The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!
sj-roc wrote:
The other thing is, Skulsky may not see this as a problem. The impression he's given since taking the job is that he's more concerned with ticket revenue than actual # tix sold.
Bingo sj-roc (and thanks for the great attendance breakdown as always).
Skulsky will stick to that formula and thanks to the new TV deal (which equates to about 3,000 additional season tickets in revenue) I'm sure the next move will be to go back to the lower bowl only capacity (27,000) that Ackles introduced back in 2003-04 and try to fill those lower bowl end zone and even sideline seats. For years it was hard to even get a lower bowl sideline seat between the goalline on either side of the field. Not anymore.
sj-roc wrote:
The other thing is, Skulsky may not see this as a problem. The impression he's given since taking the job is that he's more concerned with ticket revenue than actual # tix sold.
Bingo sj-roc (and thanks for the great attendance breakdown as always).
Skulsky will stick to that formula and thanks to the new TV deal (which equates to about 3,000 additional season tickets in revenue) I'm sure the next move will be to go back to the lower bowl only capacity (27,000) that Ackles introduced back in 2003-04 and try to fill those lower bowl end zone and even sideline seats. For years it was hard to even get a lower bowl sideline seat between the goalline on either side of the field. Not anymore.
The current 1040 poll, in conjunction with Mayenknecht's show, is asking
: "Should the BC Lions use lower-bowl only seating configuration of 27-000 at BC Place?"
Mayenknecht thinks so but of course he's thinking like a businessman who wants to limit supply and thereby artificially increase demand, and thus ticket price. If you're a fan, and Toppy has been very outspoken about this, you don't want anything that accelerates ticket prices. Unfortunately the vote right now is 72% in favour which much surely warm the cockles of Skulsky's heart. It means he can keep tarping, jack up the prices and when he does his annual check-ins with Sekeres he can claim they're only giving the fans what they want.
At least when Ackles did it he continued to grow the fan base and gradually re-opened the upper deck. The impression Skulsky leaves, right or wrong, is he'd just as soon keep it closed indefinitely except for the post-season.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
Toppy Vann wrote:If fans are concerned re: cost per seat they best vote to keep the place undraped and forget this Whitecap wonderful game day experience with the stadium are decorated and no walk up seats.
Sj-roc is right. Skulsky talks that line at times (seat cost) and he claims fans have a lot more cash than I'd say most fans have. He claimed that this was their study. They just look at the Canucks and Whitecaps as well as Montreal and say why not do it here in Vancouver.
I honestly think Cohon and his cronies should examine what top English Premier League teams do in promoting their brands globally and not just rest on the laurels of a great TV audience.
Correct me if I am wrong but has Skulsky not repeatedly quoted the figure of $90k as the average income of fans attending Lions games? I guess he thinks that is great but what about the many people who make much less than that? Are they just not worth pursuing as fans?
sj-roc wrote:
The other thing is, Skulsky may not see this as a problem. The impression he's given since taking the job is that he's more concerned with ticket revenue than actual # tix sold.
Bingo sj-roc (and thanks for the great attendance breakdown as always).
Skulsky will stick to that formula and thanks to the new TV deal (which equates to about 3,000 additional season tickets in revenue) I'm sure the next move will be to go back to the lower bowl only capacity (27,000) that Ackles introduced back in 2003-04 and try to fill those lower bowl end zone and even sideline seats. For years it was hard to even get a lower bowl sideline seat between the goalline on either side of the field. Not anymore.
The current 1040 poll, in conjunction with Mayenknecht's show, is asking
: "Should the BC Lions use lower-bowl only seating configuration of 27-000 at BC Place?"
Mayenknecht thinks so but of course he's thinking like a businessman who wants to limit supply and thereby artificially increase demand, and thus ticket price. If you're a fan, and Toppy has been very outspoken about this, you don't want anything that accelerates ticket prices. Unfortunately the vote right now is 72% in favour which much surely warm the cockles of Skulsky's heart. It means he can keep tarping, jack up the prices and when he does his annual check-ins with Sekeres he can claim they're only giving the fans what they want.
At least when Ackles did it he continued to grow the fan base and gradually re-opened the upper deck. The impression Skulsky leaves, right or wrong, is he'd just as soon keep it closed indefinitely except for the post-season.
Yeah I heard that poll results. Burns me is that if the Lions keep on playing this way, they won't have to worry about having the lower bowl only configuration, because they will be lucky to fill that. Since the Lions went from a LB only to opening up the UD, doesn't it make the preception that the product is going in reverse, should they go back to LB only? Then if the Lions are lucky, they will have a fanbase of people with an average income of $150K, so they can charge more, until those brainy $150K people figure out what the joe average income fan has already figured out, the product on the field is way too often not meeting the current ticket price for entertainment.
Ravi wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but has Skulsky not repeatedly quoted the figure of $90k as the average income of fans attending Lions games? I guess he thinks that is great but what about the many people who make much less than that? Are they just not worth pursuing as fans?
I don't know about repeatedly but I have heard others on this board indicate that he attributes seemingly high income levels to the fanbase. But, and I'm sure you'll agree, talking averages is meaningless when you don't know the distribution. Nine people scraping by on $30k each, plus Rich Uncle Pennybags hauling in $630k, would average out to $90k, but how many of them are going to shell out for season tickets?
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
My perception? The casuals or part-timers have already fled (and if banging the "Geroy Simon Night" drum as much as the club did this week doesn't bring them back, nothing will). This is likely the group for whom making the effort to attend at the prices charged does not equate to the satisfaction from watching on high def at home. The 25K or so we're left with seem to be the same dedicated group each game. Most people attending wear Lions swag, make a decent amount of noise for that stadium configuration, and seem to have a reasonably good time (plus or minus the action on the field in front of them).
The stadium renovation, while necessary, has made almost NO difference IMHO, and a small roof opening - while certainly making one more comfortable when open with air now circulating - has not given fans the illusion that they're really outdoors, so daytime games in the summer are mostly a bad idea.
David wrote:My perception? The casuals or part-timers have already fled (and if banging the "Geroy Simon Night" drum as much as the club did this week doesn't bring them back, nothing will). This is likely the group for whom making the effort to attend at the prices charged does not equate to the satisfaction from watching on high def at home. The 25K or so we're left with seem to be the same dedicated group each game. Most people attending wear Lions swag, make a decent amount of noise for that stadium configuration, and seem to have a reasonably good time (plus or minus the action on the field in front of them).
The stadium renovation, while necessary, has made almost NO difference IMHO, and a small roof opening - while certainly making one more comfortable when open with air now circulating - has not given fans the illusion that they're really outdoors, so daytime games in the summer are mostly a bad idea.
DH
You are bang on with the stadium renovation. New stadiums are always a temporary fix, but when all the other things are not done right, people won't show up. Ackles had no problem getting 30k+ to games back in the old BC Place. You will always have a small group of people complaining about the dome and stuff, but there were way more people going to games back then compared to now.
Also, they need to try to attract fans that are making 30k to 40k a year. Most of my friends who are in their 20s make that salary, but they think it's too expensive to go to games these days. 40 bucks to sit in the endzone is too steep. I'd love to go to more games myself, but I have more expenses now and need to spend money more wisely.
almo89 wrote:Also, they need to try to attract fans that are making 30k to 40k a year. Most of my friends who are in their 20s make that salary, but they think it's too expensive to go to games these days. 40 bucks to sit in the endzone is too steep. I'd love to go to more games myself, but I have more expenses now and need to spend money more wisely.
I agree. The pricing structure for Lions games makes me shake my head. End zone and corner seats are priced atrociously. I don't blame people for opting not to shell out that kind of money and instead stay home to watch it on an HDTV. Throw in the cost of a small plastic cup of beer and, at least for an honest working family man, it's a no-brainer to grab a sack and sit at home to watch the team play.
I have never been a fan of blackouts, shutting the TV off is not going to get your fans in the door. All it does is remove your brand from the hearts and minds of potential and current fans. Nope, the real problem here is cost. It has just flat out gotten to rich for people to attend a game. Especially if your a parent. Now It's actually something young parents have to plan for if they want to take the family to games... and that's even if they sit in the cheapest section.
Now I'm an Island boy so the cost of attending games went out the door a long time ago. As I've gotten older I've had other responsibilities pop up that take priority but if the Lions offered me decent seats and reasonably priced drinks I would be able to swing it a lot easier than I can now. I miss the days when I attended darn near every home game. Long gone are those days for a guy traveling a short distance.
From a man who probably forgot more than I'll ever know about running a football team:
Bob Ackles, in The Water Boy, wrote:I didn't know how bad things really were in Vancouver when I arrived [in 2002]. I'm not talking about the finances; I'm talking about acceptance in the community. There's no rocket science to the football end of this business. There really isn't. Anyone can win at any time; anyone can lose at any time. Having the right head coach, having the right quarterback, avoiding injuries — that's all it takes. That's the easier part of it.
The tougher part is getting people in the seats. That's incredibly important when you are a gate-driven business like the CFL and can't rely on the kind of television revenues that support the NFL. In Vancouver, when I arrived back, nobody cared. A sea of change had happened since I left in 1986. We had 30,000 season-ticket holders back then. We were averaging 45,000-plus fans a game. [sj-roc note: much of this off-field success is commonly regarded in some corners, such as this board, as due to the novelty of BCP but given Ackles' success in his second go-round, it's fair to imagine that the subsequent attrition after this factor eroded would not have been so precipitous had he never left.] We were winning. It was really a high. Sitting in the stadium the first game back in 2002, attendance was 12,000 [sj-roc note: it was reported as 15,796 but 12k might well have been a better read on the true turnstile count.], although we would average out at about 18,500. It was a nightmare. I knew turning around an apethetic city and community would be tough. ...
Football teams, or any sports franchise, are not like manufacturing companies feeding a specific need or a business with a clearly defined market. They require the alignment of a greater number of elements to produce success. You have to understand the pulse of the community, the pulse of fans, the pulse of the team and understand what will make the mix come together and gel.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
Bob Ackles, in The Water Boy, wrote:
I didn't know how bad things really were in Vancouver when I arrived [in 2002]. I'm not talking about the finances; I'm talking about acceptance in the community. There's no rocket science to the football end of this business. There really isn't. Anyone can win at any time; anyone can lose at any time. Having the right head coach, having the right quarterback, avoiding injuries — that's all it takes. That's the easier part of it.
The tougher part is getting people in the seats. That's incredibly important when you are a gate-driven business like the CFL and can't rely on the kind of television revenues that support the NFL. In Vancouver, when I arrived back, nobody cared. A sea of change had happened since I left in 1986. We had 30,000 season-ticket holders back then. We were averaging 45,000-plus fans a game. [sj-roc note: much of this off-field success is commonly regarded in some corners, such as this board, as due to the novelty of BCP but given Ackles' success in his second go-round, it's fair to imagine that the subsequent attrition after this factor eroded would not have been so precipitous had he never left.] We were winning. It was really a high. Sitting in the stadium the first game back in 2002, attendance was 12,000 [sj-roc note: it was reported as 15,796 but 12k might well have been a better read on the true turnstile count.], although we would average out at about 18,500. It was a nightmare. I knew turning around an apathetic city and community would be tough. ...
Football teams, or any sports franchise, are not like manufacturing companies feeding a specific need or a business with a clearly defined market. They require the alignment of a greater number of elements to produce success. You have to understand the pulse of the community, the pulse of fans, the pulse of the team and understand what will make the mix come together and gel.
Totally Agree with the above statement From the late Great Bob Ackles, Some how or another Skulski does not seem to get it.
Is there any one from here that is going to phone in next when the GM'S are on 1040 ?
This has to be brought up , because what is happening is not working. But I bet you he thinks it is.
dupsdell1 wrote:Totally Agree with the above statement From the late Great Bob Ackles, Some how or another Skulski does not seem to get it.
Is there any one from here that is going to phone in next when the GM'S are on 1040 ?
This has to be brought up , because what is happening is not working. But I bet you he thinks it is.
I believe the last 2 years he's been on the show, Sekeres has asked those questions before but ticket prices has only gone up. The one thing they did do was open up the Gridiron Deck for a bit cheaper and a family section.
David wrote:My perception? The casuals or part-timers have already fled (and if banging the "Geroy Simon Night" drum as much as the club did this week doesn't bring them back, nothing will). This is likely the group for whom making the effort to attend at the prices charged does not equate to the satisfaction from watching on high def at home. The 25K or so we're left with seem to be the same dedicated group each game. Most people attending wear Lions swag, make a decent amount of noise for that stadium configuration, and seem to have a reasonably good time (plus or minus the action on the field in front of them).
DH
I agree with David's perception. What's all this talk from the Lions' office they expect a crowd of 30,000 ? Sadly since Ackles' passing, the crowds have been steadily declining. They need to do a much better job of selling the product instead of relying on season ticket holders to make referrals. I'm a fan. My job is not to sell tickets.
dupsdell1 wrote:Totally Agree with the above statement From the late Great Bob Ackles, Some how or another Skulski does not seem to get it.
Is there any one from here that is going to phone in next when the GM'S are on 1040 ?
This has to be brought up , because what is happening is not working. But I bet you he thinks it is.
It's been brought up the past two years; it will almost surely come up again.
BTW, dupsdell1, just a friendly suggestion about keeping posts tidy: if you wish to respond to what someone else has posted, you can click the small "QUOTE icon in the upper right of said post. This opens the usual "POST A REPLY" page, except that the other person's comments are already included in the editing field, so you can just write your response underneath it, without having to cut and paste the old content as it seems you've been doing. Then when you click Submit, the post will appear with the old content isolated in its own box above yours and automatically labelled with who wrote it, as I've done here (I also axed out some of it manually as it wasn't related directly to what I've written here). This also makes it easier for others to see at a glance what you've written versus what you're responding to.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
