PDA

View Full Version : Dallas release season ticket prices



arbogast
09-29-2009, 01:20 PM
We're getting royally hosed by MLSE, check this out:

2 levels of seat pricing: Stadium seating and Premium seating.


Stadium Seating prices range from $170 to $630 for next season and include a new Supporters’ section in sections 120 and 121; Premium seating pricing ranges from $990 to $5,400 and are divided into four sections next season: Premium Club seating, Center Circle Club, Field Side seats and Loge seating

and how's this for a bonus:
2009 full season ticket holders will receive this year’s pricing for the 2010 season when they renew by November 2

http://www.3rddegree.net/2009/09/29/2010-fc-dallas-season-ticket-prices/

Shaughno
09-29-2009, 01:23 PM
hahahahaha fuck you ML$E.

Flipityflu
09-29-2009, 01:27 PM
yes, and i'm sure all 23 Dallas season ticket holders will be very happy with the plan.

Super
09-29-2009, 01:28 PM
Meh. If Dallas enjoyed the same demand as MLSE do here they'd likely have the same prices too.

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 01:29 PM
Meh. If Dallas enjoyed the same demand as MLSE do here they'd likely have the same prices too.

True.

On the other hand, being that Dallas is likely pricing these at a point where you would expect they can at least remain in existance, it also points out that MLSE is making like a bandit by filling the stadium to the brimm and pricing them higher than almost anyone else in the league.

Which means in a recession, they could have chosen to be a little more "customer friendly".

STB
09-29-2009, 01:34 PM
True.

On the other hand, being that Dallas is likely pricing these at a point where you would expect they can at least remain in existance, it also points out that MLSE is making like a bandit by filling the stadium to the brimm and pricing them higher than almost anyone else in the league.

Which means in a recession, they could have chosen to be a little more "customer friendly".

Its exactly the same problem the Leafs have,

If your a company are gauranteed to max out your profits every game then why would you care about the fans. The company doesnt care if its supportes paying for seats or douchbags on a business meeting. BMO will be full regardless so MLSE will always be rolling in cash like Scroodge McDuck

TorCanSoc
09-29-2009, 01:34 PM
yes, and i'm sure all 23 Dallas season ticket holders will be very happy with the plan.

SPIT TAKE!!! Buh ha ha ha ha!!!!!

:lol: :puke::lol:

C.Ronaldo
09-29-2009, 03:56 PM
exactly.

its a recession

mlse needs to make up for the money losses somewhere, and we are a guaranteed ROI


MLSE ARSSHOLES

MartinUtd
09-29-2009, 04:06 PM
So what happens to our ticket prices when the market rebounds?

Darlofletch
09-29-2009, 04:09 PM
Supporter's section? Sounds like a step in the right direction. Can they shed the FC bouncy castle tag?

RPB_RED_NATION_RPB
09-29-2009, 04:28 PM
Toronto FC are up there with the biggest clubs in the world i kid you not... when it comes to season tickets...and single game pricing!

Toronto Ruffrider
09-29-2009, 05:20 PM
Dallas' ticket prices are a glowing example of why MLS has a $2.3 million salary cap. Personally, I don't know how Dallas reportedly makes money, even with the existing cap. I'd be interested in seeing the accounting behind that team, including the forms of revenue from PHP that are included in the equation.

Blazer
09-29-2009, 07:30 PM
Don't blame MLSE. Blame us idiots who pay through the nose and justify their prices. If the ticket prices in Dallas were any more expensive than they are, their 126 supporters wouldn't purchase.

It's a simple supply and demand equation.

scooter
09-29-2009, 07:33 PM
exactly its what the market will bear

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 08:05 PM
True.

On the other hand, being that Dallas is likely pricing these at a point where you would expect they can at least remain in existance, it also points out that MLSE is making like a bandit by filling the stadium to the brimm and pricing them higher than almost anyone else in the league.

Which means in a recession, they could have chosen to be a little more "customer friendly".

Roogs, if Tim Horton's could charge $100 for a coffee and make money they would. This whole 'ML$E is screwing us' thing is getting really lame. Again, if you don't like it don't pay. (Not you specifically Roogs...lol!)

werewolf
09-29-2009, 08:09 PM
This whole 'ML$E is screwing us' thing is getting really lame.

putting profits ahead of championships is getting really lame too.

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 08:15 PM
Roogs, if Tim Horton's could charge $100 for a coffee and make money they would. This whole 'ML$E is screwing us' thing is getting really lame. Again, if you don't like it don't pay. (Not you specifically Roogs...lol!)

And this is the problem Tim. I CAN afford higher prices. In fact, if and when MLSE prices supporters out of the stands, I will probably still hold on to my tickets and simply scalp them.

And then we will have lost the atmosphere people bled red for these first years. We will have lost something special. And if we let it go with nothing more than a whimper, shame on us.

All because the way we choose to make our stand is with "oh well, I guess I won't pay".

In my opinion, if someone doesn't care enough to fight for what they want, they never cared enough to begin with.

Mikey
09-29-2009, 08:16 PM
Dallas has season ticket holders?

What next...scalpers?

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 08:26 PM
And this is the problem Tim. I CAN afford higher prices. In fact, if and when MLSE prices supporters out of the stands, I will probably still hold on to my tickets and simply scalp them.

And then we will have lost the atmosphere people bled red for these first years. We will have lost something special. And if we let it go with nothing more than a whimper, shame on us.

All because the way we choose to make our stand is with "oh well, I guess I won't pay".

In my opinion, if someone doesn't care enough to fight for what they want, they never cared enough to begin with.

And in my opinion, with a waiting list of over 10,000....its hard to blame MLSE for charging what they charge. Just my opinion. :scarf: Anyway, we all love TFC the same and that's all that matters.

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 08:27 PM
putting profits ahead of championships is getting really lame too.

With a DP and grass is that really the case?

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 08:31 PM
And in my opinion, with a waiting list of over 10,000....its hard to blame MLSE for charging what they charge. Just my opinion. :scarf: Anyway, we all love TFC the same and that's all that matters.


It isn't hard to blame because companies that have a monopoly are generally regulated so as to not screw the consumer.

Otherwise you would have many bills and expenses much higher than what they are now. Because of government regulation. If you really felt the way you do, I'd love to see how you would react if your living expenses doubled or tripled because "that's what the market can bear".

Our demand is not that TFC not make money, we know for them to be competitive, they need to have the funds to do so. What supporters want is prices that are comparable to the market, and TFC, a team that hasn't had a sniff of the playoffs and hasn't had a DP until 2 games ago, shouldn't be charging championship level prices.

They are taking advantage of the support that is creating the atmosphere that is allowing them to sell out their games. And that support is letting them know that they don't appreciate it. That's why there is a constant cry against them. We wouldn't be doing our jobs if we just stayed quiet.

werewolf
09-29-2009, 08:34 PM
With a DP and grass is that really the case?

3 Price increases
2 Last place finishes
1 Trophy

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 08:41 PM
It isn't hard to blame because companies that have a monopoly are generally regulated so as to not screw the consumer.

Otherwise you would have many bills and expenses much higher than what they are now. Because of government regulation. If you really felt the way you do, I'd love to see how you would react if your living expenses doubled or tripled because "that's what the market can bear".

Our demand is not that TFC not make money, we know for them to be competitive, they need to have the funds to do so. What supporters want is prices that are comparable to the market, and TFC, a team that hasn't had a sniff of the playoffs and hasn't had a DP until 2 games ago, shouldn't be charging championship level prices.

They are taking advantage of the support that is creating the atmosphere that is allowing them to sell out their games. And that support is letting them know that they don't appreciate it. That's why there is a constant cry against them. We wouldn't be doing our jobs if we just stayed quiet.

Government regulations exist to protect consumers so that they can live. I don't NEED TFC tickets....its a form of entertainment. I think its a little rediculous to compare say CMHC to something like MLSE and TFC tickets. But at anyrate, remember when movie prices went down a few years ago because attendance was down due to pirating....its supply and demand and right now its in MLSE's favour.

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 08:45 PM
3 Price increases
2 Last place finishes
1 Trophy
Grass, upgrades to facilities, and a DP


^^ you forgot.

werewolf
09-29-2009, 08:47 PM
where does the millions from playing against Real Madrid fall in? Where were these costs during the first two price upgrades?

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 08:51 PM
where does the millions from playing against Real Madrid fall in? Where were these costs during the first two price upgrades?

Well we paid RM and put down a temporary grass surface. The 3rd increase is more justified than the first 2, fair enough. But at least you didn't mention the 3rd!

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 09:28 PM
Government regulations exist to protect consumers so that they can live. I don't NEED TFC tickets....its a form of entertainment. I think its a little rediculous to compare say CMHC to something like MLSE and TFC tickets. But at anyrate, remember when movie prices went down a few years ago because attendance was down due to pirating....its supply and demand and right now its in MLSE's favour.

It has nothing to do with "living". Government regulations prevent gouging. It's to protect the consumer. Unless you believe your cable bill is a "necessity" your logic is flawed. There are lots of government regulations in areas of daily life that have nothing to do with whether we "can live".

I am not saying government regulations should apply here, all I am saying is that since there are none, there are no consumer protection measures. And yes, it is entertainment. But the team has asked for more than having a simple audience. They have asked us to provide the atmosphere that helps them generate the crowds and the revenue. To then turn around and then irritate those contributors is to bite the hand that helps feed you.

If all TFC and MLSE want is a paying audience and nothing more...these price hikes will eventually get them that. If you are ok with that, I am not going to argue with you. If you aren't, then accepting price hikes quietly is not going to help avoid it eventually happening.

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 09:48 PM
It isn't hard to blame because companies that have a monopoly are generally regulated so as to not screw the consumer.

Otherwise you would have many bills and expenses much higher than what they are now. Because of government regulation. If you really felt the way you do, I'd love to see how you would react if your living expenses doubled or tripled because "that's what the market can bear".

Our demand is not that TFC not make money, we know for them to be competitive, they need to have the funds to do so. What supporters want is prices that are comparable to the market, and TFC, a team that hasn't had a sniff of the playoffs and hasn't had a DP until 2 games ago, shouldn't be charging championship level prices.

They are taking advantage of the support that is creating the atmosphere that is allowing them to sell out their games. And that support is letting them know that they don't appreciate it. That's why there is a constant cry against them. We wouldn't be doing our jobs if we just stayed quiet.

I was responding only to what you said.

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 09:49 PM
It has nothing to do with "living". Government regulations prevent gouging. It's to protect the consumer. Unless you believe your cable bill is a "necessity" your logic is flawed. There are lots of government regulations in areas of daily life that have nothing to do with whether we "can live".

I am not saying government regulations should apply here, all I am saying is that since there are none, there are no consumer protection measures. And yes, it is entertainment. But the team has asked for more than having a simple audience. They have asked us to provide the atmosphere that helps them generate the crowds and the revenue. To then turn around and then irritate those contributors is to bite the hand that helps feed you.

If all TFC and MLSE want is a paying audience and nothing more...these price hikes will eventually get them that. If you are ok with that, I am not going to argue with you. If you aren't, then accepting price hikes quietly is not going to help avoid it eventually happening.

Which one is it? I don't consider my cable bill a living expense but again its flawed to compare that to what MLSE offers.

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 09:53 PM
Now you are playing semantics. You know full well that living expenses have nothing to do with "living", it simply is an expression that refers to daily expenses (if you like, I can edit the post). Unless of course you can justify your cell phone bill as being as necessary as your grocery expenses you have set up a strawman argument.

And it still doesn't make your statement about government regulations any less incorrect, response to my expression or not.

Super
09-29-2009, 09:58 PM
The ONLY thing that bothers me about the cost of tickets, and the fact that TFC as a club earns well beyond its expenses, is the moronic salary cap. IF we felt that a larger portion of our hard earned money would go towards a better product on the field then we would care less about the cost. But knowing that a small fraction of our cash goes towards the product is really hard to accept. But so be it - parity rules the league!

Blast this addiction to live footy!

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 10:02 PM
^ I agree with this.

Imagine if they ever did away with the salary cap what they would do with our ticket prices? :eek:

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 10:04 PM
My initial response had to do with what it takes to live, as per your intial post as it stated....living expenses. Living expenses to me, and I am sure most others, are those that are required to live. Heat, shelter, food, etc.....the basics. The government regulates against how much someone can spend on heat, taxes, and housing before they are approved for a mortgage. The basics.....living expenses. I don't know if they regulate food costs although I know they don't charge taxes and the necessities. The cable companies are not regulated, movie tickets are not regulated, fast food (price) is not regulated.....to most its common knowledge that if you don't agree with what it costs then you don't buy it. I would think soccer tickets falls in to the latter.

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 10:09 PM
As per the FCC website

"The rates for any tier of service (other than the basic services tier) and for any pay-per-channel programming (i.e., a premium movie channel) and pay-per-program services (i.e., a pay-per-view sports event) are not regulated. Your cable company is free to charge any rate for these services."

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 10:18 PM
*sigh*

How nice of you to take your strawman argument even further and avoid the fundamental point of the post. But fine...I will bite.


Living expenses can be defined in many ways. The Internal Revenue Service has set official guidelines for five categories of living expenses considered to be necessary. These areas are food, apparel and services, housekeeping supplies, personal care services and products, and miscellaneous expenses. This, however, does not take rent or mortgage payments into account. In addition, monthly utilities, cable and water are also large expenses. Transportation is another significant and necessary living expense for most families.

According to this definition, living expenses are important expenses but are not dependant on maintaining "life". ie. Transportation expense is important, but not life-sustaining, shampoo is nice but certainly not necessary, and "miscellaneous" can be pretty much anything! So your understanding of "living expense" may be your own, but it certainly isn't the majority understanding as you are making it out to be, since a huge government agency seems to disagree.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4743654_living-expenses.html

Now back to the real point of my post. Here is my statement again:


I'd love to see how you would react if your living expenses doubled or tripled because "that's what the market can bear".

What was this statement in response to? This is your statement:


And in my opinion, with a waiting list of over 10,000....its hard to blame MLSE for charging what they charge. Just my opinion. :scarf: Anyway, we all love TFC the same and that's all that matters.

Your post deals with the issue of paying what the market can bear. My post in response to you answers that what the market bears is irrelevant because if we all paid what the market could bear, many other things including our living expenses would be higher and I would be interested in seeing how you would react if other things were actually charged according to what the market would demand. At no point in any of my statements did I compare Toronto FC season's tickets to a necessity of life and to give the impression to that effect is either evidence of lack of understanding or intentionally obtuse.

Now...considering that you don't feel complaining about price hikes for tickets isn't worth your breath, I wonder why it is worth your breath to complain about those who complain about it? Does that make sense?

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 10:21 PM
As per the FCC website

"The rates for any tier of service (other than the basic services tier) and for any pay-per-channel programming (i.e., a premium movie channel) and pay-per-program services (i.e., a pay-per-view sports event) are not regulated. Your cable company is free to charge any rate for these services."

First of all, the FCC regulates the US, not Canada. In Canada it is the CRTC that regulates cable rates. 2nd of all, your post clearly defines the unregulated rates on service in the US on anything above basic service...meaning basic service IS regulated.

And guess what CRTC regulates? That's right. It regulates both. My posts are wholly accurate and yours...not.

BakaGaijin
09-29-2009, 10:28 PM
Don't blame MLSE. Blame us idiots who pay through the nose and justify their prices. If the ticket prices in Dallas were any more expensive than they are, their 126 supporters wouldn't purchase.

It's a simple supply and demand equation.

To a certain degree.......however, this simple equation threatens to ruin the franchise.

The bottom line is that the demand is created in large part by the atmosphere that is a by-product of rowdy supporters who buy cheap tickets.

Once you price out those rowdy supporters who create atmosphere, you eliminate the by-product that drives demand for the other customers who are willing to pay more money.

Of course there are other factors at play......and I agree I have over-simplied things........but it's not far from reality.

Take a look at the Toronto Rock's initially success and where they are now for an example.

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 10:29 PM
First of all, the FCC regulates the US, not Canada. In Canada it is the CRTC that regulates cable. 2nd of all, your post clearly defines the unregulated service in the US as being anything above basic service...meaning basic service IS regulated.

And guess what CRTC regulates? That's right. It regulates both. My posts are wholly accurate and yours...not.

I realize its American and that basic service is regulated. I'm using it as an example as to how your "living expense" of cable is not regulated for the most part, meaning everything but basic cable in the USA. By your definition of "living expenses" you are saying that TFC tickets are a living expense. I am trying to show you the difference. The CRTC stopped regulating cable in 1997....when did they start again? Did you find it on their website?

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 10:31 PM
First of all, the FCC regulates the US, not Canada. In Canada it is the CRTC that regulates cable rates. 2nd of all, your post clearly defines the unregulated rates on service in the US on anything above basic service...meaning basic service IS regulated.

And guess what CRTC regulates? That's right. It regulates both. My posts are wholly accurate and yours...not.

"The CRTC began deregulating basic cable rates in 1997 as satellite providers added fresh competition to the market. The CRTC has never regulated consumer prices for upper-tier cable packages. Currently, about 95 per cent of customers subscribe to packages over and above basic service."

Can you show where it says they are regulated please? Just curious.

Whoop
09-29-2009, 10:32 PM
To a certain degree.......however, this simple equation threatens to ruin the franchise.

The bottom line is that the demand is created in large part by the atmosphere that is a by-product of rowdy supporters who buy cheap tickets.

Once you price out those rowdy supporters who create atmosphere, you eliminate the by-product that drives demand for the other customers who are willing to pay more money.

Of course there are other factors at play......and I agree I have over-simplied things........but it's not far from reality.

Take a look at the Toronto Rock's initially success and where they are now for an example.

Exactly.

Or the Blue Jays and the initial success in the opening years of the SkyDome.

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 10:35 PM
I realize its American and that basic service is regulated. I'm using it as an example as to how your "living expense" of cable is not regulated for the most part, meaning everything but basic cable in the USA. By your definition of "living expenses" you are saying that TFC tickets are a living expense. I am trying to show you the difference. The CRTC stopped regulating cable in 1997....when did they start again? Did you find it on their website?

The rates the CRTC does not regulate are cell phone rates.

According to the CRTC website:


The CRTC supervises and regulates over 2000 broadcasters, including TV, AM and FM radio and the companies that bring these services to you.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me?

* edit *

Niagara is correct, rates were deregulated (in 2002 not 1997).

https://www.friends.ca/files/Images/release08oct28.gif

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 10:39 PM
The rates the CRTC does not regulate are cell phone rates.

According to the CRTC website:



Sounds pretty straight forward to me?

Ahhhh...ok I see where we are. You are talking about the CRTC regulating content. They don't regulated cable prices. So has the discussion changed to content and not prices? Did I miss something? They are lobbying to have it changed though....

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 10:42 PM
Ahhhh...ok I see where we are. You are talking about the CRTC regulating content. They don't regulated cable prices. So has the discussion changed to content and not prices? Did I miss something?

No...I edited my post. See above. Rates were deregulated in 2002 so you were partially correct.

I picked an industry that is NOW not regulated (even though it was previously). Shall I pick another industry in a non-life sustaining consumer service to further my point or is the fact that cable is NOW not regulated change things with regards to how factually incorrect your statement was about how government only regulates consumer services that are required to live? And I quote:


Government regulations exist to protect consumers so that they can live.

Is this statement correct only from 2002 onward?

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 10:56 PM
No...I edited my post. See above. Rates were deregulated in 2002 so you were partially correct.

I picked an industry that is NOW not regulated (even though it was previously). Shall I pick another industry in a non-life sustaining consumer service to further my point or is the fact that cable is NOW not regulated change things with regards to how factually incorrect your statement was about how government only regulates consumer services that are required to live? And I quote:



Is this statement correct only from 2002 onward?

It was 1997, maybe it was 2002 for metro cities. The lobby groups will tell you it was 1997 as well. Anyway, they de-regulated in order for cable to compete with satellite(which has been around longer than 2002). So the government de-regulated to allow the cable industry to increase prices and compete with other television products and actually make some money.....hmmmm. Does CMHC indicate my statement is factually incorrect, does not charging GST on foods stuffs deem my argument factually incorrect.

Lets get back on topic. TFC tickets are not a "living expense", they are a want, not need. If you don't want to pay then don't go.

We are not going to agree on this so lets agree to disagree, cheer on the boys on the field, and have a pint together when we make the playoffs (at some point!). :scarf:

*edit* - here is the original public notice from 1997 from the crtc on de-regulation

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1997/PB97-25.HTM

and the article from the lobby group confirming it was 1997

http://www.friends.ca/news-item/8581

Roogsy
09-29-2009, 10:59 PM
Lets get back on topic. TFC tickets are not a "living expense", they are a want, not need. If you don't want to pay then don't go.

I guess instead of long-winded answers I should've simply answered this: I never said they were.


We are not going to agree on this so lets agree to disagree, cheer on the boys on the field, and have a pint together when we make the playoffs (at some point!). :scarf:

Sounds good. But you will still have to allow me to rant about these stinking ticket price hikes! :D

MUFC_Niagara
09-29-2009, 11:03 PM
I guess instead of long-winded answers I should've simply answered this: I never said they were.



Sounds good. But you will still have to allow me to rant about these stinking ticket price hikes! :D

Fair enough :D.

Shakes McQueen
09-30-2009, 01:58 AM
If demand is high, prices will go up. If it's low, they will go down.

If you disagree with the prices, vote with your wallet. As sad as it may be, emotional appeals aren't going to change anything.

What we can do, is ensure that as long as ticket prices will be where they are, that we make noise to ensure a lot of that money get's invested back into making the club better. With the movement on grass and a DP this season, I'd say we do pretty well as fans.

- Scott

canadian_bhoy
09-30-2009, 06:21 AM
Who cares what the Dallas ticket prices are. Their fans don't get to see the Brand of the Year! We Do! Yay!!! Go Brand!

Fort York Redcoat
09-30-2009, 07:04 AM
Any talk of tickets outside the trader makes my head ache. What if we paid what we thought the team was worth?

We can spend endless pages on the definition of the teams worth to each one of us as a supporter vs a consumer.

Wevver, I gotta finish my coffee.

v00d00daddy
09-30-2009, 07:24 AM
To a certain degree.......however, this simple equation threatens to ruin the franchise.

The bottom line is that the demand is created in large part by the atmosphere that is a by-product of rowdy supporters who buy cheap tickets.

Once you price out those rowdy supporters who create atmosphere, you eliminate the by-product that drives demand for the other customers who are willing to pay more money.

Of course there are other factors at play......and I agree I have over-simplied things........but it's not far from reality.

Take a look at the Toronto Rock's initially success and where they are now for an example.

except that there are a lot of soccer fans in the gta (unlike lacrosse)

I'll agree with you when you say that the atmosphere is what is bringing people to the stadium but it's not what is going to keep them there.

People can stomach a bad expansion team.......for a while. If TFC don't bump their level of competition soon the fans will start staying away regardless of whether or not the atmosphere is good or the tickets are cheap.

Season seat holders don't deserve cheap tickets because of the atmosphere they provide. That's ridiculous. Those who dance and chant do so because they want to. MLSE is not forcing then to do it.

If you don't like the prices, don't go. This is MLSE's team people, not ours. No matter how much we say it is. They brought the team to Toronto.

I hate them as much as the next guy but I've known what they're about ever since they bought the leafs....and so did you guys.

MUFC_Niagara
09-30-2009, 08:27 AM
If demand is high, prices will go up. If it's low, they will go down.

If you disagree with the prices, vote with your wallet. As sad as it may be, emotional appeals aren't going to change anything.

What we can do, is ensure that as long as ticket prices will be where they are, that we make noise to ensure a lot of that money get's invested back into making the club better. With the movement on grass and a DP this season, I'd say we do pretty well as fans.

- Scott

+1....well said

rocker
09-30-2009, 07:16 PM
Yeah, why even talk about Dallas ticket prices? If they had our prices, they'd have zero fans in the stands from their current 24 fans. They gotta do something to entice people. Actually, I think their prices are too expensive and aren't going to draw fans out to the middle of nowhere for a crap team.

Also, one thing people always forget is we're talking tickets for every single game. I've always thought of Season's Tickets as a bit of a luxury. I never bought them for baseball (81 games?? holy shit!) and hockey (41 games? wow, that's a lot). Most people in this world never buy season's tickets and even the people that do don't always attend every single game.

So I don't really feel sorry for the complaints about the prices of season's tickets. If it's too much, buy a partial pack or buy single game seats. You have options if tickets for every game are too much for your budget. You can also watch every game for almost nothing on TV -- so they don't hold a monopoly on watching the match. If there were blackouts, it might be different. For years I never attended any Raptors games (I was a poor student), yet I was a huge Raps fan cuz I watched every game on TV.

arbogast
10-01-2009, 11:33 AM
Yeah, why even talk about Dallas ticket prices? If they had our prices, they'd have zero fans in the stands from their current 24 fans. They gotta do something to entice people. Actually, I think their prices are too expensive and aren't going to draw fans out to the middle of nowhere for a crap team.

Also, one thing people always forget is we're talking tickets for every single game. I've always thought of Season's Tickets as a bit of a luxury. I never bought them for baseball (81 games?? holy shit!) and hockey (41 games? wow, that's a lot). Most people in this world never buy season's tickets and even the people that do don't always attend every single game.

So I don't really feel sorry for the complaints about the prices of season's tickets. If it's too much, buy a partial pack or buy single game seats. You have options if tickets for every game are too much for your budget. You can also watch every game for almost nothing on TV -- so they don't hold a monopoly on watching the match. If there were blackouts, it might be different. For years I never attended any Raptors games (I was a poor student), yet I was a huge Raps fan cuz I watched every game on TV.


dude the point is Dallas is able to offer a price point for their that still allows them to be profitable (no company in their right mind would do other wise), and that price point is way below that of TFC's. I can afford to pay for tix and will continue to do so, but the price creep will continue and it will eventually cut out the die hards who make the game day experience what it is.

Blizzard
10-01-2009, 01:39 PM
dude the point is Dallas is able to offer a price point for their that still allows them to be profitable (no company in their right mind would do other wise), and that price point is way below that of TFC's. I can afford to pay for tix and will continue to do so, but the price creep will continue and it will eventually cut out the die hards who make the game day experience what it is.

The only reason Dallas turned a profit last year was because of the stadium rental for concerts.

The amount of revenue they earn from soccer is just a small portion of their operation. There's no way in the world they turn a profit based on their soccer activities alone.

Their concert business is probably more important to the owners than the soccer team is.

arbogast
10-01-2009, 02:15 PM
The only reason Dallas turned a profit last year was because of the stadium rental for concerts.

The amount of revenue they earn from soccer is just a small portion of their operation. There's no way in the world they turn a profit based on their soccer activities alone.

Their concert business is probably more important to the owners than the soccer team is.

yes Dallas, turned a profit based on rentals, BUT, they COULD turn a profit on tickets alone IF people actually showed up to their games, based on the prices they've set. Obviously their business model is different, but rentals alone don't reclude the fact that prices are set on a best case attendance senario.

olegunnar
10-01-2009, 02:53 PM
I think an argument that could be defended is that since it's a single entity league we should see some sort of similarity in pricing.

If a big Mac cost $2 in Toronto, but $4 bucks in Hamilton...Hamilton people would have a beef.
Would people be upset if more popular McDonalds set their prices according to demand?
Same thing here.

JonO
10-01-2009, 03:01 PM
I think an argument that could be defended is that since it's a single entity league we should see some sort of similarity in pricing.

If a big Mac cost $2 in Toronto, but $4 bucks in Hamilton...Hamilton people would have a beef.
Would people be upset if more popular McDonalds set their prices according to demand?
Same thing here.
Some restaurants (especially higher end "chains") do exactly that...

Hitcho
10-01-2009, 03:29 PM
Who cares what the Dallas ticket prices are. Their fans don't get to see the Brand of the Year! We Do! Yay!!! Go Brand!

:rofl:

haha, yeah i am happy to pay more to see such a great brand displayed on medicore performances. the results don't bother me, i just want to know the people running around in front of me have a good brand on their jerseys. you get what you pay for, remember that people! :D

craigtfc
10-01-2009, 03:31 PM
my season ticket in 112 is 325 just got the info

Kevvv
10-01-2009, 03:49 PM
I think an argument that could be defended is that since it's a single entity league we should see some sort of similarity in pricing.

If a big Mac cost $2 in Toronto, but $4 bucks in Hamilton...Hamilton people would have a beef.
Would people be upset if more popular McDonalds set their prices according to demand?
Same thing here.


Does everyone pay the same for Coke? By the case it's less than $0.40 per can.

prizby
10-01-2009, 04:33 PM
i wonder what 3 additional games they get...no US Open Cup, no Superliga, no Champions League...then what?

Globetrotter
10-02-2009, 03:29 PM
Apparently they think that we're equivalent to Bayern Munich. 2009 prices per ticket (prices rounded up, and in CDN $)

$LVL BM TFC
1 87 88
2 71 70
3 55 55
4 40 35
5 24 25

I didn't look into premium/suites. They'll argue that the stadium is much bigger, so they can have lower prices. We'll argue one of their players makes the same as our ENTIRE staff.

Apparently we're as world class and as good as Bayern. Who knew!

Kevvv
10-02-2009, 03:47 PM
I bet more people watch Bayern than watch TFC on GolTV. Don't like the prices, don't buy the tickets. If the prices are truly unreasonable, seats will go unsold. Simple.

Globetrotter
10-02-2009, 05:04 PM
There's so many ways to make money.

The one constant for a fan is to be able to watch a game, and if possible, doing so live. That is the one aspect that should be kept at a respectable price level. Anything on top of that is luxury and added bonus... the t-shirts, food, programs, etc. Those are luxury, so those you can make people bleed their money. I for one don't spend a penny, ever, on any of those. I can wear a red t-shirt that I bought at Winners for $3. I can eat and drink before and after the game. I can get team info online. I will not give any money to them other than getting in to watch the actual game.

If Toronto is equivalent to Munich, then the prices are fair. But Toronto does not equal Munich, and MLS does not equal Bundes, La Liga, Ligue 1, etc...

It's funny, when I asked my rep why there was a price increase he gave reasons like potential grass, DP, high market demand, academy. Last I checked Munich also had grass, a real academy, high market demand, ...and a team full of real DP's.

It's just disappointing that they dare charge that price. Monopolies.

rocker
10-02-2009, 05:11 PM
Munich also gets way more in TV revenue. MLS doesn't get nearly as much.
I'm assuming TFC gets just about nothing from TV since the viewership is extremely low.

A high percentage of MLS revenue comes from ticket sales... in other leagues, the majority of that revenue comes from TV rights. Also, Munich has a 69,000-seat stadium, so ticket prices can be less on average.

So the burden is on the ticket.

Also, people forget that a high fraction of your ticket price goes back to the league to pay for salaries, so TFC is not getting 100% of ticket revenue, as Munich would.
But this isn't a bad thing if you want to see the cap increase --- that 25-30% that goes to MLS could contribute to a league-wide cap increase.

Globetrotter
10-02-2009, 07:32 PM
Yes no doubt, and as they do have a bigger stadium (and other revenue streams), they also have some hefty expenses to cover...which MLS just can't compare to either (and I've used Munich as an example because their prices were unbelievable identical to ours, we could look at Ligue 1, La Liga....).

There's far more that goes into it, and I'm not being naive about it, it's just sad to see that the price levels between the two clubs are identical top to bottom, yet the quality of players on the field and the matches we get to watch are no where near comparable. :)

werewolf
10-02-2009, 07:37 PM
Toronto is the new Munich. Bayern prices, 1860 quality.

Dirk Diggler
10-02-2009, 08:08 PM
Munich also gets way more in TV revenue. MLS doesn't get nearly as much.
I'm assuming TFC gets just about nothing from TV since the viewership is extremely low.

A high percentage of MLS revenue comes from ticket sales... in other leagues, the majority of that revenue comes from TV rights. Also, Munich has a 69,000-seat stadium, so ticket prices can be less on average.

So the burden is on the ticket.

Also, people forget that a high fraction of your ticket price goes back to the league to pay for salaries, so TFC is not getting 100% of ticket revenue, as Munich would.
But this isn't a bad thing if you want to see the cap increase --- that 25-30% that goes to MLS could contribute to a league-wide cap increase.

There is a reason why our main revenue stream is through gate and not television ... those revenue dynamics change as the team and the league grow. I'm not going to come here and complain about the ticket prices simply because there is a lot of demand and MLSE, as a revenue generating corporation, would be foolish not to utilize that demand but the facts that you stated do not justify the high ticket prices here. Do you think there is a hockey club in, say, Sweden with a 5,000 capacity arena that has the same average ticket price as the Maple Leafs? All the arguments that you made for TFC could also be made for that hockey club (i.e. smaller stadium, less TV revenue etc).

In addition, if lack of TV revenue is cited as a legitimate reason to charge more for the tickets, do you think TFC will start charging less for seats if/when the TV revenue increases? Most professional clubs have experienced increases in TV revenue but that has not lowered ticket prices. Same thing can be said for stadium expansion ... if/when BMO Field expands, do you think ticket prices will go down? If MLSE invests in stadium expansion, I doubt that their goal would be to merely match the profit margins of their previous fiscal years ... they would be looking for an increase most likely.

Globetrotter
10-02-2009, 08:46 PM
Maybe a part of it is the fact that our owners are pure capitalists (even though we're suppose to be socialists!)? All they know is how to continue to increase revenue and profits. Things work a little differently elsewhere. Once you break even, it's fair to try to gain "some" profit, but by absolutely milking and raping your fan base at the ticket office? You've paid your debts and expenses, made a million bucks, why do you keep taking our money to make 3, 4 , 5 million? Mark up the unnecessary luxuries, not the bare bottom essentials, that being a ticket to the game!