Kane County

[Cubs2008]

Ya his avg has dropped into the.280's from a solid .300 clip. Not sure what caused his start up go go on fire but the rest of his career has been the current slash line.

Csf- the guy only has like 406 at bats career. It's a little too early to be talking trends. Although his numbers seem to be getting better.

 

[Cubs2008]

Kb- That's why I went to Peoria. I refuse to go to Wrigley and sped hundreds on parking , tickets, beverages, ect while they are losing 100 games a year.

Furthermore, I don't understand why people are going. What reason will they ever have to put a team on the field if these lemmings show up anyway?

 

[KBisBack!]

Furthermore, I don't understand why people are going. What reason will they ever have to put a team on the field if these lemmings show up anyway?

They won't.

But idiots still believe you have to put a winning team on the field to make money in baseball and that Wrigley Field isn't the main drawing card of the franchise and refuse to believe that they will still likely sell 2.5M+ tickets a year no matter how bad of a team they put out on the field as long as they stay in Wrigley.

 

[Cubs2008]

I do think that they will have to at least give some kind of illusion that they want to win to draw that many every year. If for some reason we were a 100 game loer every year for a sustainable streach I'd like to think the fans would eventually stop showing up.

 

[patg006]

Furthermore, I don't understand why people are going. What reason will they ever have to put a team on the field if these lemmings show up anyway?

You must be joking....

 

[Cubs2008]

About what? Why people are going? Or the lemmings?

 

[patg006]

About what? Why people are going? Or the lemmings?

You're serious? You have no idea why people go to Wrigley to watch a bad team play? Why people go to Wrigley period?

 

[Cubs2008]

I have no idea why people pay $30-$40 to park, $70 a ticket, $8 a beer, to see a 100 loss team, correct.

I love Wrigley as much as the next guy, but it's pretty run down and uncomfortable even.

Maybe you can explain it to me. Or you can keep insinuating that I'm a moron and be a jacj ass abiut it...

 

[Sunbiz1]

I have no idea why people pay $30-$40 to park, $70 a ticket, $8 a beer, to see a 100 loss team, correct.

I love Wrigley as much as the next guy, but it's pretty run down and uncomfortable even.

Maybe you can explain it to me. Or you can keep insinuating that I'm a moron and be a jacj ass abiut it...

http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/showthread.php/35470-Why-Do-Fans-Overpay?highlight=

 

[CherokeeReds]

Peoria is always a good place to see a game.

Agreed, although less so now that they are a Cardinals affiliate.

Nice park, easy to get in and out.

 

[CherokeeReds]

I do think that they will have to at least give some kind of illusion that they want to win to draw that many every year. If for some reason we were a 100 game loer every year for a sustainable streach I'd like to think the fans would eventually stop showing up.

Of course they'd stop showing up if the team consistently lost 100 games. Which is why the notion that ownership cares nothing about winning makes no sense.

Nothing would generate more money for ownership than a consistently winning team.

 

[patg006]

http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/showthread.php/35470-Why-Do-Fans-Overpay?highlight=

^This

Thanks sunbiz.

 

[Freakyslow15]

I have no idea why people pay $30-$40 to park, $70 a ticket, $8 a beer, to see a 100 loss team, correct.

I love Wrigley as much as the next guy, but it's pretty run down and uncomfortable even.

Maybe you can explain it to me. Or you can keep insinuating that I'm a moron and be a jacj ass abiut it...

There's free parking if you're willing to look and sometimes walk a little. Or CTA is $2. Upper deck tickets cost like $20 (people sell tickets for less than face on stubhub too), you can work your way down. Don't buy online; they up charge $13 a ticket. Go straight to ticket sales at Wrigley. Do a few shots before heading in if the beers cost too much, this makes them more efficient. If you are gonna be a snob about "overpaying," realize you're overpaying as a snob in the first place.

 

[Cubs2008]

There's free parking if you're willing to look and sometimes walk a little. Or CTA is $2. Upper deck tickets cost like $20 (people sell tickets for less than face on stubhub too), you can work your way down. Don't buy online; they up charge $13 a ticket. Go straight to ticket sales at Wrigley. Do a few shots before heading in if the beers cost too much, this makes them more efficient. If you are gonna be a snob about "overpaying," realize you're overpaying as a snob in the first place.

I generally do all things anyway. Except for the upstairs part. If I'm going to go I usually try to get a good seat.

With all that said, I'm still not going to go if they aren't opening their pockets for the product on the field. I'd rather watch the farm team which is where the Cubs are putting their money.

 

[CSF77]

Csf- the guy only has like 406 at bats career. It's a little too early to be talking trends. Although his numbers seem to be getting better.

First 2 years he had sucked. He came out this year looking like a top prospect. Now he is sliding back again. Was just musing why. Off season training most likely and now his body is regressing from the grind or the league is caught onto a weakness. Not sure to be honest.

 

[KBisBack!]

Nothing would generate more money for ownership than a consistently winning team.

100% Incorrect.

If the cost of fielding that consistently winning team is greater than the increase in revenues, then the winning team can make less money. This has been explained to you several times but you have repeatedly displayed that is too complex a concept for you to grasp.

If it takes $150M payroll to field a consistently winning team, that is an increase of payroll by around $45M.

At an average ticket cost of say $46.30 (the average ticket price last year), the team would have to sell approximately 972,000 more tickets to equal that $45M in payroll.

The most fans the Cubs have drawn is 3.3M in 2008.

They drew 2.8M last year and are on pace to draw 2.7M this year.

So as long as the team continues to draw greater 2.3M fans a year, the team can actually make more money than a winning team with a $150M payroll.

Even attendance of 2.6M would result in more profit over a $135M payroll and 3.3M tickets sold.

 

[KBisBack!]

Of course they'd stop showing up if the team consistently lost 100 games. Which is why the notion that ownership cares nothing about winning makes no sense.

They haven't yet.

10th in attendance last year and 9th in attendance so far this year.

 

[Franko725]

100% Incorrect.

If the cost of fielding that consistently winning team is greater than the increase in revenues, then the winning team can make less money. This has been explained to you several times but you have repeatedly displayed that is too complex a concept for you to grasp.

If it takes $150M payroll to field a consistently winning team, that is an increase of payroll by around $45M.

At an average ticket cost of say $46.30 (the average ticket price last year), the team would have to sell approximately 972,000 more tickets to equal that $45M in payroll.

The most fans the Cubs have drawn is 3.3M in 2008.

They drew 2.8M last year and are on pace to draw 2.7M this year.

So as long as the team continues to draw greater 2.3M fans a year, the team can actually make more money than a winning team with a $150M payroll.

Even attendance of 2.6M would result in more profit over a $135M payroll and 3.3M tickets sold.

That is only partially true. Only looking at ticket sales neglects the revenue also brought in by parking, concessions, and souvenir sales. Those are likely going to be more than the ticket price for a person attending a game.

 

[chibears55]

i found this article dated May 9th ( 2 weeks ago ) about cubs attendance.. what i found interesting was the actual in attendance was much lower then tickets sold which is obviously the majority of which is season tickets holder..

Before I begin, I want to ask a favor of you, the BCB reader.

If you are not interested in this topic, please move on to another post. Some people are interested in Cubs attendance, and this post is for them. Thank you.

A scheduled nine-game homestand turned into 10 games, with the makeup game from the April 17 rainout against the Texas Rangers rescheduled for the off day May 6. While the weather was better, the baseball wasn't -- the Cubs went 4-6 over the 10 games -- and it showed in the attendance numbers, shown here.

Date Announced Crowd In-House Estimate
4/29 32,169 19,OOO
4/3O 31,3O3 22,OOO
5/1 34,832 23,OOO
5/2 32,865 12,OOO
5/3 32,579 12,OOO
5/4 36,455 27,OOO
5/5 33,449 23,OOO
5/6 32,618 12,OOO
5/7 3O,161 22,OOO
5/8 26,354 18,OOO
Of particular note is the last date, Wednesday, May 8, a game against the Cubs' biggest rival on the nicest weather afternoon of the year so far. Bright sunshine and pleasant temperatures brought... the smallest Cubs/Cardinals paid crowd at Wrigley Field since May 1, 1998, when just 25,598 paid to see these two teams on a chilly (55 degrees, cloudy) Friday afternoon. That was just before Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire heated up the home-run race that captivated the nation that year.

You would think that such a nice Wednesday afternoon would have generated some walk-up sale; it always has in recent years. And there very well might have been a fair number of people who decided, "Hey, I think I'll take this afternoon off and go see a ballgame." But unlike past years, those people aren't lining up at the box office at the corner of Clark and Addison. Instead, they're roaming the area streets looking for below-face-value tickets (you can no longer last-minute via StubHub, because MLB's new deal with them cuts off sales six hours prior to game time).

In many cases, they are finding those tickets. I heard the general street price for Wednesday's game was about half face value.

As the weather gets better and schools let out for summer, attendance numbers -- both paid and the in-house estimates -- should increase. But not drawing for a beautiful day against the Cardinals should give the Cubs pause.

Here are the numbers for this homestand: total announced attendance was 322,785, an average of 32,279 per date (rounding up). The in-house estimates total 190,000, an average of 19,000 per date; thus, there were 13,279 no-shows per date. For the season, announced attendance is 572,920, an average of 31,829 per date. The total of my crowd estimates is 318,000, or 17,667 per date, so the estimated no-show count is 254,920, or 14,162 per date. The no-show numbers should decrease as the year goes on -- but as of now they're almost double what I estimated a year ago.

The Cubs' total announced tickets sold ranks 10th in the major leagues, about 2,000 total paid tickets behind the Blue Jays and about 31,000 ahead of the Nationals, who the Cubs visit this weekend. The 31,829 average ranks 11th, just behind the Nats (31,994) and 1,000 per date ahead of the Rockies (30,829). For reference, in 2012 the Cubs ranked 10th in both categories.

 

[chibears55]

Date Announced Crowd In-House Estimate
4/29 32,169 19,OOO
4/3O 31,3O3 22,OOO
5/1 34,832 23,OOO
5/2 32,865 12,OOO
5/3 32,579 12,OOO
5/4 36,455 27,OOO
5/5 33,449 23,OOO
5/6 32,618 12,OOO
5/7 3O,161 22,OOO
5/8 26,354 18,OOO