Tom Brennan - FIRST, YA GOTTA SHOW UP
I hate tables, like the one below - I went to edit the table in Excel, and when I returned it from Excel, my article was gone. POOF! So I will try to recreate the concept briefly.
There is much discussion about the Mets' needing to stay within a spending budget. We as Mets fans, all we hear is that we're working within a budget, that there isn't much to spend, and how should we spend our paltry ducats on middle of the road players while other teams splurge on the high profile guys.
What about the revenue side, though?
Simply put, winning teams win more games. An 80 game winner will, all other things being equal, draw fewer fans than if it were a 90 win team. A 90 win team will , all other things being equal, draw fewer fans than if it were a 95 win team.
Fewer tickets get sold at big discounts when the product is more in demand, and concessions and food and beverage sales also ascend northward.
TV ratings go up too, as fans love to watch, and that drives ad revenues.
Spending well and generously can have an ameliorating impact on revenues, franchise value and the like. And, of course, if the team makes the playoffs and gives it a nice run, that is Jackpot City for ownership.
In the table below, we see that the Yanks averaged 36,048 fans, while the big market Mets averaged a middle of the pack 30,563. At home, the disparity is more like 9,000 fans per game at the House that Ruth Rebuilt, all of whom spend $$ on tickets, food, brews, etc.
What would a return to health for our pitchers and Cespedes, and some dandy, even if costly acquisitions do for the Mets? What if there were even 5,000 more fannies in seats for Mets home games because last year's 70 win team becomes 2018's 92 win team? Revenues would go up, what, $40 - $50 million? Maybe more?
My call? Go for the wins, spend the real money for real quality players, and buy your team a playoff lotto ticket that you might actually get to cash in, you low budget owners.
The minor league system won't get it done for you in 2018, because you, well, didn't draft all that good in 2011-17, so spend the money, Sonny.
Also in the table below, what you see is primarily that the teams that drew more than the Mets were big market, strong teams, and smaller market, really strong teams. Below the Mets? Mostly lousy teams in big markets and not-very-good teams in smaller markets. Owners, let's get Mets' attendance into the top 5 - get some real players - by spending some real money.
OK, I'm signing off before my article vanishes again. Have a great day, and SHOW UP.
2017 Attendance | Home | Road | Overall | |||||
RK | TEAM | GMS | TOTAL | AVG | GMS | AVG | GMS | AVG |
1 | LA Dodgers | 81 | 3,765,856 | 46,492 | 81 | 33,579 | 162 | 40,035 |
2 | St. Louis | 81 | 3,447,937 | 42,567 | 81 | 31,324 | 162 | 36,945 |
3 | San Francisco | 81 | 3,303,652 | 40,785 | 81 | 31,376 | 162 | 36,081 |
47 | NY Yankees | 79 | 3,146,966 | 39,835 | 81 | 32,354 | 160 | 36,048 |
5 | Toronto | 81 | 3,203,886 | 39,554 | 81 | 29,912 | 162 | 34,733 |
6 | Chicago Cubs | 81 | 3,199,562 | 39,500 | 81 | 34,460 | 162 | 36,980 |
7 | LA Angels | 81 | 3,019,583 | 37,278 | 81 | 27,663 | 162 | 32,471 |
8 | Colorado | 81 | 2,953,650 | 36,464 | 81 | 30,575 | 162 | 33,520 |
9 | Boston | 81 | 2,917,678 | 36,020 | 81 | 31,563 | 162 | 33,792 |
10 | Milwaukee | 81 | 2,558,722 | 31,589 | 81 | 30,530 | 162 | 31,060 |
11 | Washington | 81 | 2,524,980 | 31,172 | 81 | 29,967 | 162 | 30,570 |
12 | Texas | 81 | 2,507,760 | 30,960 | 81 | 26,699 | 162 | 28,829 |
13 | Atlanta | 81 | 2,505,252 | 30,929 | 79 | 29,230 | 160 | 30,090 |
14 | NY Mets | 80 | 2,460,622 | 30,757 | 81 | 30,372 | 161 | 30,563 |
15 | Houston | 81 | 2,403,671 | 29,674 | 79 | 27,678 | 160 | 28,689 |
16 | Detroit | 81 | 2,321,599 | 28,661 | 80 | 26,725 | 161 | 27,699 |
17 | Kansas City | 80 | 2,220,370 | 27,754 | 80 | 28,458 | 160 | 28,106 |
18 | San Diego | 81 | 2,138,491 | 26,401 | 81 | 32,161 | 162 | 29,281 |
19 | Seattle | 81 | 2,135,445 | 26,363 | 80 | 26,797 | 161 | 26,579 |
20 | Arizona | 81 | 2,134,375 | 26,350 | 81 | 31,939 | 162 | 29,144 |
21 | Minnesota | 80 | 2,051,279 | 25,640 | 80 | 27,797 | 160 | 26,719 |
22 | Cleveland | 81 | 2,048,138 | 25,285 | 80 | 27,729 | 161 | 26,499 |
23 | Baltimore | 81 | 2,028,424 | 25,042 | 81 | 29,457 | 162 | 27,250 |
24 | Philadelphia | 79 | 1,905,354 | 24,118 | 81 | 30,940 | 160 | 27,571 |
25 | Pittsburgh | 81 | 1,919,447 | 23,696 | 81 | 32,633 | 162 | 28,164 |
26 | Cincinnati | 81 | 1,836,917 | 22,677 | 81 | 32,094 | 162 | 27,386 |
27 | Chicago White Sox | 79 | 1,629,470 | 20,626 | 81 | 28,443 | 160 | 24,583 |
28 | Miami | 81 | 1,651,997 | 20,395 | 80 | 29,160 | 161 | 24,750 |
29 | Oakland | 80 | 1,475,721 | 18,446 | 80 | 29,466 | 160 | 23,956 |
30 | Tampa Bay | 80 | 1,253,619 | 15,670 | 81 | 29,898 | 161 | 22,800 |
5 comments:
So in other words, it takes money to make money. Therein lies the rub. You are asking the Wilpons to allocate some of their country club dues, private jet funds, Italian sports cars and designer clothing allowance to instead put a quality product on the field with the long term goal of building a revenue generating machine. To do so would require both courage and vision which, outside of the real estate aspect, have not been hallmarks of the family style. Where's Bernie Madoff when you need him?
Reese, as always, the choice is the Wilpons (and other owners). Of course, unlike, most teams, they do not have the Yankees playing 10 miles away. Some non-rabid people may have to decide between the Mets and Yanks when deciding where to spend their finite dollars on ball games - they are not automatically Mets or Yanks - those people will continue to more and more heavily skew to opting to buy Yanks tickets instead of Mets tickets, unless the Mets fight fire with fire.
Tom -
That might be the worse Excel sheet reprint I have ever seen. Good work, son.
Have you ever eeen how Jeff dresses ? More like off the rack at Simms than at Gucci .. that being said I have been in a Mets sponsored blogger think tank back in the day & Jeff’s baseball & I have found business acumen to be lacking
It looked better positioned when I first had it in there, but had some unnecessary columns that caused part of it to hide beyond the right border.
After I cut it out to resize it in Excel, then went to paste it back in, the whole article was gone.
So I copied the slimmer schedule in there, as is (looking ugly), and did not try to fix it again!! Fool me once...
Post a Comment