Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'KC Supporters Clubs' started by SamPierron, Dec 7, 2007.
Re: With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding...
That doesn't make it less true.
Re: With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding...
To make the Cauldron pricing break-even I wonder if other revenue streams have been considered. Not just the ticket price needs to be considered.
Two ideas I can think of, and some brainstorming by marketing types might yield more.
1. Selling advertizing on the bleacher seat backs. As the bleachers in the new Cauldron will have backs they are an opportunity for advertizers to get their latest promotion on there. My local Hy-Vee has benches outside of the store with this kind of advertizing on it. I think this could be an effective revenue stream.
2. Naming rights to the section. You know the "Pepsi" Cauldron or the "Pizza Hut" Cauldron or whatever.
Just ideas, just brainstorming. But demonstrating that the only revenue source for the Cauldron is not just the ticket price.
And one question, will La Porra be attending this season and where will they be standing? The new Cauldron, the grass berm or elsewhere? And at what cost?
Still a bit unsure of the location. Maybe someone can help clarify for me. So the bleachers are where the berm is now?
The Light Blue in the NW corner is the Cauldron
Yeah, um I am color blind. give me some section numbers there.
116, 118 and 120
Thanks a bunch. Maps are seldom ADA compliant.
Re: With Rovert's permnission, clearing up some misunderstanding...
It seems to me that you're using the wrong numbers here, but first, let's take into account that if OnGoal really wanted to bleed us they could've just decided to put the Cauldron in the nearby bleacher section, citing that the berm is just too dangerous. Not only would they not have to do any construction, but they could still charge the $18 a seat since that's the number already quoted.
Anyways, the $299 that you are using for your numbers can't be considered for just the cost of the bleachers. Before the decision was made, the same seats were going to be sold for $150. Now, we can assume that the $150 price point isn't a break even scenario for OnGoal (it would be silly to price the entire stadium at cost, or even just portions of it, for no reason at all). Still, that number isn't all profit either - it includes the costs to use the stadium and run it for the games, as well as the administrative costs associated with selling the tickets outright. Then take taxes, the league's cut and whatever else out and you get OnGoal's take away. Personally, I doubt that the take away on these seats at $8.33 a seat is altogether _that_ high, but I don't and can't claim to really have any idea about how much profit is really there.
So you'd have to take the $150, subtract out whatever profit you think OnGoal was originally making and then you can subtract that number from the ~$300 to get the cost of construction. Of course, you still have to take out taxes on this and the league's cut...
Of course, your numbers don't even include the league's cut, because the league is supposedly nice enough to forgo charging on these tickets because OnGoal decided that the bleachers were necessary (which many people believed they were). With such a nice league, I'm guessing we can assume that they're going to help out with the construction costs of the new stadium too, right? On the other hand, Sam indicated that the league's cut did contribute a sizable chunk to the cost... and since I didn't recall hearing about the amount of money MLS is putting into our stadium fund... I'm going to have to assume that the league is taking it's percentage. Sorry - I'm sure that you'd make a great commisioner, but until I get that press release, I really can't take your generosity into account.
So the $360k that you mentioned above really seems to be somewhere in the low $100k area. Now I'm also not someone too keen on construction costs so I can't comment on just how appropriate that is. It does seem to be in the relative ballpark, however, and makes me think that maybe, just maybe, they're not trying to screw us. Would I put it past them to be getting _some_ profit from these prices? No, mostly because $299 seems a really round number, but I would also say that it's possible that $299 doesn't actually cover all the costs either.
That's my take at least. It is probably wrong in some way or another, but fortunately my job is to program computers and not run professional soccer clubs, so I'm allowed to be wrong on this stuff.
I took some time to break things down. These seats qualify as endline seats so that is what ST prices I looked up around the league.
Did you know that we are the 2nd highest ticket price league wide? Yes I know that really it is 299 to cauldron folks but I am going off listed prices. (hard telling what deals other SC's got from their FO) IMO Really sad since we are playing is a baseball park. I would hate to see the prices at a real SSS.
colo 306 *
C-bus 252 *
Chivas 252 *
* indicates that a youth season ticket package is available at a discounted price.
I'm glad you said it.
Marketing point: Companies usually price something at $X99 so it is visibly below the mental threshhold represented by a dollar more. $326 and $327 have little to no perception differential. $299 to $300 is the same dollar difference, but that differential is perceived in a vastly different way. There are a host of reasons why this is done, the most common being to maximize profit on a high margin item. None of the other reasons mesh well either with a "break-even" pricing structure. All of the above is circumstantial of course.
I don't. Maybe they/we should have pull. If no "pull", then isn't it by definition a dictate from OnGoal? Some are telling me OnGoal is in communication and the meetings are not dictatorial, OK fine, but yet here we are seemingly overpaying and mostly happy about it. By your estimation, this without choice.
Seems like OnGoal has The Cauldron all straightened out and working well. Good for them. I'm suggesting maybe leadership should think differently about the situation.
The extreme is: If we are 200 strong, and half are the $299 level, aside from the color and noise, that's 60K in just tickets over the next 2 years. That's a block of business that can and should speak up under the correct leadership.
Truly to have any power there must be the threat of strike so to speak. For us, that's the willingness to not pat to go to a game or three. It's a tough ask and I would doubt the FO would allow things to escalate to that if we were together. If we are not, then get used to writing ever increasing checks that will always be at the top end of a range. Maybe that's OK with everyone. Maybe it isn't worth $99 and a $200 STH equavalent. Maybe the games will all be sell-out anyway and they don't care. I'm just saying it's worth considerationas this "break evn" nonsense seems more and more like a load.
Really? Easy wouldn't be my first adjective...
Not that I was electable, but I would have been there if at all possible.
Rhetorical Qs: What is leadership's main function? Low cost marketing arm of OnGoal or representatives of The Cauldron acting in our interests? What better priority than more affordable seating?
NO! That's a blatant bastardization of what I posted.
Simply, as revenue sharing in KC's case flows on balance TO KC and not TO MLS from KC, any "lost" revenue from those additional seats you brought up is moot.
Still no mention of the costs CAB will pick up on this.
Debatable. If it's so true then have someone post construction costs, CAB cost sharing, and other info.
Anyway, why am I among the few asking? Shouldn't part of leadership's job be at least to want to check out someone saying, We're here to help you so we're giving you seats at our cost? Would you buy a car that way? A house?
Sam's pretty smart. I can't imgine him taking that approach ever. I really can't.
How bout this dave. How about you boycott, the section, the games, and the message boards. You have my full support.
Concept: Don't like the price, don't buy the ********ing ticket.
I think that's the general concensus here, it is what it is. There is a cry wolf opposition here of less than 1% that really want's to show you the doom and gloom and how wronged everything thing based on their view of what they perceive as exploitation written from a listen to me as I'm the only one who knows and can protect you platform. [Run-on sentence brought to by one K. Horner.]
Additional Concept: Buy into the team. Appoint yourself responsible for the bottom line. Set your own market prices. Report back to the other shareholder/owners your good guy group discount and why it was done to continue operating in the red.
I'm just so past the relentless hairsplitting of nothing. There is a catchall mechanism for that, and it's listed in the first line of this post.
but beech, you don't get it. Its an Iron fist line of the post.
Dave, you still don't seem to get it. Are you just bitching for the sake of bitching?
Aren't all ticket prices from every team a "dictate"... why, yes they are. But that doesn't mean they can't ask us for input (whether ignored or not) about what our section will be like or where it will be. Is the price the only issue? I'd say no. They are spending money to turn that section into a place where we can safely stand (some can sit). Of course they are going to want to recoup some costs of pouring in concrete and bleachers. That means that price is gonna go up from $8. It's the 2nd least expensive ticket at CAB. Yeah, it's twice the berm price, but unless they let us look at their expenses...
Would I like it to be cheaper, well duh. In fact, i am only getting 1.5 season tickets now instead of 2.
It's amazing, we want to be "major league" but we only want to pay "minor league" prices. I guess we should go back to the Hunt regime where they don't give a shit about professionalism and play gimmicky noises during the games.
The fist has corrected his will.
I really don't think there is much wrong in debating the price of the Cauldron ticket. I think there is more to be discussed than "don't like the price, don't buy the ticket"
Personally I think the price is a little high. I had considered buying two full season tickets this season. After hearing the price I backed off and will only be able to afford one. I am sure others with wives/girlfriends and kids are doing the same calculations of how many tickets they can afford.
On the flip side, the FO is communicating with us and letting us know why the price is set this way and where the costs are being incurred. Maybe not in as great detail as we would like, but certainly the level of communication from the FO is first rate.
There are other revenue streams for generating money other than the ticket price. Right now it seems the ticket price is the main source of income for the construction of the new bleachers. I guess I would like to see greater efforts to diversify that cost and see a lower ticket price for the Cauldron.
My earlier questions on La Porra have been left worringly unanswered.
Let's debate this without the name calling and personal attacks. We're adults I think.
I liked your "ad on the benches" suggestion.
Is there anyone here in contact with anyone from La Porra?
I hope they are in our section.
La Porra is interesting. I have a sneaking suspicion without any basis (just thought I'd throw that out there so it wouldn't be taken as truth) that the lower priced berm is where they are going to be. Why do I think that? Because they were brought in under the free tickets, after that was done, waited around at the top until the entrances were unmanned and walked in. After that was done, just like most everybody else that didn't buy season tickets paid the full discounted price. I don't think they have any love for the section itself because in my talkings with them last year the cauldron " were nothing, before we (la porra) got here".
I most definitely think they will be at the games. Just on the berm. No real facts, No contacts with them to back it up. Just a sneaking suspicion.
I don't think that would be a bad thing either. Not in a seperation of groups is a good thing type of way. I prefer a unified supporters seciton, but as far as spreading some of the festivities around the stadium type of way, it would be a very good thing.
So... It looks like the concept was applied here?
Debate away, the end result comes down to how many get torn at the gate as the true marker as to if they were priced right.
Streamers being thrown at both ends--that would be a good thing.
I dont really see what the problem is...
The leadership group was brought out to the stadium and given option A at one price, option B at a lower price.
As a group we discussed, here on this very message board, the pros and cons of each and we came up with that we liked option B's location but we had some concerns.
Since the Wizards DO NOT OWN Community America Ballpark, they have to work within the structure of what the T-Bones dictate to them. If the Berm could have been terraced or leveled out with the T-Bones permission, then I think it would have happened (and we would still have seen a price increase over the original $8 because of costs involved with terracing).
The Wizards worked to come up with a solution that best solves the Cauldrons needs, as we articulated to them, about location and safety AND did it at a lower price than if we had taken Option A to begin with.
Is it higher than I would like? Sure, I would love to pay only $8 (or nothing at all) to go to games. But this is a buisness and the reality is that OnGoal bought this team to make money, not to keep the team here soley for the Cauldron's edification. At some point they have to turn a profit (or atleast minimze their losses), for the team to remain viable here in this market.
If the ownership really just wanted to gouge us and take every penny they can from us, then they would have just dictated to us from the beginning that we would be in the left field corner and this whole process wouldn't have happened....
Of course, WC and Baines would have still bitched about the leadership group not doing our jobs by taking the only option given, but how is that any different than them bitching about us doing our jobs, talking to the ownership group, and working a compromise?
In closing, as was said earlier in the thread, if anyone has a problem with how this group is doing things, then by all means step up and run for an office in January. Put your money where your mouth is and step up and take a leadership role. Rather than standing in the back bitching about every decision other people make and trivializing the hard work of not only the six people who were elected by you, but to EVERYONE who has stepped over the past year for the section; stand up and take a bigger role in helping make the section better each year.
I think that OnGoal would have loved to get this all decided before they announced their initial ticket prices, as they could've increased the entire stadium's price by $1 or $2 instead of just the Cauldron tickets... but since they had released their price points they probably had their hands tied in that respect.
I agree that advertising revenue could be used in some way, but I wonder if the bleacher ads would fly with TBones and whatnot. We're obviously in a pickle in the sense that we don't own this stadium but we're asking quite a bit from the TBones despite this.
Well ads on benches can be removed in between games -- or it could done in a partnership with the T-Bones and they could be done more permanently. Like I said, just brainstorming revenue ideas.
Gotta get that jersey sponsorship done.....I wonder how close they are?
Yeah with these costs that OnGoal are incurring it would make sense to get that done now rather than wait until a new stadium is built.