So what is the secret to getting tickets below face value, AKT? Help those of us who are dupes get on the discount train.

The 7 million loss figure comes from the City taking away
2 million dollars of the revenue that they are already earning.

and these losses are based on the 20,000 seat stadium
budgeted for by the Pan Am Games committees.

IMO, the stadium needs to be 30-35,000 seats or more
and be expandable for Grey Cup Games every 8 years

so food concession rights can sold for a much larger fee
and that can be shared by the Tiger Cats with the City.

Harold Ballard had the trucks packed
with all the Tiger Cats equipment

and he said he was moving the team
out of town until Ticat fans rebelled

and marched from City Hall
down to the stadium in protest

He backed off but he extracted his pound of flesh
and got all the food concession rights from the City,

The Ticats now have all those food concession rights, I believe,
and they have needed them just to survive at Ivor Wynne stadium.

Kompass who the Cats sold the food concession rights to

says that they are the worst food concession
facilities that they have to contend anywhere.

Kompass is the biggest stadium and airport
food concession operator in the world.

The more seats there are at the stadium
the bigger the take will be from food

and merchandise sales for the Tiger Cats.

Harold got an enormous discount in stadium rental fees

IMO, the Tiger Cats won't balk at a big increase there
if they are really happy with the stadium and it's location.

If the City finds some new sponsors for the stadium, fine

but if they want sponsorship money that the Tiger Cats
have invested millions and sweat blood to acquire

that needs to be looked at by the facilitator.

Seasons tickets are discounted up to 37 % may man, get on the gravy train. :smiley:


Yes but coming up with 7 million bucks is a lot of hot dogs. :slight_smile:
And if the beer prices go up even more the fans could balk.
There's only so much they can wring out of the fans on game day.

Yes, and as I said above, by my estimate three-quarters of the (discounted) season''s tickets cost $70, $55, $38 or $30. For those buying singles, the prices are even higher, up to $90 for best seats. So a $30 average ticket price in 2015 is laughably underestimating the revenue potential, IMO. I'm not saying the Cats won't continue to lose money if they move to a new stadium, but to say it would be $7 million and base this on an average ticket price of $30 is beyond mere fun with numbers and well into major spin.

Mrcats ,
It will keep people from Getting loaded at the games
If Beer goes up I am fine with it
I don't Drink there often
I don't even eat at the Stadium much

Tom: Shhhh. Don't tell Scott Mitchell that.
He talked about football being retail business where they need to make lots of money from the concessions and other stuff!

Seasons tickets, various group sales, promotions (freebies) retailer discounts (don't know who it will be but usually there are tickets available thru 3rd party retailers. Etc. etc etc.

I believe the $30 figure, you don't Guess well have to disagree about whether the Cats are lying or not

As I said above, season ticket prices are still well above a $30 average. Group sales are almost certainly below face value, granted. If there are any retailers offering cheap tickets to Ticats games, I haven't seen them in the past several years.

I guess we do disagree but for the record I have not accused the Tiger-Cats of "lying." Spinning, yes. Using faulty and misleading assumptions to justify their opposition to the stadium site, yes.

You question the figures the team put out. That to me is an accusation that they are lying about the numbers. Sorry, thats the only way I know how to interpret it

Bob's seven million is probably just as inflated as the city's 60 million dollar contribution...

Its ok for the city to put a 30 percent contingency on the stadium but not for Bob ? :?

People should not get caught up in the numbers from either side in this one...

You can obviously interpret it any way you want. So far I haven't noticed anyone offering a fact-based defence of the data that supported claims of a $7-million loss. Maybe everyone really believes there will be an average ticket price of $30 in a sold-out 20,000-seat stadium.

The latter point is worth exploring. Everything that has ever been written about the stadium indicated that for it to be viable as a home for the Tiger-Cats, it had to be expanded to 25,000 seats. Most reports for months indicated the Ticats themselves were prepared to pay something towards the cost of expanding to 25,000. Now the team produces a report that suggests it would lose $7 million by selling every seat in a 20,000-seat stadium at an average price of $30. So they're using a stadium size that no one has ever suggested would work for the team and a ticket price that considerably stretches the bounds of credibility. And yet hardly anyone seems to be challenging them on either point. Remarkable.


The league's break even point calculations are 10 million a season in ticket sales. That works out to $40.00 x 25 000 seats 10 times a year. Right there that changes the 7 million to 3 million and there is probably some more money to be taken in with luxury boxes for example Montreal is selling its new luxury boxes that seat 8 to 10 people for 60 000.00 a piece and that is striclty for Als games, (there is no other "acts" or "sporting events held at Molson stadium being a University location) there are 20 of them , that would be another 1.2 million, so we are down to 1.8 million. Now I don't know how the Ticats accounted for their investment for the stadium expansion...

The city needs to build the stadium for 25 000 seats and they can for the money they have no question and make it expandable so that temp seating can be installed for Grey Cup type events or mega concerts. Then you can have a completely different conversation with Young IMO.

Lat's say this year you make $100,000, but due to cutbacks etc...next year you make 70,000, at the end of the year you're more than like ly going to use the term "lost" when you describe the 30,000 less.
Now neither you or me (unless you're Bob, Scott or their accountant) know how much they make from sponsorships, parking and concessions but those three items are all revenue the Cats are currently "making", once the new stadium gets built the money from all three goes to the City, ie: a loss of however much that might equal. Over the past few years the Cats have brought in more sponsors that any other time in the history of the team so I'd suggest that alone is a substantial amount.
Anyone suggesting the team might be playing with numbers might want to scrutinize the City's number as closely.
1.47 million in wages for 80 employess of which only 40 are full time, that's some hefty wages and the titles are facilities 'manager', box office 'manager' and a few other 'managing' positions....but they also claim as an expense $200,000
management fee. Wgat? Who does the management fee get paid to and who pays the management fee?
They want to manage the stadium and they want to pay themselves almost 1/4 million to do it?
The fun with numbers questioning can go both ways but nobody's questiong the city.

There's really no reason for the Tiger-Cats to do a business case study for 25,000 to 30,000 seat stadium at the Rheem site. That's because the Tiger-Cats found insufficient investor/sponser interest in the Rheem site to raise the $50M additional funds required for the larger stadium. Why would the Ticats, for example, invest millions in a stadium that locks them into multi-million dollar annual loses going forward?
So, under the present set of circumstances, a 25,000 seat stadium will not happen at Rheem.

You are right – we don’t know how they are doing on those items. All we have to work with is the figures they themselves offered to explain their revenue projections. I’m not questioning any aspect of what they released apart from the ticket sales projections. They said they would make $6 million in gate revenues based on 20,000 seats at $30 a seat times 10 games. I find it beyond belief that they would average only $30 per seat – a figure I bet has not been that low in many, many years – and I don’t see any point basing the projection on a stadium that no one – not the Ticats nor anyone else – has ever said would be able to work with only 20,000 seats.

By the way, they’re also projecting $1.1 million from concessions, souvenir revenue and stadium advertising, according to the Spec report. They are not saying that all that revenue goes to the city as you suggest.

That’s a very valid point and it’s good that you have raised it. The city’s numbers – and anyone else’s that come into this debate – deserve just as much scrutiny as the Ticats’ numbers. My personal interest is mostly in the Ticats’ numbers at this point because I’m amazed they would issue something so far outside the boundaries of common sense, and find few critical eyes cast in the direction of those numbers.

If there's no reason to do a business case study of a 25,000-seat stadium at that site, there is surely even less reason to do a study -- and its findings would be even less valid, no? -- on a 20,000-seat stadium on that site. Yet the Ticats did present such a case. Wonder why?

Doing a report outlining the rev potential from a 20,000-seat stadium at any site, including the Ticats' preferred locations, makes no sense because it is already well established that 20,000 seats are not enough to house a CFL team. More reason to challenge the Ticats report, IMO.

I think the study was done using a 20,000 seat stadium at Rheem since that is the largest facility that would be possible without the extra $50 million from the Ticats.
Remember, the Ticats' study would only involve a stadium built on the Rheem site without the $50 million investment.

I have read more closely a quote from the Spec
that pw13 posted a few posts back explaining

the $7 million figure:

[i]"The $7-million loss Young forecast

"is not magic, it's pretty simple,"said
the Ticat owner's financial adviser, Doug Rye.

Rye laid out a balance sheet for 2014,
the first year the stadium would be available.

He said Ticat expenses would be about $17 million for that season
based on 4.5 per cent budget increases over the next four years.

Rye used the projected operations

on a 20,000-seat stadium in a Deloitte report
commissioned by the city

and current practice at Ivor Wynne Stadium
to arrive at a bottom line.

Which means

It is the Tiger Cats current practice to use
20,000-seats to arrive at a bottom line.

That 20,000 figure is the greatest number of seats
the $102-million in public funds could build."

Both the City and the Tiger Cats used
this low 20,000 seat figure, folks

Ivor Wynne has just under 30,000 seats .

So for the accounting numbers to be comparable
the new stadium has to be at least 30,000 seats

not the 25,000 seats that is so often mentioned.

The club anticipated $6 million in gate revenues, assuming average $30 tickets

and Rye said the team forecast about $1.1 million
from concessions, souvenir revenue and stadium advertising.

The Canadian Football League would provide another

$2 million from television rights and sponsorships.

Another $1 million would come from team-specific advertising.

That's $10.1 million, leaving a near $7-million loss.[/i]

For the many years before caretaker bob bought
the Tiger Cats, there were 13,000 hard core fans.

He brought that up much higher even though
the team has been a loser until last year.

Who spent tons of money on advertising to
achieve that, the City or the Tiger Cats?

The City better not dip too much into
the revenue that bob has generated

if they ever get their act together
and get 50 million in public financing

to build a 30,000 + seat stadium.