stunk and the kids were still in school. This is one of the worst things this ownership could do!!!
Ignore the fact that Sox tix are, IIRC, average or below average compared to the rest of MLB (and that's for a product that's above average compared to the rest of MLB), or that a part of this is likely a concern for the fact that USCF for whatever reason is starting to become synonymous with drunken fans (which tends to happen on these nights).

By the way - if you think the Sox aren't aware of the potential drop in attendance on these nights, you're fooling only yourself. Remember, the well-regarded and apparently wuite talented Brooks Boyer must have been involved or at least had an opportunity to comment on this move (assuming it's true). That says one of 2 things: either they think they'll easily make up the revenue due to the attendance decrease with the increased margin on those who still come, or they think they can mitigate the attendance decrease in some way.....maybe by making an offseason splash?

Flight #24
10-20-2004, 02:14 PM
The Sox could have passed the same discount of half price tickets to season ticket holders for Mondays and Tuesdays to make everything fair...that way season ticket holders don't feel cheated.
Are you sure they shouldn't just open the gates and let anyone in for free? Got any other revenue-reducing ideas?

Justafan
10-20-2004, 02:18 PM
I'm just amazed at some of the comments in this thread.

pinwheels3530
10-20-2004, 02:18 PM
Are you sure they shouldn't just open the gates and let anyone in for free? Got any other revenue-reducing ideas?
Hey I didn't create this mess!!:dunno:

Mohoney
10-20-2004, 02:23 PM
There are certainly some Sox fans who can afford full price. Seems to be about 10-15,000 people on any given night.
I don't know about this. When we're in contention, we seem to draw 30,000+ crowds frequently.

Winning seems to make that higher ticket price expendable.

Maybe there can be a compromise. Keep the Tuesday half price night, complete with Pepsi's sponsorship dollars, and get rid of Monday, since Monday is often an off day anyway. That way, good fans that actually benefit from half-price night still can make it out to the park a few times a year, and the drunken bozos that ruin half-price nights are around a little less.

Tekijawa
10-20-2004, 02:41 PM
I just realized what is going on!!!!

The White Sox announce that they are pulling their Half Price night promotion, about 6 minutes after midnight tonight a small fire starts in an office located at the park, it spreads wildly through out the park and it isn't noticed until may hours later. By the time the firedepartment reaches the Stadium it is just a smoldering pile of Black I-Beams and they can't even put those out due to the incredible drainage system that has been installed. Next week we find out that Jerry had taken out an unusually large insurance policy on the Stadium, guaranteeing the price of admission on the daily average ticket price and last years attendance. He then agrees to "contract" the Whitesox with the new Washington Expos, after all Washington White Sox sounds a lot better. And uses the large Insurance windfall to Sign the "injured" Magglio Ordonez (who was in on the plan all along and faking injury, I mean who has surgery in Austria other than Austrians?) Carlos Beltran, Edgar Renteria, Pedro, Pavano and all other high priced Free agents. this would also explain all the "trades we have been doing with the expos the past few years... Can you imagine the rotation of Hernandez, Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras with Garland and Rauch battling it out for the 5th spot! Not to mention Rockey Biddle setting up Shingo? PERFECTLY ORCHESTRATED MISTER REINSDORF! PERFECTLY ORCHESTRATED!


See how it all comes together?? I saw this comming about a mile away!

gosox41
10-20-2004, 02:47 PM
Now Bob, don't be reasonable. Take that talk elsewhere.

Yes sir.:D:


Bob

bobj4400
10-20-2004, 02:56 PM
I know I will be in the minority here, but I somewhat cheer this move. I enjoy attending games on weeknights more than weekends and had been reduced to wednesday and thursday nights as I had to boycott the monday/tuesday night fight games...

I will never understand the idiots that feel the need to start fights at a baseball game, but Monday/Tuesday nights are when the majority of those folks showed up. Good riddance.

mweflen
10-20-2004, 02:58 PM
Look - there are 40,600 seats at the park. On any given night, 20,000 of them go empty. Contending or not - I've been to games when the Sox were in first that didn't break 20,000. Guess what: full price nights. I've been to games when the Sox were not in 1st place that pulled 30,000. Guess what: half price nights.

If you ever need an obvious indicator as to whether tickets are priced too high in relation to the quality of the product on the field, stare out at an expanse of 10,000 empty blue seats. I certainly have had the opportunity - I went to 31 games this year. 1 monday, 7 tuesdays, 4 wednesdays, 2 thursdays, 1 friday, 2 saturdays and 14 Sundays. Without fail, the 8 half-price dates were more heavily attended than all other games (excepting the Cubs-Sox games.) If this is not an indicator of what the market will sustain, what is? Full price nights draw in the 20s, half price nights draw in the 30s. How much more obvious can it be?

As to fan rowdy-ism: all of my weeknight tickets (including mondays and tuesdays) were obtained by splitting a full season plan within a company. NEVER, not one time, did I have to ask some "half price rowdy" to move out of the seat. NEVER. In fact, 75% of the time, I had completely empty rows in front of and behind my seats (Sec. 121, row 21).

Two pretty obvious statements have been made:

1. If the Sox win, people will come.
2. If the Sox reduce prices, people will come.

Folks, there's precious little of #1 going on, and frankly, prospects for next year don't look very rosy.

I like going to a full park. That's just me. Some of you others may not. IMHO, It's more exciting, more enjoyable. If people won't pay $35-$40 a pop to go to the park to see a middling to mediocre team (face facts: I am a die-hard Sox fan, and I'm willing to admit it), well gosh darn it, reduce the prices to the point that people WILL pay to see baseball!

Increasing prices without a corresponding increase in quality of play makes your average fan scratch their head and say "well, gee, why the heck should I go?"

Season ticket holders are wonderful. God Bless 'em. The simple fact of the matter is, there aren't enough of them to finance a successful team on the South Side. The Sox need walk-up business. Based on the walk-up business I've seen on full-price nights, something is preventing walk-ups from showing up. Since management seems unable to improve the quality of the play on the field, they should bite the bullet and reduce or maintain prices to sit around the field.

Flight #24
10-20-2004, 03:17 PM
Increasing prices without a corresponding increase in quality of play makes your average fan scratch their head and say "well, gee, why the heck should I go?"

Season ticket holders are wonderful. God Bless 'em. The simple fact of the matter is, there aren't enough of them to finance a successful team on the South Side. The Sox need walk-up business. Based on the walk-up business I've seen on full-price nights, something is preventing walk-ups from showing up. Since management seems unable to improve the quality of the play on the field, they should bite the bullet and reduce or maintain prices to sit around the field.
Increasing prices when your current prices are near the low end of the industry is not that big of a head-scratcher. And for the record, the Sox performance is above average for the industry.

FightingBillini
10-20-2004, 05:09 PM
So it's OK for you to make comments like that without having a source that says JR spends less then half his revenue. OK.

And you, like others here, confuse 2 different issues. The quality of baseball isn't higher because of the GM. The owner has increased payroll.
I dont have exact numbers for what the team takes in. Nobody does, which is why Selig was almoat given purjury charges for lying in front of the United States congress that all but 3 or 4 teams lost money.
Jerry has been doing this **** for years. He finally started increasing the payroll a few years ago. He tells us to pack the park, and THEN he will up payroll. HE destroyed this franchise. He took a team that packed in over 40,000 people a night, singlehandedly destroyed their best chance at a world series in years, and then doesnt understand why he is villified and the fans dont come.

Someone said on here that there were nights when the Sox were in first place and only 25,000 fans came. That is true, but it was AFTER the strike. In '93-94, that wasnt the case. It takes a while for wounds to heal. There was a certain joy among Sox fans that I havent seen in years this year. We finally went out and got THE BEST available player in our area of need (Garcia). Fans were coming to the park before the collapse. I think 2004 was the year the fans finally forgave or forgot about the strike, and decided that they loved the Sox too much to stay away. We set the USCF record for sell-outs in a season this year (granted, with ~ 6,000 less seats than before), and that was by July 27. If the Sox are in first place this year, the park will be packed. You cant blame it on the fans anymore, they have shown that if there is something to cheer for, they will come.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2004, 05:21 PM
Good riddance to Rob Gallas and his worst and most amateurish attempt at marketing the Chicago White Sox, "Half-Price Night." Great move killing this fiasco of a marketing idea, Brooks! You're already 1,000 miles ahead of your predecessor for this sensible change alone.
:thumbsup:

Here is the single-biggest reason the Sox needed to do away with half-price night a long time ago: The fights and excessive boozing were HURTING the image of the White Sox franchise.

:giangreco
"It's Monday Night Fights at U.S. Cellular... yuck, yuck, yuck!"

In retrospect I believe the Sox tipped their hand about removing half-price nights on two occasions last season. First, the Sox implemented a far more sensible method to draw fans to the ballpark, a staggered price structure based on seat location and date of the game. Unlike the half-priced fiascos, this policy rewarded more than just those dopes who walked up to the gate the day of the game (some toting an empty pop can) to get a discount and drink outdoors on pleasant summer evenings. This promotion never worked except when the weather was good, as anyone sitting in a sea of empty seats for half-priced fiascos held on cold nights in April and May can attest.

Even more telling was the Sox cutting off late-inning beer sales and keeping the vendors out of the aisles. It's bad enough the Sox were letting people in for half-price, but they also need to chop down the potential revenue these fans spend at the ballpark?

:reinsy
"Gallas must think I'm double-stupid to let him get away with this. He's fired!"

I'm 100 percent behind the Sox marketing department's decision. I believe whatever budget the Sox used to fund these half-priced fiascos ought to be funneled directly back into selling more full-season and partial-season ticket plans. These programs are the life-blood of any entertainment business, something Rob Gallas never understood.

:gallas
"Hey, I'm an ex-sportswriter. Shouldn't it have been obvious I never had a ****ing clue?"

Lip Man 1
10-20-2004, 05:33 PM
JB98 says: "Just don't come crying to me about how the Cubs are taking over the city."

JB....they took it over years ago starting in 1984 after a certain South Side team decided to go off free TV in favor of a certain pay service...you remember it don't you?

SportsVision

And of course it didn't help that just about that time WGN started to go big nationally as a Superstation. Great timing guys!

"Chicago has always been a Cubs town..."--Jerry Reinsdorf.

Lip

steff
10-20-2004, 05:41 PM
That is a bunch of ****. Dont ever make a comment like that again unless you provide some sourch that says Reinsdorf is spending any more than HALF his revenue. This organization, like many others, makes much more money thant they lead you to believe. THE QUALITY OF BASEBALL IS NOT HIGHER. The ticket prices have increased a lot since 2000, and the quality of baseball certainly hasn't increaseed. You fall into Reinsy's trap if you honestly believe that the organization loses money, and that he only raises ticket prices to "stay competetive"

:reinsy " Hey soxwon, I've got some 'lakefront property' to sell you."

Care to site your source..??? :rolleyes:

steff
10-20-2004, 05:42 PM
Then shouldn't you have a source who says Reisndorf is making money? Or is it just a one way street? I don't know either way, but apparently you do. So, where's your source?
LMAO!! GMTA!! :D:

thepaulbowski
10-20-2004, 05:43 PM
I know I will be in the minority here, but I somewhat cheer this move. I enjoy attending games on weeknights more than weekends and had been reduced to wednesday and thursday nights as I had to boycott the monday/tuesday night fight games...

I will never understand the idiots that feel the need to start fights at a baseball game, but Monday/Tuesday nights are when the majority of those folks showed up. Good riddance.

I'm with you on this. Good riddance. I can finally go to a Monday or Tuesday game and not have to put up with the crap.

steff
10-20-2004, 05:43 PM
If JR wasn't making money with the Sox he wouldn't be owning the team right now...................


:sellreinsy

Believe it or not folks.. Jerry doesn't need the Sox as income. And believe it or not, again, he's not cashing monster checks.

soxwon
10-20-2004, 05:44 PM
dont matter to me ill still go to 30+ games a year.

i hardly go to mon-tues anyways.

i pay full price and IM PROUD of it.

steff
10-20-2004, 05:47 PM
dont matter to me ill still go to 30+ games a year.

i hardly go to mon-tues anyways.

i pay full price and IM PROUD of it.

Ditto.

Hosey22
10-20-2004, 05:56 PM
I can understand arguments for and against the half-price nights. All I have to say is I'm in college right now and go to all the games I can afford. Whenever half-price nights come around I put together a big group of friends, all of which are also in college, and we go, and have a blast. Half-price nights are iffy for a lot of my friends because of our incomes and expenses such as school, so i can't see to many of them coming to the amount of games I bring them to with full price tickets. I'll still go of course because i'm a crazy die-hard, and would sacrifice meals for sox games, but it's the casual fans who don't have the means which are going to suffer. Which is good in some cases such as the rowdies, and bad for others who want to go enjoy a game but can't. It's a shame, but my butt will still be in a seat for at least 15 games.

Flight #24
10-20-2004, 06:03 PM
I can understand arguments for and against the half-price nights. All I have to say is I'm in college right now and go to all the games I can afford. Whenever half-price nights come around I put together a big group of friends, all of which are also in college, and we go, and have a blast. Half-price nights are iffy for a lot of my friends because of our incomes and expenses such as school, so i can't see to many of them coming to the amount of games I bring them to with full price tickets. I'll still go of course because i'm a crazy die-hard, and would sacrifice meals for sox games, but it's the casual fans who don't have the means which are going to suffer. Which is good in some cases such as the rowdies, and bad for others who want to go enjoy a game but can't. It's a shame, but my butt will still be in a seat for at least 15 games.
Hopefully Brooks has one of the ideas posted here way back in May-June in the works: Student discounts. Proximity to a revitalized IIT plus UIC, U of C being pretty close make it almost a no-brainer. Grab nearby students, get them to come to games while they're young and hopefully lock them into 1)USCF being fun/cool/trendy and 2)Sox are a fun team to watch.

WAY better than allowing the average drunken lunatic in for half price.

ewokpelts
10-20-2004, 06:06 PM
a good promo idea woul dbe to have but one, get one 1/2 off ....basically, you end up paying 25% less for each ticket. That way, you can go to a game for cheep, and the team pockets more revenue.
gene

SoxxoS
10-20-2004, 06:34 PM
As stated before on the upper deck thing...I think we should do all upper deck tickets behind row 5 on weekdays should be a dollar.

maurice
10-20-2004, 06:42 PM
Last time I checked, there are lots of folks in Bridgeport, Bronzeville, Kenwood, Hyde Park, Morgan Park, Beverly, etc. who make a heck of a lot more money than the average denzien of the Bronx. They just don't like blowing their hard-earned money on a crappy team. When the Sox are in 1st place, they draw 30K+ on full-price nights.

JB98
10-20-2004, 06:50 PM
JB98 says: "Just don't come crying to me about how the Cubs are taking over the city."

JB....they took it over years ago starting in 1984 after a certain South Side team decided to go off free TV in favor of a certain pay service...you remember it don't you?

SportsVision

And of course it didn't help that just about that time WGN started to go big nationally as a Superstation. Great timing guys!

"Chicago has always been a Cubs town..."--Jerry Reinsdorf.

Lip

Lip, I vaguely remember the whole SportsVision fiasco. I was eight years old at the time, but really, that whole thing is on the periphery of the point I was trying to make.

What I'm trying to say is, we got all these people who bitch and moan about JR, boycott games, and bad-mouth the Sox organization in general. And at the same time, they also complain about how the media kisses up to the Cubs, disrespects the Sox and plays up the attendance problem at USCF continually. From my perspective, it's disingenuous to play both sides of that argument. After all, if the Sox organization sucks so bad and is so incompetent, shouldn't they become the object of media ridicule?

benjamin
10-20-2004, 07:31 PM
That is a bunch of ****. Dont ever make a comment like that again unless you provide some sourch that says Reinsdorf is spending any more than HALF his revenue. This organization, like many others, makes much more money thant they lead you to believe. THE QUALITY OF BASEBALL IS NOT HIGHER. The ticket prices have increased a lot since 2000, and the quality of baseball certainly hasn't increaseed. You fall into Reinsy's trap if you honestly believe that the organization loses money, and that he only raises ticket prices to "stay competetive"

I've got a better idea: Show me exactly where it is referenced that Reinsdorf is taking a boat-load of profits to the bank?

Otherwise, quit with your conspiracy theories and realize that what is brought in, goes right back out to the players.

Daver
10-20-2004, 07:34 PM
I've got a better idea: Show me exactly where it is referenced that Reinsdorf is taking a boat-load of profits to the bank?

Otherwise, quit with your conspiracy theories and realize that what is brought in, goes right back out to the players.
He bought the team for 21 mil, it is currently worth around 250 mil.

That is about 229 mil in profit.

benjamin
10-20-2004, 07:42 PM
If JR wasn't making money with the Sox he wouldn't be owning the team right now...................


Why is it not possible that someone would purchase a sports team because they are a huge sports fan with the money to do so? Under that scenario, wouldn't it again make sense that this person would be happy breaking even in an effort to make sure that the team was as competitive as possible, being that they are huge fans that want to see the team win?

Further, where exactly do we get our "information" about Reinsdorf? Jay Mariotti? The Tribune? Please.

Those that know Reinsdorf know that he's a huge baseball fan that wants to see the team win. He's not compromising the team on the field in order to fill his bank account.

SoxxoS
10-20-2004, 07:53 PM
He bought the team for 21 mil, it is currently worth around 250 mil.

That is about 229 mil in profit.
With inflation and after taxes it's only about 100 million.

benjamin
10-20-2004, 07:54 PM
He bought the team for 21 mil, it is currently worth around 250 mil.

That is about 229 mil in profit.Nice try.

It's not like he has $229 million sitting in a bank that could be spent on players.

He made an investment for $21 million. It is currently worth $250 million.

But: the only way he sees any of that supposed profit is if he sells the team.

But then, oh bright one, what good would that do? Would he spend $229 million dollars to get the Sox players if he is suddenly no longer the owner of the freakin' team???? Um, no.

Further, do you know of anyone who has $250 million just sitting around under their bed or something that would be interested in buying the Sox???

Of course, they'd actually have to have FAR more than just $250 million. See, because that would only BUY the team, meaning that they would have ZERO DOLLARS left to increase payroll above that of the team's revenue.

Mickster
10-20-2004, 07:56 PM
With inflation and after taxes it's only about 100 million.
Divide it further with all of the "investors" and it's actually a hell of a lot smaller than that. I believe JR holds a 5% vested interest??? About $5 Mil net after taxes. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but not hundreds of millions like some here think. And all after 20+ years of owning the team.

Had JR invested his 1.05 Million (in 1980 dollars) in IBM, for example, at approx. $20/Share (1980 effective cost) he would have approx. 420,000 shares (after splitting the stock 3x) at $88/share for a total of $36M. The Sox were not such a good investment if you look at it in this light.

But to some here.......he's blowing his nose with $100 bills from the yearly profits.

Daver
10-20-2004, 08:02 PM
Nice try.

It's not like he has $229 million sitting in a bank that could be spent on players.

He made an investment for $21 million. It is currently worth $250 million.

But: the only way he sees any of that supposed profit is if he sells the team.

But then, oh bright one, what good would that do? Would he spend $229 million dollars to get the Sox players if he is suddenly no longer the owner of the freakin' team???? Um, no.

Further, do you know of anyone who has $250 million just sitting around under their bed or something that would be interested in buying the Sox???

Of course, they'd actually have to have FAR more than just $250 million. See, because that would only BUY the team, meaning that they would have ZERO DOLLARS left to increase payroll above that of the team's revenue.
No, they would have an asset worth 250 mil, and the ability to borrow against that asset, the same thing Reinsdorf has now. Corporations do not use money in the bank to make payroll, they put available cash into investments and use a line of credit to make payroll, using the profit from their invested assets to pay it back as it matures.

It makes it a lot easier for the accountants to make it impossible to decipher that way. The insurance industry works the same way, but they don't have the benefit of anti trust protection from the US government.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2004, 08:02 PM
Nice try.

It's not like he has $229 million sitting in a bank that could be spent on players.

He made an investment for $21 million. It is currently worth $250 million.

But: the only way he sees any of that supposed profit is if he sells the team.

But then, oh bright one, what good would that do? Would he spend $229 million dollars to get the Sox players if he is suddenly no longer the owner of the freakin' team???? Um, no.

Further, do you know of anyone who has $250 million just sitting around under their bed or something that would be interested in buying the Sox???

Of course, they'd actually have to have FAR more than just $250 million. See, because that would only BUY the team, meaning that they would have ZERO DOLLARS left to increase payroll above that of the team's revenue.
Two pieces of advice, Benjamin.

First don't ever come here and lecture anyone about finance because your post above perfectly illustrates you are clueless on the subject.

Second, don't ever buy the White Sox. We've had enough clueless owners to last us most of a full century already.

Lip Man 1
10-20-2004, 08:25 PM
JB:

I think you'll enjoy reading this:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip

benjamin
10-20-2004, 08:28 PM
No, they would have an asset worth 250 mil, and the ability to borrow against that asset, the same thing Reinsdorf has now. Corporations do not use money in the bank to make payroll, they put available cash into investments and use a line of credit to make payroll, using the profit from their invested assets to pay it back as it matures.

It makes it a lot easier for the accountants to make it impossible to decipher that way. The insurance industry works the same way, but they don't have the benefit of anti trust protection from the US government.Professional athletes are not treated the same as other payrolled employees by their respective teams.

They're treated as liabilities, which is what they are. Multi-million dollar liabilities that may or may not directly result in future revenues. Do you expect many banks to simply turn over $100s of millions in loans so that the Sox can go buy Carlos Beltran, et. al.? Further, what guarentee is there, even if such a loan could be secured, that the Sox could even break even on taking out such a loan in the first place even if they added a player of Beltran's caliber to the mix?

Daver
10-20-2004, 08:38 PM
Professional athletes are not treated the same as other payrolled employees by their respective teams.

They're treated as liabilities, which is what they are. Multi-million dollar liabilities that may or may not directly result in future revenues. Do you expect many banks to simply turn over $100s of millions in loans so that the Sox can go buy Carlos Beltran, et. al.? Further, what guarentee is there, even if such a loan could be secured, that the Sox could even break even on taking out such a loan in the first place even if they added a player of Beltran's caliber to the mix?
OK, now I will join PHG, because it is quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

steff
10-20-2004, 09:23 PM
No, they would have an asset worth 250 mil, and the ability to borrow against that asset, the same thing Reinsdorf has now. Corporations do not use money in the bank to make payroll, they put available cash into investments and use a line of credit to make payroll, using the profit from their invested assets to pay it back as it matures.

It makes it a lot easier for the accountants to make it impossible to decipher that way. The insurance industry works the same way, but they don't have the benefit of anti trust protection from the US government.

MLB teams can not "borrow" from the equity.

Daver
10-20-2004, 09:37 PM
MLB teams can not "borrow" from the equity.
I never said they could.

A bank line of credit is not a loan.

pinwheels3530
10-20-2004, 09:41 PM
Steff can you confirm my original post of the sox doing away with half price nights, from reading all the posts it seems like you get alot of inside information.

steff
10-20-2004, 10:12 PM
I never said they could.

A bank line of credit is not a loan.
I don't believe they can do that either since they would have to use AR as a basis for the LOC. I'll check though, but I thought this information was posted here not long ago... Anyone recall?

steff
10-20-2004, 10:13 PM
Steff can you confirm my original post of the sox doing away with half price nights, from reading all the posts it seems like you get alot of inside information.
Sam hasn't said a word to us about it and I've talked to him regarding moving our seats up several times the past week.

Daver
10-20-2004, 10:20 PM
I don't believe they can do that either since they would have to use AR as a basis for the LOC. I'll check though, but I thought this information was posted here not long ago... Anyone recall?
Why would they need AR on something that is valued publicly, and the value is basically guaranteed by the league itself?

Sorry Steff, I'm not buying it.

The company I work for has ten employees, and pays it payroll with a LOC, while the companies working capital is invested in higher interest gains, do you really think a company with income and net worth like the White Sox Profressional Baseball Club is gaining simple interest on their assets?

nitetrain8601
10-20-2004, 10:33 PM
I haven't seen this brought up in the first two pages, and I don't feel like reading through all this, but for those who said the Sox are trying to appeal to the Yuppies up north and an average Sox fan wouldn't be able to afford to go to games(not exactly in those words) how do you explain Saturday Nights this past year being sold out for almost the rest of the year when we were in it at FULL PRICE??? Granted they ended up being available, but at one point people we're saying weekend tickets for the rest of the season were going to be hard to go by. Didn't we also sell out a couple straight days in a row with 6 of those nights being full price?

dcb33
10-20-2004, 10:41 PM
Look - there are 40,600 seats at the park. On any given night, 20,000 of them go empty. Contending or not - I've been to games when the Sox were in first that didn't break 20,000. Guess what: full price nights. I've been to games when the Sox were not in 1st place that pulled 30,000. Guess what: half price nights.

If you ever need an obvious indicator as to whether tickets are priced too high in relation to the quality of the product on the field, stare out at an expanse of 10,000 empty blue seats. I certainly have had the opportunity - I went to 31 games this year. 1 monday, 7 tuesdays, 4 wednesdays, 2 thursdays, 1 friday, 2 saturdays and 14 Sundays. Without fail, the 8 half-price dates were more heavily attended than all other games (excepting the Cubs-Sox games.) If this is not an indicator of what the market will sustain, what is? Full price nights draw in the 20s, half price nights draw in the 30s. How much more obvious can it be?

As to fan rowdy-ism: all of my weeknight tickets (including mondays and tuesdays) were obtained by splitting a full season plan within a company. NEVER, not one time, did I have to ask some "half price rowdy" to move out of the seat. NEVER. In fact, 75% of the time, I had completely empty rows in front of and behind my seats (Sec. 121, row 21).

Two pretty obvious statements have been made:

1. If the Sox win, people will come.
2. If the Sox reduce prices, people will come.

Folks, there's precious little of #1 going on, and frankly, prospects for next year don't look very rosy.

I like going to a full park. That's just me. Some of you others may not. IMHO, It's more exciting, more enjoyable. If people won't pay $35-$40 a pop to go to the park to see a middling to mediocre team (face facts: I am a die-hard Sox fan, and I'm willing to admit it), well gosh darn it, reduce the prices to the point that people WILL pay to see baseball!

Increasing prices without a corresponding increase in quality of play makes your average fan scratch their head and say "well, gee, why the heck should I go?"

Season ticket holders are wonderful. God Bless 'em. The simple fact of the matter is, there aren't enough of them to finance a successful team on the South Side. The Sox need walk-up business. Based on the walk-up business I've seen on full-price nights, something is preventing walk-ups from showing up. Since management seems unable to improve the quality of the play on the field, they should bite the bullet and reduce or maintain prices to sit around the field.This argument makes no sense whatsoever. As an example, let's assume the average ticket price is $10. If 20,000 fans pay full price for the average ticket cost of $10, the Sox would bring 200,000 in ticket money. If 30,000 pay 1/2 the full ticket price, or $5, the Sox would bring 150,000 in ticket money. The Sox are actually losing money by offering 1/2 price tickets to the general public becuase a.) not every half priced game draws even 30,000 fans and b.)they would have to sell out in order to bring in the same amount of gate money that they would get if they only drew 20,000 fans. Granted, this does not figure in added revenue from increased parking and concession sales, but I doubt that a lot of the people who go because it's half price night pay 5.50/beer, and either way, you have to sell a LOT of beer in order to recoup the money lost by offering half priced tickets.

Frank the Tank
10-20-2004, 11:31 PM
Simple Solution:

Why not just make Monday and Tuesday half price beer nights??

mweflen
10-20-2004, 11:53 PM
This argument makes no sense whatsoever. As an example, let's assume the average ticket price is $10. If 20,000 fans pay full price for the average ticket cost of $10, the Sox would bring 200,000 in ticket money. If 30,000 pay 1/2 the full ticket price, or $5, the Sox would bring 150,000 in ticket money. The Sox are actually losing money by offering 1/2 price tickets to the general public becuase a.) not every half priced game draws even 30,000 fans and b.)they would have to sell out in order to bring in the same amount of gate money that they would get if they only drew 20,000 fans. Granted, this does not figure in added revenue from increased parking and concession sales, but I doubt that a lot of the people who go because it's half price night pay 5.50/beer, and either way, you have to sell a LOT of beer in order to recoup the money lost by offering half priced tickets.

The 'problem with your problem' is that out of a 30,000 half price night crowd, only about 10,000 actually paid half price. Everyone else is either a season ticket holder or someone who purchased tickets in advance. So in actuality you have 10,000 seats which would have generated $0, which instead (to use your financial terms) are generating $50,000. So you net $250,000 instead of $200,000.

soxnut
10-21-2004, 12:38 AM
That is a bunch of ****. Dont ever make a comment like that again unless you provide some sourch that says Reinsdorf is spending any more than HALF his revenue. This organization, like many others, makes much more money thant they lead you to believe. THE QUALITY OF BASEBALL IS NOT HIGHER. The ticket prices have increased a lot since 2000, and the quality of baseball certainly hasn't increaseed. You fall into Reinsy's trap if you honestly believe that the organization loses money, and that he only raises ticket prices to "stay competetive"



Don't tell me what kind of comments I can make on this board. And I'll do it any way I want. I don't think that they are losing money, but there's got to be something wrong somewhere. And I'm also tired of people thinking that we're the "poor Sox fans, who don't have any money. The entire Chicagoland area is loaded with money, and I doubt that they are all Cubs fans---if anyone thinks that, they're crazy.

dcb33
10-21-2004, 12:48 AM
The 'problem with your problem' is that out of a 30,000 half price night crowd, only about 10,000 actually paid half price. Everyone else is either a season ticket holder or someone who purchased tickets in advance. So in actuality you have 10,000 seats which would have generated $0, which instead (to use your financial terms) are generating $50,000. So you net $250,000 instead of $200,000.
Fair enough. Although you have no evidence to suggest otherwise, let's assume that you are correct and that the Sox are able to pull in extra cash from those half priced nights. Do you really think that the Sox would realistically draw 30,000 for each and every home game if the ticket prices for all games were that low? I highly doubt they would.
The other issue I have is that I don't believe that the extra cash, if any, the Sox have made from these 1/2 priced nights has been worth the tarnished reputation the team has gotten due to incidents that have occured. I personally don't care if I have to pay full or half price because I'll find a way to go whatever the ticket price. I do, care, however, if the good name of White Sox fans everywhere gets run through the mud becuase of a few drunken fools who aren't even fans of the team that decide to start trouble.

Half price or full price, the cost of going to a Sox game (assuming you drive, which I do since I live in the burbs), is still much more affordable than going to a Cubs game.

JB98
10-21-2004, 02:16 AM
JB:

I think you'll enjoy reading this:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip
Thanks for the info, Lip.

I certainly remember being frustrated as a child when my dad told me we couldn't watch the Sox because we couldn't afford SportsVision. I was too young to know the whole story behind it, but even at that age, I know that I was smart enough to realize that SportsVision sucked.

pinwheels3530
10-21-2004, 02:46 AM
After reading PHG post......I have to say in the long run this will be good for the franchise. I don't want the Sox to be known for having the cheap tickets cause know will go to your games type perception, but for fielding great winning teams with a affordable ticket price.

pinwheels3530
10-21-2004, 04:23 AM
Hey know one has mentioned the cheerleaders, what does everyone think .......is this a good or bad idea.

steff
10-21-2004, 06:21 AM
Why would they need AR on something that is valued publicly, and the value is basically guaranteed by the league itself?

Sorry Steff, I'm not buying it.

The company I work for has ten employees, and pays it payroll with a LOC, while the companies working capital is invested in higher interest gains, do you really think a company with income and net worth like the White Sox Profressional Baseball Club is gaining simple interest on their assets?And your company has revolving AR as cashflow, correct..? Bekins is valued at more than $400 million.. but we can't borrow against anything more than our cash flow projections.

gosox41
10-21-2004, 08:37 AM
He bought the team for 21 mil, it is currently worth around 250 mil.

That is about 229 mil in profit.
On paper.


Bob

gosox41
10-21-2004, 08:43 AM
No, they would have an asset worth 250 mil, and the ability to borrow against that asset, the same thing Reinsdorf has now. Corporations do not use money in the bank to make payroll, they put available cash into investments and use a line of credit to make payroll, using the profit from their invested assets to pay it back as it matures.

It makes it a lot easier for the accountants to make it impossible to decipher that way. The insurance industry works the same way, but they don't have the benefit of anti trust protection from the US government.
So you're saying JR would need to borrow money. Basically that shows there not the cash cow everyone thinks they are.

And even if they borrowed money or had a line of credit, let's say they up their payroll to $100 mill. And let's say becasue of injuries, KW's incompetence, or just plain 'bad luck' the team wins 75 games. No way does this team fund their payroll for that year and now would have longer term debt out on the team. And it's for the simple reason that fans here rightly or wrongly won't support a losing team no matter how high/low the payroll is.



Bob

Hitmen77
10-21-2004, 10:00 AM
I think I'd rather the Sox more evenly distribute their price structure. Instead of having 1/2 price Mondays and 1/2 price w/ Pepsi-can Tuesdays and then full price Wed and Thurs, how about a consistent price structure for all weekdays?

I don't know what to say about prices vs. payroll vs. attendance. Quite frankly, I'm tired of us Sox fans' endless chicken-and-egg debate about payroll and attendance. What is clear to me is that the current Sox ownership has painted themselves into this corner over the last 20 years by alienating fans and driving away the fan base. It's not only about failure to win a pennant (though winning one would help!). It's that plus all the awful off-the-field moves. Constrast that to the Cubs who have been even more futile on the field but seem to have made all the right moves off the field in the last 20 years.

Now the Sox are perpetually stuck in a cycle of small fan base, low revenues, low payroll, low attendance.

We need new ownership - not because it will magically bring in new money out of thin air - but because of the hope that a new regime will know how to do things like build a real farm system (not just one with overhyped prospects that rarely turn out) and generate a following in Chicago again.

Flight #24
10-21-2004, 10:53 AM
The 'problem with your problem' is that out of a 30,000 half price night crowd, only about 10,000 actually paid half price. Everyone else is either a season ticket holder or someone who purchased tickets in advance. So in actuality you have 10,000 seats which would have generated $0, which instead (to use your financial terms) are generating $50,000. So you net $250,000 instead of $200,000.
You're assuming that walkup sales on those nights at full price = 0, something I'd guess is not true. Even if it's just 2500 (instead of your 10k above), you end up net (10000 * $5 - 2500 * $10) = $-25,000).

Sox reputation v. 25k/night on a few nights? Plus, I'd bet there are a non-insignificant # of people who stayed away on 1/2 price nights who will come and pay full price now, so assuming full-price walkups of 25% of half-price walkups is pretty low.

Not to mention that if the rumors in the paper that the Sox "have Magglio & Valentin's cash to go after FAs" is true, they may be banking on the increased buzz from signing a few guys offsetting the increased ticket price and giving them the best of both worlds: More $$$ AND less drunken fools. (NOTE: I'm not assuming that they'll effectively increase payroll by 19mil, but there have been a number of comments in local papers about them using the savings from Maggs & Val to pursue FAs, and I haven't seen any that discuss the fact that they added Garcia, Everett, Contreras salaries which basically offset those savings. The implication is that either the media is stupid-admittedly not unlikely, or "inside sources" that are discussing the plans with media are counting on a payroll bump).

mweflen
10-21-2004, 11:12 AM
I think I'd rather the Sox more evenly distribute their price structure. Instead of having 1/2 price Mondays and 1/2 price w/ Pepsi-can Tuesdays and then full price Wed and Thurs, how about a consistent price structure for all weekdays?

This is the most sensible alternative in my mind. Half price nights tick off season ticket holders, which is bad. They have a right to be ticked and feel ripped off when they, dedicated fans, pay 90% of the face price, whereas fans who see fewer games pay 50% face.

On the other hand, eliminating half price nights and upping ticket prices yet again is another fan-unfriendly slap in the face to an already beleagered fan base.

Therefore, I think we should adopt the strategy of several other teams (many in big and successful markets) of creating a permanent discount section, without rotating schedules that require a degree from MIT to decipher. 7 days a week, 5000-plus seats (as if we don't have the seats to spare in the UD.) I am thinking $5 every day in the UD, sections 544-558 and 520-506 (currently known as Upper Reserved, running $12 to $21 depending on date as of 2004)

Here are some teams, who MADE the playoffs by the way, who have 7-day per week sections like this:

Angels: All OF seats: $10 and $9 for adults, $7 and $5 for kids. (At least 3,000 seats)
Braves: Upper Pavilion seats $5, "Skyline" section $1 (some 5,000 plus seats, at least)
Astros: $5 adult and $1 kids UD corners, $10 UD (at least 5k seats)
Dodgers: All OF seats $6, Top Deck (Center UD) $6, $10 UD reserved (5k plus seats)
Twins: Upper GA (whatever that means, Corner UD) $6 (about 7,000 seats)
Yankees: Bleachers $8 advance, $10 day of game, (about 2,000 seats)

steff
10-21-2004, 01:36 PM
So you're saying JR would need to borrow money. Basically that shows there not the cash cow everyone thinks they are.

And even if they borrowed money or had a line of credit, let's say they up their payroll to $100 mill. And let's say becasue of injuries, KW's incompetence, or just plain 'bad luck' the team wins 75 games. No way does this team fund their payroll for that year and now would have longer term debt out on the team. And it's for the simple reason that fans here rightly or wrongly won't support a losing team no matter how high/low the payroll is.



Bob

Which is exactly why I believe MLB has a rule about not borrowing against equity. Health can not be guaranteed.. thus can't be used as a borrowing agent. The Sox prove that if they don't win, people don't come, which means the Sox wouldn't be able to pay down the LOC.

wdelaney72
10-21-2004, 01:36 PM
:tomatoaward

wdelaney72
10-21-2004, 02:18 PM
This argument makes no sense whatsoever. As an example, let's assume the average ticket price is $10. If 20,000 fans pay full price for the average ticket cost of $10, the Sox would bring 200,000 in ticket money. If 30,000 pay 1/2 the full ticket price, or $5, the Sox would bring 150,000 in ticket money. The Sox are actually losing money by offering 1/2 price tickets to the general public becuase a.) not every half priced game draws even 30,000 fans and b.)they would have to sell out in order to bring in the same amount of gate money that they would get if they only drew 20,000 fans. Granted, this does not figure in added revenue from increased parking and concession sales, but I doubt that a lot of the people who go because it's half price night pay 5.50/beer, and either way, you have to sell a LOT of beer in order to recoup the money lost by offering half priced tickets.
You are SEVERELY underestimating where entertainment industries such as sports and amusement parks make their money. It's not at the gate, it's at the concession stands, merchandising booths, and parking lots. And yes people at half-priced nights are willingly paying $5.50 a beer. The gate is an important revenue source, but the other elements are equally, if not more, important.

Also, keep in mind Tuesdays are provided by a corporate sponsor, so there's more money brought in.

Yes, many more idiots show up on half-price nights, which is why I won't bring my kids to those games. With that, I still like being in the park when it's full or close to being full.

As far as the other comments about JR's profits, I agree that JR is not blowing his nose with $100 bills from owning the White Sox. While I also accept that JR is a big baseball fan, I do not believe this translates to the way he runs the White Sox in anyway. JR runs the White Sox like a business. Period. He subscribes to the old school philosophy of short-term planning. He runs the team on a year-by-year basis where the team breaks even or profits slightly. This is clearly explained by our somewhat modest payroll.

If JR and his partners would be willing to eat some money for the short term in order to heavily build a powerhouse team, the long-term results would be actually having the ability to blow their noses with $100 bills.

You have to spend money to earn money. JR simply does not run the club this way.

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2004, 02:31 PM
If JR and his partners would be willing to eat some money for the short term in order to heavily build a powerhouse team, the long-term results would be actually having the ability to blow their noses with $100 bills.

You have to spend money to earn money. JR simply does not run the club this way.The problem with this assertion is that it is completely at odds with facts. Increasing payroll by modest amounts ($10-30M) have virtually NO EFFECT on winning percentage or chances of making the playoffs. There are a bunch of $90M teams playing golf right now. If money was so critical, how come the Twins have won three straight years? Only large increases in payroll (north of $100M total) have discernable effects, and even at that, unless you spend Steinbrenner-like money, the odds are still lousy. So the idea that JR is just going to plump down another $30M, the team is going to win the WS, the park is going to be packed and the $$$ are just going to roll in is pure fantasy.

Wealz
10-21-2004, 02:34 PM
I am thinking $5 every day in the UD, sections 544-558 and 520-506 (currently known as Upper Reserved, running $12 to $21 depending on date as of 2004)
$5 every day for those sections? If you have ever sat there you know that the majority of those seats are bargains at the current price of $12-$14.

What are the Cubs ticket prices?

I think this thread is silly.

soxtalker
10-21-2004, 03:04 PM
I asked a question early in this thread regarding the Granton ticket package. I assume from the lack of replies that there was no mention of this in the radio report that the Sox were dropping half-price Mondays and Tuesdays. So, maybe it (or some modification) remains, maybe not. Just because the Sox dropped the blanket half-price days doesn't mean that there won't be any reduced-price options. I never understood why Mondays and Tuesdays should be half-price promotions, while Thursday afternoons were full price. (Granted, there were cheap hot dogs those days.) They have the ability to be much more sophisticated in targeting the specific seats and games that will draw fewer fans, and those are the ones for which reduced prices should be aimed. It looks like that is the direction toward which they are moving.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 03:21 PM
$5 every day for those sections? If you have ever sat there you know that the majority of those seats are bargains at the current price of $12-$14.

What are the Cubs ticket prices?

I think this thread is silly.Seeing as how, in my post, I quoted the 2004 price for this section, I would say that I am aware of their current pricing.

Why not read entire posts before spouting off? I think you're silly.

My POINT is that those seats are empty, tumbleweeds blowing in the breeze empty, for 85%-plus of the time. Obviously, demand for these seats at their current prices is barely existent. Chopping the price to make it a true discount section which attracts families, students, and working class schmoes would likely increase demand, thus increasing the profitability of those otherwise empty seats from $ZERO to $5.

If people aren't buying your product for $12, you should either make the product worth $12, or cut the price of the product. Consumers have a lot of other choices for their entertainment dollar.

I also notice that you have conveniently left off the other part of my post, in which I compare PLAYOFF TEAMS' budget sections, all under $10, to ours, all over $12. Notice their products, by comparison.

I frankly don't give one half of a rat's rear-end what the Cubs' ticket prices are. That's like asking what tickets for electro-convulsive therapy for mental patients cost.

soxtalker
10-21-2004, 03:35 PM
A big issue that the Sox face is that the attendance is highly sensitive to how competitive we are. In addition, there is a time lag. I haven't analyzed the numbers, but IIRC the draw was pretty low early in the season. It started to go up when people began to believe that we really had a competitive team. Now, we dropped out of the race very quickly at the end of July after Maggs and Frank went down, but, again IIRC, the attendance stayed up for several weeks before declining in September. I'm guessing that they'll face the same early-season problems next year unless KW inflates expectations with some really big acquisitions. (I'm not trying to get into a FA signing discussion; there are plenty of those.) At this point, let me assume that won't be the case. So, I wonder if there is a way that they can have some low-price promotions early in the year to boost attendance then.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 03:39 PM
I wonder if there is a way that they can have some low-price promotions early in the year to boost attendance then.
This is another good idea, though to my mind, somewhat less attractive than a year round budget section, since it relegates lower-income and/or less devoted fans to 35-degree April and May games (of which I've been to plenty.... BRRRRRRR).

What sort of pricing would you envision for an April/May discount?

Wealz
10-21-2004, 03:42 PM
Seeing as how, in my post, I quoted the 2004 price for this section, I would say that I am aware of their current pricing.

Why not read entire posts before spouting off? I think you're silly.

My POINT is that those seats are empty, tumbleweeds blowing in the breeze empty, for 85%-plus of the time. Obviously, demand for these seats at their current prices is barely existent. Chopping the price to make it a true discount section which attracts families, students, and working class schmoes would likely increase demand, thus increasing the profitability of those otherwise empty seats from $ZERO to $5.

If people aren't buying your product for $12, you should either make the product worth $12, or cut the price of the product. Consumers have a lot of other choices for their entertainment dollar.

I also notice that you have conveniently left off the other part of my post, in which I compare PLAYOFF TEAMS' budget sections, all under $10, to ours, all over $12. Notice their products, by comparison.

I frankly don't give one half of a rat's rear-end what the Cubs' ticket prices are. That's like asking what tickets for electro-convulsive therapy for mental patients cost.
How in the world is the price of a ticket to a MLB game in Los Angeles used as a measuring stick for Sox ticket prices and the price of a ticket to a MLB game 8 miles north not?

mweflen
10-21-2004, 03:45 PM
How in the world is the price of a ticket to a MLB game in Los Angeles used as a measuring stick for Sox ticket prices and the price of a ticket to a MLB game 8 miles north not?The Cubs do not represent a real comparison to the Sox. The Cubs and the Urinal exist as more of a theme-park attraction to their blubbering, drunken fans, as opposed to a baseball franchise which has to actually perform well to generate fan interest (i.e. the Sox).

Wealz
10-21-2004, 03:52 PM
The Cubs do not represent a real comparison to the Sox. The Cubs and the Urinal exist as more of a theme-park attraction to their blubbering, drunken fans, as opposed to a baseball franchise which has to actually perform well to generate fan interest (i.e. the Sox).
I thought all they had to do was cut ticket prices to generate interest?

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2004, 03:55 PM
Seeing as how, in my post, I quoted the 2004 price for this section, I would say that I am aware of their current pricing.

Why not read entire posts before spouting off? I think you're silly.

My POINT is that those seats are empty, tumbleweeds blowing in the breeze empty, for 85%-plus of the time. Obviously, demand for these seats at their current prices is barely existent. Chopping the price to make it a true discount section which attracts families, students, and working class schmoes would likely increase demand, thus increasing the profitability of those otherwise empty seats from $ZERO to $5.

If people aren't buying your product for $12, you should either make the product worth $12, or cut the price of the product. Consumers have a lot of other choices for their entertainment dollar.

I also notice that you have conveniently left off the other part of my post, in which I compare PLAYOFF TEAMS' budget sections, all under $10, to ours, all over $12. Notice their products, by comparison.

I frankly don't give one half of a rat's rear-end what the Cubs' ticket prices are. That's like asking what tickets for electro-convulsive therapy for mental patients cost.The problem with this is that you generate less revenue from the tickets to that section you're already selling. For example, if you cut the price in half, you need to sell twice as many to generate the same total revenue. In practice, you need less than that because there is associated revenues from parking, concessions, etc., but the principle remains the same. It's a basic business school exercise to determine the most profitable pricing once you know how big an increase in demand you get from a given decrease in price. If you're interested, Google "Price Elasticity of Demand" for a number of sites that explain it pretty well. It's a good bet that the Sox marketing people are well-acquainted with this, and that's how the prices are set.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 03:58 PM
I thought all they had to do was cut ticket prices to generate interest?
Again, what I said in my post, which I kindly direct you to peruse yet again, is that EITHER you make the product worth $12 (by increasing the quality of the team, posting a better record, etc.) OR you cut prices.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 04:03 PM
The problem with this is that you generate less revenue from the tickets to that section you're already selling. For example, if you cut the price in half, you need to sell twice as many to generate the same total revenue. In practice, you need less than that because there is associated revenues from parking, concessions, etc., but the principle remains the same. It's a basic business school exercise to determine the most profitable pricing once you know how big an increase in demand you get from a given decrease in price. If you're interested, Google "Price Elasticity of Demand" for a number of sites that explain it pretty well. It's a good bet that the Sox marketing people are well-acquainted with this, and that's how the prices are set.This is all well and good, but the sections in question (544-558 and 520-506) are so poorly attended, that at their full price, they generate essentially zero profit. So the suits and slide rulers in the Sox office obviously have something figured wrong: demand for mediocre team X at Price Y in section Z.

However, you have a very good point - there's no guarantee anybody would be interested in thos seats even if they were $5. I'm saying, it couldn't hurt, since they're empty anyway. It might even go some way to repair a relationship with fans that has been, shall we say, a bit rocky, since Satan took the reigns.

Wealz
10-21-2004, 04:05 PM
Again, what I said in my post, which I kindly direct you to peruse yet again, is that EITHER you make the product worth $12 (by increasing the quality of the team, posting a better record, etc.) OR you cut prices.
So cutting prices would be an indication that the team isn't going to be very good. Yes, that will fill the seats.

When there are demand for those seats again, how do you suppose people whould react for a price increase from $5 to $15? Not too good I'm guessing.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 04:08 PM
So cutting prices would be an indication that the team isn't going to be very good. Yes, that will fill the seats.

When there are demand for those seats again, how do you suppose people whould react for a price increase from $5 to $15? Not too good I'm guessing.I direct you to the aforementioned examples of Minnesota, Los Angeles, Houston, New York, and Anaheim. They haven't seen the need to increase prices on those seats they have designated budget areas, and yet they seem not only solvent, but successful.

I am not advocating putting them at $5 until demand increases. I am advocating putting them at $5 indefinitely.

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2004, 04:18 PM
This is all well and good, but the sections in question (544-558 and 520-506) are so poorly attended, that at their full price, they generate essentially zero profit. So the suits and slide rulers in the Sox office obviously have something figured wrong: demand for mediocre team X at Price Y in section Z."Slide rulers"??? You're showing your age. I thought I was the only dinosaur around here who has actually used a slide rule.:wink:

I really don't know how many tickets they actually sell in those sections, but the expanse of empty seats may be misleading. People often buy tickets to those sections and move down. They're a lot looser about that sort of thing in the upper deck. Also, since any ticket gets you into the Bullpen Sports Bar, you'll find most of the people there have bought the cheapest ticket available. Any freshly minted business school graduate could figure out the optimal price, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't have it down pretty well. In fact, that's why the half-price nights were originally targeted for day-of-the-game sales only. They didn't have to give the discount to people who bought their tickets in advance, which saves a lot of the lost revenue.

Look at it this way. For 2004 they implemented one of the largest percentage increases in ticket prices in quite a while, and overall attendance didn't drop at all. In fact, they had a healthy increase through most of the year. From what I can see, it's a price inelastic product (i.e. price has very little influence on demand).

mweflen
10-21-2004, 04:19 PM
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/ballparks/cellular.html

Jim Caple of ESPN.com has this to say:





You want to know why White Sox attendance is so low? Buy a seat in the upper deck and you won't wonder any longer. The lower level seats are all very good but they also are all very expensive. Like all the tickets. The lowest price anywhere at the stadium is $14. And that doesn't include the Sherpa fees. The only saving grace is the availability of scalpers. I got a $29 seat for $10 within 10 steps of the El station. But if the Sox want to increase attendance, Reinsdorf might want to consider lowering their prices.




Here we have an unbiased view (he writes a pretty nice review of the Cell) from an East Coaster, where supposedly (though not in fact) baseball ticket prices are astronomically higher than they are here.

Wealz
10-21-2004, 04:19 PM
I direct you to the aformentioned examples of Minnesota, Los Angeles, Houston,, New York, and Anaheim. They haven't seen the need to increase prices on those seats they have designated budget areas, and yet they seem not only solvent, but successful.

I am not advocating putting them at $5 until demand increases. I am advocating putting them at $5 indefinitely.
The White Sox aren't solvent?

The Sox are not competing with the teams listed above for customers. Again, what are Cubs ticket prices?

Also, the ridiculous idea to make every UD reserve seat $5 accounts for roughly 14% of the seats in the park. That would be the equivalent of the Yankees offering roughly 8,000 seats at bargain prices.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 04:21 PM
Look at it this way. For 2004 they implemented one of the largest percentage increases in ticket prices in quite a while, and overall attendance didn't drop at all. In fact, they had a healthy increase through most of the year. From what I can see, it's a price inelastic product (i.e. price has very little influence on demand).
There seems to be some weight to your argument, but I think it only applies to a slice (considerable though it may be) of the fan base. There are those to whom $40 a pop for baseball tickets is no steep hill to climb. But I know from both personal experience and from conversation that price does have a direct effect on demand with a large segment of potential (and potentially loyal) Sox patrons.

Wealz
10-21-2004, 04:24 PM
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/ballparks/cellular.html

Jim Caple of ESPN.com has this to say:




Here we have an unbiased view (he writes a pretty nice review of the Cell) from an East Coaster, where supposedly (though not in fact) baseball ticket prices are astronomically higher than they are here.
Tickets for most of the seats in the UD were lowered last year. In some cases lowered significantly.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 04:27 PM
The White Sox aren't solvent?

The Sox are not competing with the teams listed above for customers. Again, what are Cubs ticket prices?

Also, the ridiculous idea to make every UD reserve seat $5 accounts for roughly 14% of the seats in the park. That would be the equivalent of the Yankees offering roughly 8,000 seats at bargain prices.
I am not saying the Sox are insolvent. I am saying that other solvent and successful teams have significant sections of their parks at less expensive prices than the Sox.

The Yankees offer 2,000 of their seats for $8, every game of the year: bleachers, traditionally the bargain section at every park in the land... 2004 Cell price:$24 to $31, depending on date.

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2004, 04:28 PM
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/ballparks/cellular.html

Jim Caple of ESPN.com has this to say:




Here we have an unbiased view (he writes a pretty nice review of the Cell) from an East Coaster, where supposedly (though not in fact) baseball ticket prices are astronomically higher than they are here.Unbiased? Maybe.
Knowledgable? Not necessarily.

You do make a good point about being good PR, but I think they can do that without just cutting prices across the board. I recall when my kids were small they used to get free tickets for things like perfect attendance and honor roll. They came home from school with a form that you could send in for a free ticket, and IIRC, a discount on additional tickets for family members. I think this was done for all schools in the Chicago area. Do they still do this? Maybe they cut it out because they found it wasn't very effective, but regardless, IMO, this kind of thing is the way to go rather than just cutting prices. It wouldn't be too hard to dream up a half dozen more promotions like this. Maybe Boyer will resurrect it.

mweflen
10-21-2004, 04:32 PM
Tickets for most of the seats in the UD were lowered last year. In some cases lowered significantly.:bs:

Having been to 30 plus games per year since 1999, I can say both from personal knowledge and from having a current schedule in my wallet for five years straight that this is unequivocally not true.

Last year, IIRC, UD prices were split into two tiers: Upper Box and Upper Reserved. Box seats were $16, Reserved were $10.This year, there are three pricing tiers with three dating tiers: Premium Upper Box, $18-$27 depending on date, Upper Box: $16-$25 d.o.d., and Upper Reserved, $12-$21 d.o.d.

Wealz
10-21-2004, 04:38 PM
:bs:

Having been to 30 plus games per year since 1999, I can say both from personal knowledge and from having a current schedule in my wallet for five years straight that this is unequivocally not true.

Last year, IIRC, UD prices were split into two tiers: Upper Box and Upper Reserved. Box seats were $16, Reserved were $10.This year, there are three pricing tiers: Premium Upper Box, $18-$27 depending on date, Upper Box: $16-$25 d.o.d., and Upper Reserved, $12-$21 d.o.d.
In 2003 most of the seats that are now considered upper reserve were considered upper boxes and were priced at $20. In 2004 those seats went for $12 during the week, $14 on weekends, and $21 for the Cubs series.

ewokpelts
10-21-2004, 05:00 PM
Unbiased? Maybe.
Knowledgable? Not necessarily.

You do make a good point about being good PR, but I think they can do that without just cutting prices across the board. I recall when my kids were small they used to get free tickets for things like perfect attendance and honor roll. They came home from school with a form that you could send in for a free ticket, and IIRC, a discount on additional tickets for family members. I think this was done for all schools in the Chicago area. Do they still do this? Maybe they cut it out because they found it wasn't very effective, but regardless, IMO, this kind of thing is the way to go rather than just cutting prices. It wouldn't be too hard to dream up a half dozen more promotions like this. Maybe Boyer will resurrect it.they still do it.....
Gene

ewokpelts
10-21-2004, 05:02 PM
In 2003 most of the seats that are now considered upper reserve were considered upper boxes and were priced at $20. In 2004 those seats went for $12 during the week, $14 on weekends, and $21 for the Cubs series.they will be 28 %$$#$%# FOR THE CUBS SERIES IN 2005!
Gene

soxtalker
10-21-2004, 06:02 PM
This is another good idea, though to my mind, somewhat less attractive than a year round budget section, since it relegates lower-income and/or less devoted fans to 35-degree April and May games (of which I've been to plenty.... BRRRRRRR).

What sort of pricing would you envision for an April/May discount?

I don't know what I'd say as to the actual level of pricing. That's something a good marketing department should be able to do. What I'm suggesting is that the long-time concept of a small number of prices fixed over the season is not the most desirable way to go -- neither for maximizing income to the team nor for accomodating the most fans. Just as it makes good sense (for maximizing income) to raise the price for the high-demand Cubs or Red Sox series, it makes sense to reduce the prices for low-demand (for whatever reason) games.

They could get really adventuresome if they cared to. Want to encourage walk-ups on cold days -- institute a price cut related to starting temperature. Want to encourage advance sales -- institute an incentive for early purchases. (They actually do that to some degree. Season tickets are better seats.)

There are all sorts of variations that are possible now with everything so highly computerized. Not only is it possible to produce tickets of many different prices, but the data to make such pricing decisions should be increasingly available. They won't get it right all the time, but they should be trying and then learning from their mistakes.

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2004, 06:19 PM
[QUOTE=soxtalker]They could get really adventuresome if they cared to. Want to encourage walk-ups on cold days -- institute a price cut related to starting temperature. [QUOTE]I love it!!! I can just see people standing around outside ticket windows waiting for the temperature to drop and ticket prices to go down.

santo=dorf
10-21-2004, 06:26 PM
they will be 28 %$$#$%# FOR THE CUBS SERIES IN 2005!
Gene$28 to sit in the UD?!?!? :o:

**** YOU JERRY!!!

:selljerry

kitekrazy
10-21-2004, 06:48 PM
they will be 28 %$$#$%# FOR THE CUBS SERIES IN 2005!
Gene

The crosstown classic is losing it's luster for me.

dickallen15
10-21-2004, 07:18 PM
I am not saying the Sox are insolvent. I am saying that other solvent and successful teams have significant sections of their parks at less expensive prices than the Sox.

The Yankees offer 2,000 of their seats for $8, every game of the year: bleachers, traditionally the bargain section at every park in the land... 2004 Cell price:$24 to $31, depending on date.But Sox fans want to pay $8 and sit in the most expensive seats. Yankee Stadium boxes on the infield were $95. The $8 ticket got you access to the bleachers, you had no access to anywhere else in the park, not even the upper deck, AND they don't serve alcohol in the Yankee Stadium bleachers. Could you imagine the outrage if Reinsdorf instituted this kind of policy at USCF? The Yankee Stadium bleachers are also farther away from the playing field.The seating in LF and RF until you get to behind the monuments in LF, and into right center in RF, are considered boxes. The USCF bleachers have a far better vantage point. The Yankees also have a capacity of 57,000 or so. They can make more really cheap seats available.

jabrch
10-21-2004, 11:04 PM
But Sox fans want to pay $8 and sit in the most expensive seats. Yankee Stadium boxes on the infield were $95. The $8 ticket got you access to the bleachers, you had no access to anywhere else in the park, not even the upper deck, AND they don't serve alcohol in the Yankee Stadium bleachers. Could you imagine the outrage if Reinsdorf instituted this kind of policy at USCF? The Yankee Stadium bleachers are also farther away from the playing field.The seating in LF and RF until you get to behind the monuments in LF, and into right center in RF, are considered boxes. The USCF bleachers have a far better vantage point. The Yankees also have a capacity of 57,000 or so. They can make more really cheap seats available.
Sox fans just want something to bitch about.

anewman35
10-21-2004, 11:20 PM
they will be 28 %$$#$%# FOR THE CUBS SERIES IN 2005!
Gene
And they'll sell out easilly. You all want the team to spend more money, so shouldn't they make all the money they can, so they have money to spend?

Whitesox029
10-22-2004, 12:36 AM
I was listening to the score at work earlier, when they had information on Murphy's radio show that the Sox were doing away with half-price Mondays & Tuesdays. This is precisely the wonderful PR move that will draw more fans to the Cell next year.

:?: What the hell are they thinking?

BainesHOF
10-22-2004, 06:38 AM
Believe it or not folks.. Jerry doesn't need the Sox as income. And believe it or not, again, he's not cashing monster checks.
Reinsdorf clearly needs to be the owner for his ego, and the Sox have been very good to him financially. Not only does he make money each year but he'll make an absolute killing whenever he sells.

Mickster
10-22-2004, 10:38 AM
Reinsdorf clearly needs to be the owner for his ego, and the Sox have been very good to him financially. Not only does he make money each year but he'll make an absolute killing whenever he sells.
How so? Sox were purchased for $21 Mil. He holds a 5% interest, if I am not mistaken. He invested $1.05 Mil. The team will sell for $250M. His cut will be $12.5 Mil. What will be his net after taxes?

There is no doubt that he will make money on his investment, but a killing? Doubt it.

jabrch
10-22-2004, 10:51 AM
How so? Sox were purchased for $21 Mil. He holds a 5% interest, if I am not mistaken. He invested $1.05 Mil. The team will sell for $250M. His cut will be $12.5 Mil. What will be his net after taxes?

There is no doubt that he will make money on his investment, but a killing? Doubt it.
2...carry the 1...subtract the remainder... That's about 1100% return on his investment in addition to any other payments he has received over time, over 45% per year.

I don't shed a tear for JR and his family's financial well being. :cool:

mweflen
10-22-2004, 10:57 AM
Reinsdorf won't sell. He'll die first, clutching the franchise in his cold, dead fingers. We are all doomed to bitterness, pessimism and mediocrity until Satan kicks the bucket.

:reinsy
"Sell? Why would I ever sell? Winning a World Series is my absolute dream and dedication. There's just been some rotten luck. It's not my fault. Eddie was behind the whole pay TV scheme. The City was forcing us to want to move to Tampa. The State made me add that extra level of luxury boxes. The players were too greedy in 94. The Cubs have an unfair advantage with WGN. This has always been a Cubs town, anyway. But hey, look what my expert stewardship did for the Bulls! That wasn't luck though..."

Mickster
10-22-2004, 11:17 AM
I don't shed a tear for JR and his family's financial well being. :cool:
Nor do I. I was merely pointing out that if JR sells the team, he will not end up with a $250M windfall....

scottmt
10-22-2004, 02:33 PM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but in the past you have been able to get half priced tickets Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (not sure about Monday) by showing a AAA card at the ticket window--and that wasn't restricted to the upper deck, either.

Nothing's been said about terminating that promotion, correct?

steff
10-22-2004, 03:18 PM
Reinsdorf clearly needs to be the owner for his ego, and the Sox have been very good to him financially. Not only does he make money each year but he'll make an absolute killing whenever he sells.

FYI.. he's NOT the owner.. and has one of the smallest %'s of shares. :rolleyes:

Mickster
10-22-2004, 03:24 PM
FYI.. he's NOT the owner.. and has one of the smallest %'s of shares. :rolleyes:
Let's not let facts get in the way of this thread, Steff. The Sox have made JR a bazillionaire!!! :cool:

Iwritecode
10-22-2004, 03:30 PM
Let's not let facts get in the way of this thread, Steff. The Sox have made JR a bazillionaire!!! :cool:

I knew you'd get on her for using facts sooner or later.

We just can't have that kind of thing around here...

:smile: :D:

steff
10-22-2004, 06:22 PM
Let's not let facts get in the way of this thread, Steff. The Sox have made JR a bazillionaire!!! :cool:


I know.. but every once in a while I like to try to slip one in there and see if I can get it past the bs patrol... :rolleyes:

steff
10-22-2004, 06:23 PM
I knew you'd get on her for using facts sooner or later.

We just can't have that kind of thing around here...

:smile: :D:

30 lashes with a wet noodle... :wink:

StillMissOzzie
10-22-2004, 08:43 PM
:reinsy
"Sell? Why would I ever sell? Winning a World Series is my absolute dream and dedication. There's just been some rotten luck. It's not my fault. Eddie was behind the whole pay TV scheme. The City was forcing us to want to move to Tampa. The State made me add that extra level of luxury boxes. The players were too greedy in 94. The Cubs have an unfair advantage with WGN. This has always been a Cubs town, anyway. But hey, look what my expert stewardship did for the Bulls! That wasn't luck though..."
LMAO! This reminds me of the Joliet Jake rant from "Blues Brothers" on explaining to Carrie Fisher on why he stood her up at the altar.

SMO
:D:

DrCrawdad
10-23-2004, 12:14 AM
FYI.. (Reinsdorf)...has one of the smallest...

I couldn't resist.
:)

doogiec
10-23-2004, 10:09 AM
2...carry the 1...subtract the remainder... That's about 1100% return on his investment in addition to any other payments he has received over time, over 45% per year.

I don't shed a tear for JR and his family's financial well being. :cool:It actually works out to an average annual return of around 11.1%. If the value of the White Sox increased 45% each year since it was purchased, it would now be worth well over $113 Billion. That also assumes that the partners have not put in any additional money over the years, which would decrease the return.

BTW, if he would have simply put the money in an S&P 500 index fund, the return would have been around 10.2% over the same time period.

I also don't shed any tears for his financial situation, but the posts suggesting he personally has a $250 million windfall coming are getting a little absurd. He invested approx. $1.1 million, would get about $12.5 million pretax if he sold today, and could have easily received more if he invested in real estate instead, which I understand he's pretty good at doing. And the fact that Reinsdorf only holds a $12 million stake should explain why he alone can't increase payroll $30- $40 million next year. It would require agreement by all the partners. The blame needs to be spread around evenly.

And back to the original topic, I hope they continue half price nights, and I expect they will. They should resolve crowd problems by increasing security and limiting alcohol sales if necessary, not pricing people out completely. For every drunk idiot, there will be several families that can't see MLB next year if that policy changes.

Mickster
10-23-2004, 11:49 AM
It actually works out to an average annual return of around 11.1%. If the value of the White Sox increased 45% each year since it was purchased, it would now be worth well over $113 Billion. That also assumes that the partners have not put in any additional money over the years, which would decrease the return.

BTW, if he would have simply put the money in an S&P 500 index fund, the return would have been around 10.2% over the same time period.

I also don't shed any tears for his financial situation, but the posts suggesting he personally has a $250 million windfall coming are getting a little absurd. He invested approx. $1.1 million, would get about $12.5 million pretax if he sold today, and could have easily received more if he invested in real estate instead, which I understand he's pretty good at doing. And the fact that Reinsdorf only holds a $12 million stake should explain why he alone can't increase payroll $30- $40 million next year. It would require agreement by all the partners. The blame needs to be spread around evenly.

And back to the original topic, I hope they continue half price nights, and I expect they will. They should resolve crowd problems by increasing security and limiting alcohol sales if necessary, not pricing people out completely. For every drunk idiot, there will be several families that can't see MLB next year if that policy changes.
:thumbsup: