The backs shouldn't cause that much of a problem. The bleachers in Columbus have backs on them, and it hasn't posed a problem for Sam's Army for US games, even when the section has been packed, for games like US-Mexico
and a couple of positives about having backs on the benches: you can pound on them to make a lot of noise, and the give you something to lean into (like the seat-backs at arrowhead) that wont break (depending on the height of course).
Hummm. My take? [glad you asked] Save the expense of the benches (delete them), and merely pour concrete steps/terraces. Nothing to fall over/off [backs]. Won't have people standing above everyone else on the benches [nothing to fall from]. Win-win?
I want to clarify what we will construct at CAB. The Cauldron seating will consist of aluminum bleachers with back rests, attached to concrete treads and risers. This is the same system as found in the HDC and DSGP, to name two most of you have seen. Since this is a permanent upgrade to the stadium, it also had to be compatible with the T-Bones and their fans’ needs. Through many conversations with Cauldron leadership we believe this is the best solution to accomplish our joint visions as we continue toward our new stadium in 2010: We want participation in the Cauldron to be safe and fun. We want the Cauldron to continue to grow - both in size and decibel level. We want opposing teams to hesitate when attacking the West goal. We want opposing keepers to dread spending a half in this end. And if opposing coaches get distracted worrying about you, even better. To repeat what Sam said to start this thread, we wanted to give the Cauldron the best opportunity to be our 12th man. You will be as close to the end line as an MLS fan has ever been. And we are designing the Cauldron in our new stadium to achieve these same objectives. To cover the construction cost, know this, we need to sell every single seat, to every single game, for two seasons. It would have made better short-term financial sense to locate the Cauldron elsewhere. We chose not to. Our vision is about growth, and it is long term. We know yours is too. I encourage you all to come out next week and see first hand how the section will be laid out. I think you will like it. And always feel free to drop me a line about how we can make the section better, for these next two years and beyond. Go Wizards! DF
well i'm glad to hear that they aren't exactly going to be like high school football bleachers, because I know from first hand those are a pain in the ass,literally, when things get rowdy after touchdowns, or in our case, goals are scored. I don't know, I should probably start realizing that this won't happen, but I've always loved watching the entire boca juniors or AC milan supporters section melt downward towards the barrier after their respective team scores because the ends of their stadiums are just elongated steps. However, this is America, and the second that is allowed to happen, the first person to get squashed in between 6 fans and injured is going to make headline news, and will back up the american stereotype that all soccer supporters are violent hooligans. Needless to say it would be amazing to see on the tivo after the game the entire cauldron rushing the wall after scoring an 89th minute goal. And if you've lived under a rock in the footy world all your life and have never seen one of these crowd avalanches, a prime example(despite the elimination of Man U from the champions league) can be seen here. http://youtube.com/watch?v=vmYdT6pHRcY but realistically, bleachers aren't so bad. We'd been standing in seats since 96, this gives us a little bit more leeway to get even more wild. and shit, we'll be on camera more!
No, Sam, my knowledge wasn't concrete, that is why I posted like I did. I made an educated guess based on how business would flow through The Cauldron if I was in the FO and what may have happened with Cauldron leadership at a communication meeting or two. With the zeal that some here take with proving me wrong I welcomed the opportunity for someone to tell me how wrong I was. It's later and noone has done that yet. It never takes this board that long to correct errors, mine especially. Regardless, the seats are $15. That seems the very high end of a range. If one of the C-leaderships' goals is to have a good seat for cheap, I think $15 falls short of doing a job. I have no real problem with OnGoal being capitalists as long as they are up front about it. Don't tell me $15 seats are a favor to the Cauldron or that it's the bargain basement/lowest possible, etc. I have no idea what that means. Who's Horner? If it's a cut at my view, let's wait and see what the Cauldron ticket is at a new stadium, then people can rip me. We appreciate being closer to the field. As for the rest, hmmm, OK. Let's look at how closely alligned OnGoal and Cauldron goals are: How many bleacher seats are being added? 500? If 500 and a sold out "break even" as mentioned is needed: 500 seats x 15 KCW home games x $15/ticket is $112500. A second year discounted at a simple 8% cost of capital is $103500 in today's dollars (assuming no price hike). A third would be $95K, but let's put that aside for now. Conservatively, that's a sold-out cash flow in today's dollars of $150K at the very least - inclusive of time lags, pre-sales of season tix, late sales, float, etc. (I'm ballparking big-time in favor of a lower number in OnGoal's favor) It would more than reasonable to have the T-Bones pick up a portion of this construction as KCW is planned to be gone in 2-3 years, CAB can sell the same seat, and The 'Bones will have the seats permanently for all events including those outside baseball. Mr. Ficklin's assertion OnGoal and the Wizards' portion (the non-CAB portion) of the permanent addition to CAB will cost about $150K today net of everything including taxes if no help comes from CAB owners. Does that sound right to everyone? I'm not a construction guru, it could very well be that high. That said, any of the following would make it cheaper to add seats to CAB: 1) Construction is cheaper 2)There are built-in offset future payments back to OnGoal for years 1 through X or 3 through X on revenue earned from that addition from non-Wizards dates. 3) The Bones are paying a portion of this addition as CAB can and will sell a percentage of the seats for every other non-Wizards' date over the life of CAB. 4)Tax favored treatment of expenditures 5)Cash outflow delays 6)Anything else overlooked. Other factors 1)Dealing with numbers at less than a 2 season sell-out 2)'09/'10 price hikes Does anyone here think that the Fortune 500 owners of OnGoal didn't think of these things AND that none were part of the deal to construct? That seems unlikely. I would hope for the future of our team that it is IMPOSSIBLE... If any of the above is actually part of the deal, Cauldron seats could (and should) be priced lower for a "break-even". Break even and long-term growth being goals mentioned by Mr. Ficklin. If growth is truly the goal and not profit, then have the Cauldron seats at cost or very close to it. That may be $15/per...or not. What do you think? Obvously, I'm guessing a bit. I'm not privy to the contracts. Seat numbers, construction numbers, cost of capital, CAB split of cost, and other things could and probably do vary slightly from the above. Still, Mr. Ficklin asserts that a sell-out of that section is a must to only achieve break-even, therefore a defacto justication of a $15 ticket for "KCW's best fans". He also asserts that the vision is long-term growth...directly in line with Cauldron goals. I have no doubt about the second statement as that is how OnGoal makes money. That the first statement has now been made twice - a first time by inference of ticket price and a second time directly from Mr. Ficklin - should be enough for Cauldron leadership to realize that where money comes into things, OnGoal's goals will vary from those of the Cauldron. I could be wrong. -WC
I agree, having the backs to the seats is a nice surprise. I just thought they could offer that cheaper than $15 per. I thought the Cauldron leadership would get that done somehow. Oh well. GO BLUE!
A noble effort, but your assumptions come up short in a few of the following areas: 1. The price per ticket. It's $16.67, not $15. 18-game package. Given that you were working from a 15-game season, though, that doesn't make as much of a difference. 2. The number of seats being installed. It's (approximately) 700. I said as much in my opening post. 3. The face value of a ticket as it relates to real revenue. Tickets include sales tax, for one thing. Ticket revenue is shared with the league, for another (the biggest factor). There are other factors that come in that aren't open for public discussion, but you can knock a few bucks off the revenue generated by a set ticket price even after you account for sales tax and revenue sharing. The non-Wizards-affiliated person who can best testify as to the cost of bleacher construction, Greg Zimmerman, works for JE Dunn, our contractor on this project. I'd leave it up to him to provide testimony in a general sense. George Shook, Robert Houghton, Jason Thomas, Kathie Robison, or Mike Kuhn can provide their perspectives about our meetings on the matter. It was about as unilateral and heavy-handed as the last time you accused the Cauldron leadership of caving in and "getting worked", the discussions over security in the Cauldron. At least you're consistent.
And what would be the point of quickly jumping out here to tell you that you are wrong again? It hasn't made any difference in your opinion in the past, why would it make any difference today? It would be a full-time job coming on here and arguing with every long-winded, drawn-out, "I love to hear myself talk" post you make. Dave, here's a great suggestion. Cauldron Leadership elections will be held again this January. You are more than welcome to step-up and make yourself available for a position in the group if you feel the Leadership Group is doing such a horrendous job of representing "your" issues in the section. I sincerely make this offer, rather than shunning any & every opportunity to be involved in support of the Cauldron, maybe you could step up and try to be a part of the solution....unless you would rather sit in the wings shooting spitballs at those of us trying. Whichever, the offer is on the table.
I don't that the Cauldron was ever in a position to help set prices for the section. When we were out there discussing we had the option of an approx. $8 ticket on a grass berm or an $18 ticket on bleachers up over the left field wall - that's what it boiled down to - then at least. For us it was safety vs price vs location. I think we made it pretty clear that the best location was inline with OnGoal's - the berm area. However we were all very concerned over steepness(thus safety) of that berm. At the time there was no option of bleachers on a filled in berm. Remember, this stadium is the T-bones. Anything the wizards wanted to do, has to jive with what they want to do. The fact that the berm will now be filled in and bleachers put there tells me that OnGoal was persistant(sp?) with the T-bones and got the section to be bleachers rather than full stadium seats(which would have been over $20 a seat I think - I didn't want to pay that). If they fill it in the price is gonna go up. And as for the price.. it's not even $2 more per game than last year. And I expect the price to go up in a new stadium. So, sure there is still a good um..."seat" for cheap - at the other end of the stadium is a berm for $8.33 on a season ticket. But for the location and price and safety, I'd say the Cauldron is gonna be great this season. They got some input from some of us fans that were available and we didn't exactly go easy on them.
Whatever dude. You bent over and took it from OnGoal. I don't know what you said, how you said it or what you did to prevent it, but I bet you were in on it. Ofcourse I wasn't there to see or hear what you and the rest of the Yes Men had to say but I bet it was something along the lines of. Yes sir, whatever you say sir, how far would you like me to bend over sir? Lube? Whatever your opinion is, sir? I don't mind, you choose sir.
There's a mole in the group....someone is passing on proprietary meeting procedures to the general public. I vow to unearth the mole in our midst!!
what i'm just trying to figure out the ones that will spill their guts what i'm kind enough to tell them...like we were gonna play on a high school american football field
With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding... It's so much easier to snipe from on high than to actually have an opinion. Back under your rock you go. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I was wrong. Now Sams' better numbers have come out in favor of my main point; maybe The Cauldron is being squeezed a little and leadership has allowed that to happen, IMO. I'm glad the Cauldron is closer rather than not. All probably agree. Could we have been there for $10 a seat? $12? As mentioned before, OnGoal and CAB were never going to allow the Cauldron to be on a hillside. Plus, why not put the Cauldron someplace away from everyone and profit from it? You are basically confirming that OnGoal had the appearance of "giving" while really giving nothing and getting a higher price. Which is pretty much what I suggested might be true. I'm sure it was a cordial meeting, honey vs vinegar, etc. Of course there are. As for sharing with MLS: KC is the lowest attended team, will likely be next year, and therefore benefits on balance from that sharing. If I'm the Comish, I fund part of the addition out of the general fund, for the good of the MLS. So let's leave that out as it only helps my assertion, OK? The difference being last time people agree with me, but whatever, Arrowhead is in the past. Consistency is from others who are more than willing to assume the worst of anything remotely questioning an OnGoal decision. First, unilateral and heavy-handed are Sam's words, not mine. Regardless, the ticket prices are as is. Everyone else can argue about how it happened or with what degree of grace. Often with clients, I replace insurance policies from other sources that are sometimes just inefficient or outdated. Other times we find policies that are plainly sold on a half-truth or outirght lie. When that happens, the story behind the financial lie is always the same... The agent is the expert, the agent knows best, this policy is good for you, it's the best, we work with you, the agent's goals are exactly your goals; details, clauses, and tax treatments of cash flows were not wholly understood, but the guy sounded trustworthy and took the time to talk to us; we hear from him when he wants more money, etc. Win-win, sign here and press hard... Right. It's called being sold. It happens. Usually it's with a big smile on both ends. That said, It wasn't me that posted on this board how OnGoal and The Cauldron are directly in line with eachother. You decide if that's anything close to the case here. I'm just saying it sounds familiar and, not coincidently, the numbers may not add up quite like you would like for "break even", that's all. Per Sam: 700 seats at $299 is $209K this year and $192K next year (again discounted at a flat 8%). Divide by 1 minus whatever percentage is the tax Sam kindly mentioned with a smily face he wished was a middle finger and you have the construction cost overall (aside form tax costs and benefits), because we now know that "break even" requirement for the company who has our best interests truly at heart is to have all 700 seats sold out both years. At 10% of sales-tax, that's over $360,000 for "sell-out break-even" on the Wizards' portion of the construction costs. OK, but again, that number seems VERY high. I'm just asking questions. Unanswered as yet: Is CAB picking up any portion of the tab currently or offering future renumeration as reasonably one would think they might have been asked to do as owners of the place? If the Cauldron is so important to OnGoal, and our goals are so directly in line, then why not limit the profit taking on the group doing the most to expand OnGoal's revenue? If costs truly are break-even (unlikely) then does that mean if there is a year 3 at CAB that those seats will be completely paid for and sold for half current price or less? If Cauldron leadership is acting in the best interests of the Cauldron in all ways at peak efficiency, it seems like the above numbers would have a different effect than to stone the holder of the mirror. I'm not saying OnGoal is evil or that leadership doesn't do other good things. We're consumers, we expect to be profited on; don't manipulate, and be fair and honest about it. It's just good business. These all seem fair issues to raise on a message board without having to field ego and crassness.
Re: With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding... Um, I still don't get why you think the Cauldron ldrshp has any pull over the price of the section. Sorry, but there was no negotiation there. There options. Take A or B .. and in the meantime, they came up with C.
Re: With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding... And it's so much easier to question everything that's been done when you weren't part of the group that tried to make a decision that would benefit the Cauldron. As George mentioned, neither the Cauldron leadership nor the group that met out at CAB had any say on the price of the section. In fact when we met out there, there were only the two options on the table. And as Robert mentioned if you're unhappy with the way the whole process went down then step up and run for a leadership position in January.
I wanted to see if anyone that goes out to the stadium when they are showing where the C-dron is going to be, could someone take pictures and post them. I will not be able to come by, and would like to know what I'm buying before I commit. Thanks in advance!
Depending on the road conditions tomorrow, and whether I head into work downtown (or work from home), I was planning on taking my camera and getting a few POV pics from the Cauldron location when/if I go out for my time on Tuesday. If I do, I will post them Tuesday evening.
Re: With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding... repped for hilarity. this is the type of line where you're just wasting your breath, wc. because you've chosen to look at this situation from a different perspective and have brought up unfavorable possibilities associated with the ownership of our beloved team, you have now been labeled as anti-ongoal, and every post that you write from here on out on this topic will always have that reputation preceding it. 'course, my posts will probably now be subject to the same treatment, if they're not already. unfortunately, our board is rife with such things. my opinion on the cauldron seats, for what it's worth considering i don't usually sit/stand there, is that i think this is a bit of a mistake. i understand the safety reasons and whatnot, and legally speaking, safety should rightly be the #1 concern. i just think $300 is too much for the "supporters section." those who are shouldering the responsibility of growing the section (the loyal cauldron members) shouldn't be gifted ticket prices that are 100% higher than the cheapest ticket in the house. i just don't see the section growing when there's a MUCH cheaper option. does anyone know what la porra (or whatever the argentines go by) thinks of the situation? they're one of the biggest reasons the section grew like it did last year. someone posted earlier that these tix are only about $50 more than last year's. alright, well, what happened after two months last season? the fo realized that to grow that section, they had to offer much cheaper ($8, if i remember correctly) promotional tix to get fans in there. so, in reality, the tix are $50 higher than a price that the front office deemed too high last season. seems like we're going backwards. anyone want to bet that there's going to be massive promotional deals again this year? my advice, if you're going to be getting cauldron tix, wait until they start running the promotional deals again and save about $100 or so. also, i have to admit, like wc, i was a bit put off by sam's and dave's comments about "having to sell all the tix to break even." i don't think they meant for it to sound heavy-handed, but that's the way it came off to me.
Re: With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding... No, they didn't. Huh? So...you're simultaneously and unilaterally eliminating revenue sharing and using league funds to pay for the stadium upgrades so you don't have to account for it. That's an interesting technique. Right up until the part where we actually had games and everyone saw that it was completely reasonable.