CBS's Mike Freeman: "Deal will be reached within matter of days"

[PatsWickedPissah]

Actually, it wouldn't contradict my claim at all.

If the owners bought up the unsold tickets, the game wouldn't have been blacked out.

A little googling brought up articles about the Bucs owners admitting they bought out tickets during 2009. So far, I haven't found any links regarding any other owners admitting to or claiming to have bought out tickets to prevent blackouts.

I have found numerous articles about local businessmen, local TV stations, and at one point, Chad Ochocinco, buying out tickets so the games will be on TV. I see absolutely no evidence of it being at all a common practice for owners to buy out tickets.

Could someone perhaps provide me with links indicating otherwise, as I would be interested in reading about it?

What part of 'not be necessary' did you miss???

 

[Oswlek]

Deus, are you really trying to say that the NFL owners weren't suprised by the economic downturn?

I can say unequivicably that Kraft never would have built Patriot Place if he knew what would happen, and he's one of the most connected owners in any sport. Clearly he didn't know what was coming, which makes it very unlikely any others did.

 

[Rob0729]

Wait, why are there blackouts if the owners are buying up the unsold tickets?

LOL! You really don't get it. If the owners didn't buy tickets to avoid blackouts, there would have been 30 or 40 blackouts last year. The owners might buy tickets if there are 500-1000 left, but are less likely to do it if there are 5000 left.

Did you read the Time article? San Diego decided that they would rather have a blackout than buy back the 7,000 unsold tickets (according to Time, it would have cost the Chargers $238k to avoid the blackout). If it was 1000-2000 left, they might have bought the tickets.

The fact of the matter is that in some stadiums, there are so many unsold tickets that the owners can't even afford to buy them back to avoid a blackout.

Owners buying unsold tickets to avoid blackouts have been going on since the blackout rules were implemented. Unfortunately, for some owners, the unsold tickets in their stadium are so much that they are forced to accept the blackout.

 

[Rob0729]

Actually, it wouldn't contradict my claim at all.

If the owners bought up the unsold tickets, the game wouldn't have been blacked out.

A little googling brought up articles about the Bucs owners admitting they bought out tickets during 2009. So far, I haven't found any links regarding any other owners admitting to or claiming to have bought out tickets to prevent blackouts.

I have found numerous articles about local businessmen, local TV stations, and at one point, Chad Ochocinco, buying out tickets so the games will be on TV. I see absolutely no evidence of it being at all a common practice for owners to buy out tickets.

Could someone perhaps provide me with links indicating otherwise, as I would be interested in reading about it?

Of course owners buy back tickets to avoid blackouts. That has happened for decades. There is a point where buying back tickets just become too expensive to do it.

As Time pointed out, it would have cost the Chargers close to a quarter of a million dollars to avoid a blackout for just one game. Say they have to do that 3-4 times a year or more. The Chargers might shell out a million dollars or more a year to have 100% of their home games broadcasted on TV.

Again, it isn't an immediate financial crisis, but it is a negative impact of the economy with potential long terms implications that could harm the NFL. To dismiss it is crazy.

 

[BlueThunder]

Boy..I can't recall how many times I had to listen to the Patriots on the radio because of blackouts.....it sucked

 

[Fencer]

How do the blackout rules remotely make sense, except perhaps as some kind of legacy from another era?

If the owners want to televise a game locally, they should do so.

And with the current importance of TV viewership, they should always want to.

TV viewership brings in money directly and it also builds fan loyalty for things like jersey sales and so on.

 

[Deus Irae]

When did 2000 become 2006?

Also, thanks for proving that San Deigo's attendence was way down and the worst last year since the mid-80s.

1.) Jacksonville having a history of not selling out undercuts arguments about the failure of Jacksonville to sell out being a sign of an NFL attendance problem.

2.) Attendance in San Diego peaked in 1995, and it's been on an inconsistent, but notable, decline ever since. That's not because of the economy in the past few years.

Both of the points I just made should have been easy ones for you to grasp and accept. That you chose to go the other route with them should probably tell you that you're too emotionally invested in your argument, which is a very poor one. The owners knew the country was in rough economic shape, because they were experiencing it even at the time of the agreement, and they knew that continuing downward pressure would eventually impact their bottom line. To think otherwise, you'd have to think that the "smartest" owners were actually complete idiots.

 

[Ring 6]

How do the blackout rules remotely make sense, except perhaps as some kind of legacy from another era?

If the owners want to televise a game locally, they should do so.

And with the current importance of TV viewership, they should always want to.

TV viewership brings in money directly and it also builds fan loyalty for things like jersey sales and so on.

The logic is that if you have no blackout rules attendance will suffer.
Personally, I prefer to see the game on TV. I recognize attending a game as an 'event' but given replay, the ability to rewind during stoppages, etc, television is actually a better way to view. The drawback is that there are things happening outside the camera view that you miss such as coverage and routes, but the overall trade off favors TV IMO. So it is a legitimate concern.
Remember we are talking about free TV because blackouts are only in the local markets.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) Jacksonville having a history of not selling out undercuts arguments about the failure of Jacksonville to sell out being a sign of an NFL attendance problem.

2.) Attendance in San Diego peaked in 1995, and it's been on an inconsistent, but notable, decline ever since. That's not because of the economy in the past few years.

Both of the points I just made should have been easy ones for you to grasp and accept. That you chose to go the other route with them should probably tell you that you're too emotionally invested in your argument, which is a very poor one. The owners knew the country was in rough economic shape, because they were experiencing it even at the time of the agreement, and they knew that continuing downward pressure would eventually impact their bottom line. To think otherwise, you'd have to think that the "smartest" owners were actually complete idiots.

Sorry I didn't address your irrelevant red herrings that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. I am talking about the proven fact of trend that started AFTER the CBA was signed in 2006 of declining attendance and increased blackouts. Your information is irrevant to that other than the fact that the Chargers in the last year or two have had attendance that is the worst since the mid1980s.

You talk about my trends, but this is typical of you to throw irrelevant facts and ignore the true argument and then act intellectually superior. Bring relevant facts and I will address them. Once again you failed in your argument and try to male like I am afraid of your irrelevant facts.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry I didn't address your irrelevant red herrings that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. I am talking about the proven fact of trend that started AFTER the CBA was signed in 2006 of declining attendance and increased blackouts. Your information is irrevant to that other than the fact that the Chargers in the last year or two have had attendance that is the worst since the mid1980s.

My facts weren't irrelevant at all. They were direct refutations of what you'd posted:

You gotta look at stadiums like Jacksonville and San Deigo who consistently fight potential blackouts to get the picture.

You talk about my trends, but this is typical of you to throw irrelevant facts and ignore the true argument and then act intellectually superior. Bring relevant facts and I will address them. Once again you failed in your argument and try to male like I am afraid of your irrelevant facts.

See above. It's not my fault that you made a bad argument and chose two horrible examples to try buttressing that argument.

 

[Ring 6]

Sorry I didn't address your irrelevant red herrings that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. I am talking about the proven fact of trend that started AFTER the CBA was signed in 2006 of declining attendance and increased blackouts. Your information is irrevant to that other than the fact that the Chargers in the last year or two have had attendance that is the worst since the mid1980s.

You talk about my trends, but this is typical of you to throw irrelevant facts and ignore the true argument and then act intellectually superior. Bring relevant facts and I will address them. Once again you failed in your argument and try to male like I am afraid of your irrelevant facts.

Come on now.
Can't you see that the Jaguars having attendance problems in 2000 on their way to a disappointing 7-9 season on the heels on a 14-2 season that ended in a home playoff loss can only mean that any attendance issues today are therefore totally irrelevant. Why would you doubt one reference from 11 years as the lynchpin of the argument that the financial landscape in the NFL hasn't changed since 2006?
Why its almost as silly as not understanding that the owners knew about the impending mortgage blowup and economic downturn that even Alan Greenspan was unaware of at the time.
Come on Rob. You are not keeping up with history, as rewritten by Dues Irae. Shame on you.

 

[Rob0729]

My facts weren't irrelevant at all. They were direct refutations of what you'd posted:





See above. It's not my fault that you made a bad argument and chose two horrible examples to try buttressing that argument.

Way to go! Try to repackage irrelevant facts to make them relevant. According to the numbers you provided, San Deigo had a significant drop off in attendence in the last year or two. In fact, last year looks to be close to a historic low. and nothing like they have seen in over a decade and a half.

Yes, I never said that places like Jacksonville and San Deigo didn't have problems getting a sold out crowd in their history. I am saying their attendances are declining at a significant rate and falling below levels that those teams have seen in over a decade. When the CBA was signed in 2006, the NFL including those teams were seeing a steady level of ticket sales which crashed in the last few years.

Everything you said it utter red herring. The facts are the facts. There is a steady trend of blackouts and declining ticket sales. So much that the Mayor of Cleveland (another team with attendance problems) was compelled to petition Goodell to change the NFL blackout rules and Goodell responded by doing so by allowing teams to tarp off large sections of their stadium to avoid blackouts. Also, Daniel Snyder has done away with thousands of seats to replace them with far cheaper SRO tickets and Washington is a place of great fan loyalty and previously a 100,000 person waiting list. The facts are there and you dismiss an alarming trend by throwing out data that has no bearing on the case.

I'll one up you with useless facts to make my case. In 1949, the Toledo Mudhen's attendance was down 23%. Clearly that proves the NFL owners are in serious financial trouble. How can you dispute that fact? If that fact doesn't prove my point here is a game changing fact, in September of 1965, it rained 15 days in Toyko, Japan. Game! Set! Match!

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, forget Jacksonville and San Deigo. Look at Tampa. In 2006, Tampa had an average attendance of 65.582. In 2010, it was 49,315. That means they sold over 130k less tickets last year than in 2006.

Or how about St. Louis. In 2006, St. Louis had an average attendance of 65,326. Last year, it was 52,922. That means they sold just under 100k less tickets in 2010 than 2006.

Or Kansas City that had an average attendance of 77,909 in 2006 and had an average attendance of 67,672 in 2010. That is 80k less tickets sold last year than in 2006.

Or Detriot, who averaged 60,889 in 2006 and was down to an average of 56,285 in 2010. Or just under 37k less tickets last year than 2006.

Or even a big market team like Washington that went from an average of 87,631 in 2006 to 83,172 in 2010. Or over 35k less tickets last year than in 2006.

Spin it any way you like, but for many teams it is a big deal the decline in revenues. If you sell 130k tickets at an average of $60 per ticket (and that is lowballing it since their average ticket price was $72.10 per ticket), that is $7.8 million in lost revenue for the Bucs and the teams playing in their stadium (they split the gate). That doesn't even factor in lost revenue in concessions, merchadise, and parking that go with games. That is almost $8 million in lost revenue caused by just one team. Now add about six or seven others with significant lost revenues because of empty seats.

Because of this problem for the Bucs, they have dropped their 2011 ticket prices as much as 31% depending on the seat. So even if they sell more tickets, they will have to sell much more just to get back the same revenue.

 

[BlueThunder]

Grabs Popcorn

 

[Ring 6]

BTW, forget Jacksonville and San Deigo. Look at Tampa. In 2006, Tampa had an average attendance of 65.582. In 2010, it was 49,315. That means they sold over 130k less tickets last year than in 2006.

Or how about St. Louis. In 2006, St. Louis had an average attendance of 65,326. Last year, it was 52,922. That means they sold just under 100k less tickets in 2010 than 2006.

Or Kansas City that had an average attendance of 77,909 in 2006 and had an average attendance of 67,672 in 2010. That is 80k less tickets sold last year than in 2006.

Or Detriot, who averaged 60,889 in 2006 and was down to an average of 56,285 in 2010.

Or even a big market team like Washington that went from an average of 87,631 in 2006 to 83,172 in 2010.

Spin it any way you like, but for many teams it is a big deal the decline in revenues. If you sell 130k tickets at an average of $60 per ticket (and that is lowballing it since their average ticket price was $72.10 per ticket), that is $7.8 million in lost revenue for the Bucs and the teams playing in their stadium (they split the gate). That doesn't even factor in lost revenue in concessions, merchadise, and parking that go with games. That is almost $8 million in lost revenue caused by just one team. Now add about six or seven others with significant lost revenues because of empty seats.

Because of this problem for the Bucs, they have dropped their 2011 ticket prices as much as 31% depending on the seat. So even if they sell more tickets, they will have to sell much more just to get back the same revenue.

Stop it. The Jags own website says they had trouble selling out 11 years ago. Why won't you just accept that as proof of whatever argument anyone chooses to make? Wow are you pig headed.

 

[lamafist]

What part of 'not be necessary' did you miss???

The part where it was anywhere in your post.

 

[lamafist]

Of course owners buy back tickets to avoid blackouts. That has happened for decades. There is a point where buying back tickets just become too expensive to do it.

So you say. Yet the only time I can find mention of the practice is the Bucs in '09, and it's not treated like a common occurrence at all. Meanwhile, I've found numerous references to local businessmen, TV stations, and Chad Ochocinco buying out blocks of tickets to avoid blackouts.

If it's been happening for decades, it should be pretty easy for you to find me something to read about it, though, right?

As Time pointed out, it would have cost the Chargers close to a quarter of a million dollars to avoid a blackout for just one game. Say they have to do that 3-4 times a year or more. The Chargers might shell out a million dollars or more a year to have 100% of their home games broadcasted on TV.

Time also mentions that "few teams" ever do buy back tickets, even for 34% of face value. So far, I've found mention of the Bucs. And that's it.

Again, it isn't an immediate financial crisis, but it is a negative impact of the economy with potential long terms implications that could harm the NFL. To dismiss it is crazy.

If it's simply a matter of the effects of the recession, than ticket sales should gradually rebound along with the economy.

Of course, as Deus Irae has been arguing, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the changing patterns in NFL attendance have been part of a long-term process. We've clearly reached a point where the TV broadcast has overtaken going to the stadium in terms of seeing and following the game. Most NFL franchises have adapted by reducing the centrality of the game as part of the whole of the entertainment package.

By focusing as much on a host of side attraction, stadiums are less about catering to the die-hard football fans, and more about attracting families and football 'tourists' looking to make an outing out of their day at the game. Whereas diehard fans tailgate and eat their own food and drink their own beer, the new type of stadium attendee goes and participates in all of the other side attractions and eat the overpriced clam chowder, etc, enabling the teams to make more money off each attendee.

So diminishing attendance doesn't necessarily mean reduced revenue from concessions, parking, etc.. First of all, I think only the Patriots do their concessions in-house. The vast majority of teams make money by selling the rights to the proceeds to various providers, like Aramark. It's these companies that are going to take the initial hit on sales from reduced attendance, and it's not like they're likely to risk their contract trying to pass it on to the team. Second of all, if the vendors are able to increase the sales of 'affordable luxury' concessions to the new breed of game attendee, they could be actually making more money off the smaller crowds.

Finally, focusing on attendance to the exclusion of the big picture is pointless. From '06-'10, while the Buccanneers' attendance dropped, their revenues rose from $205 million to $246 million. Obviously, they've been able to develop other revenue streams to make up for whatever losses in terms of ticket sales.

 

[lamafist]

Deus, are you really trying to say that the NFL owners weren't suprised by the economic downturn?

I can say unequivicably that Kraft never would have built Patriot Place if he knew what would happen, and he's one of the most connected owners in any sport. Clearly he didn't know what was coming, which makes it very unlikely any others did.

Surprised? Nobody was surprised. The impending burst of the housing bubble was being discussed in the Op Ed pages of major newspapers since '03 and '04.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The part where it was anywhere in your post.

Boy, you're obtuse.

I referred to your OWN wording 1st paragraph in post 53

I don't recall there being any massive ticket buyouts to avoid blackouts last season. I remember there being stories about owners promising to do so to avoid blackouts, but I don't think it ever turned out to be necessary.

After which I mentioned the numerous blackouts in Tampa last winter 2010 season despite the team being in contention for the playoffs through December.

 

[Rob0729]

So you say. Yet the only time I can find mention of the practice is the Bucs in '09, and it's not treated like a common occurrence at all. Meanwhile, I've found numerous references to local businessmen, TV stations, and Chad Ochocinco buying out blocks of tickets to avoid blackouts.

Just because you are ignorant of how teams deal with avoiding blackouts doesn't mean they do it. If it is not a big number they do it because they can buy them back at a low rate. If it is too big

You do point out another thing that owners do, they do approach local businesses, charities, etc. to buy large blocks at a deep discount to avoid the lockout. This will mean loss in revenues, but it at least gets them to be on TV. You don't think these people pay face value in these situations do you? Even then, teams sometimes can't find someone to buy the tickets.

Whether teams buy them themselves or sell them to a third party at a deep discount, it equals a loss in revenue.

If it's been happening for decades, it should be pretty easy for you to find me something to read about it, though, right?

Yeah, pretty easy because teams love to publicize that they have to buy back tickets. Most of this is done under the radar because teams don't want to publicize this.

Time also mentions that "few teams" ever do buy back tickets, even for 34% of face value. So far, I've found mention of the Bucs. And that's it.

First, that means some do which goes against your argument. You make it sound like the Bucs were the only ones to ever do it.

Second, I never said they paid face value, but they still have to pay for them. Third, they said the Chargers didn't want to do it because it would have cost them $238k to do so.

If it's simply a matter of the effects of the recession, than ticket sales should gradually rebound along with the economy.

Of course, as Deus Irae has been arguing, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the changing patterns in NFL attendance have been part of a long-term process. We've clearly reached a point where the TV broadcast has overtaken going to the stadium in terms of seeing and following the game. Most NFL franchises have adapted by reducing the centrality of the game as part of the whole of the entertainment package

Deus has been throwing up red herrings to avoid the facts. Funny, so are you. I see you didn't respond to my post that Tampa sold 130k fewer tickets in 2010 than 2006, St. Louis sold 100k less, and KC sold 80k less. Even Deus' own data showed that the Chargers last year had a near record low attendance.

Also, many experts think the thing playing in a major factor in causing the startling decline in attendance is the invention and adoption of HDTV. Many people feel it more pleasurable to sit with friends in front of an 60 inch plasma than paying to go to the game. HDTV has hurt a lot entertainment businesses like the movie industry (that is why they are shooting everything in 3D so they can charge $5 more a ticket). There is evidence to support this since they are getting record high ratings for select games on TV and near record low attendance in some stadiums. You kinda argued this too, but this has nothing to do with the economy.

Also, teams who are offering entertainment packages are doing so in desperation to get people to come to the game.

By focusing as much on a host of side attraction, stadiums are less about catering to the die-hard football fans, and more about attracting families and football 'tourists' looking to make an outing out of their day at the game. Whereas diehard fans tailgate and eat their own food and drink their own beer, the new type of stadium attendee goes and participates in all of the other side attractions and eat the overpriced clam chowder, etc, enabling the teams to make more money off each attendee.

BS! Nothing has significantly changed in terms of what teams offer from 2006 to today. Virtually every family friendly and/or overpriced concession they are offering today were being offered in 2006.

So diminishing attendance doesn't necessarily mean reduced revenue from concessions, parking, etc.. First of all, I think only the Patriots do their concessions in-house. The vast majority of teams make money by selling the rights to the proceeds to various providers, like Aramark. It's these companies that are going to take the initial hit on sales from reduced attendance, and it's not like they're likely to risk their contract trying to pass it on to the team. Second of all, if the vendors are able to increase the sales of 'affordable luxury' concessions to the new breed of game attendee, they could be actually making more money off the smaller crowds.

You are going to tell me that with 130k fewer tickets sold in 2010 than in 2006, the Bucs still had the same parking and concessions revenue? Come on get real.

As for luxury concessions, again there hasn't been a significant change in these things from 2006 til today.

Also, you don't understand how retail/concession leases work. I have direct experience in my family owning and renting retail/restarant property. The property owner gets more or less rent based on the revenues of the rentees. Even if an owner contracts out to Aramark, they get bonuses for Aramark's revenue overages and may have guaranteed Aramark a certain level of business or they get a break in their fees. Of course it hurts their money. Typically percentage rents are very common when it involved in leasing to a company expected to do signficant business in a location. Most malls no matter the size operate this way. I'm sure most concession leases are the same.

Finally, focusing on attendance to the exclusion of the big picture is pointless. From '06-'10, while the Buccanneers' attendance dropped, their revenues rose from $205 million to $246 million. Obviously, they've been able to develop other revenue streams to make up for whatever losses in terms of ticket sales.

Again, you are missing my point. The owners aren't arguing that revenues are declining. They are arguing that revenues are not growing at the rate they expected because of the economy. I don't think the new TV contracts signed since 2006 have kicked in yet. All the TV revenue they have been getting is expected. They probably even knew around what they were going to get with the new TVs when they signed the CBA in 2006. Although the TV revenues are growing at a rapid rate, it is growing at an expected rate. What they didn't expect was the startling drop in attendance for many teams that has happened.

At this rate most expert expect the economy to be in the toilet for a while. It is going to be a very slow recovery. What can happen in a long recession is the population change their habits. If you have any grandparents from the Depression era, they most likely are very frugal and saved a lot. While many baby boomers tend to spend more and save less. A very long recession could mean that a lot of people stop going to the games especially with the home viewing experience being far better than it was 10 years ago.

One thing not spoken about with this decline in ticket sales is that if it lasts long enough, it could have a negative effect on TV revenue. If the local team gets blacked out week after week, it could turn this sport into a regionalized game like MLB has become. MLB has seen a sharp decline in popularity and TV ratings because of it.

Also, the NFL negoatiates the CBA on a 4-6 year term. So the current state of the economy is very relevant of how to negotiate. Since this is expected to be a long recovery, the ticket sales will probably not rebound (assuming this drop in ticket sales is based solely on the economy) until after the new CBA expires or at least through most of the life of the new CBA. If by the time the new CBA negotiations come around the ticket sales rebound, the players will have more leverage to get a better deal in the next CBA.

It is funny that you chose to not respond to my post with startling facts of several teams rapid decline in ticket sales.