45,000 seats is not big enough
The Mets drew 3.4 million fans to Shea stadium in the breakout year of 2006. As long as they stay in contention, it is a fair bet that the Mets will draw close to 4 million in each of the next two years. In 2009, their attendance will drop. The Mets, in that year, will open a stadium that will limit their annual attendance to 3.6 million. I think this is terrible.
Because they can raise ticket prices in response to the demand for their tickets, and because there will be luxury boxes in the new stadium, the Mets will continue to make as much or more money in a stadium that has an annual capacity of 3.6 million than they would have made had they kept the current stadium, which has an annual capacity of 4.4 million. But the experience of being a Mets fan will change forever.
Unless the Mets get bad again, it may soon be impossible to go to a game on the spur of the moment. Going to games will become what it is for Red Sox fans, something analogous to getting tickets in the first few months for a smash Broadway hit. It will be something managed by scalpers and concierges. It won’t be showing up to see a ball game. It will feel like a privilege, something mainly within the grasp of the wealthy, and those who are willing to make the commitment to buy a season ticket.
My life is too complicated for me to commit to a Saturday plan. I also live too far away (about an hour and a quarter if there is no traffic at all). I make it to about ten games per year. And I am so glad that I can always get a seat to any game I want to attend except for games against the Yankees.
I made it to two playoff games this year. I won the lottery once. And I was able to use a ticket won by someone else who won the lottery. Will they have a lottery for future playoff games, if they have 11,000 fewer seats in the stadium and more people have purchased season ticket plans? Don’t bet on it.
45,000 seats is too small for a stadium in the largest metropolitan area in the United States. I don’t care how cute and lovely the new stadium will be. I don’t care how great the sightlines will be from almost every seat. I don’t care how much the stadium will remind people of Ebbett’s Field. If I can’t get into the stadium and if I can never see a playoff game again, my experience as a Mets fan will change for the worse.
Being a Mets fan is important to me. Don’t do this to me. Don’t do this to all of us. Add more seats.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Dana:
Please don’t keel over when I say this, but I AGREE WITH YOU 250%!!!.
(There is a first for everything!
)
The reduction in seating at Shea is nothing short of appalling. The excuse that is given is that the Mets generally only average those kind of numbers. But that’s usually because the Mets rarely seem to be able to string together successive competitive seasons the way the Yankees have been able to do.
That (of course) presumes that the Mets are (as David Letterman once put it) remain “committed to sucking” more often than not. Everything about Omar suggests that isn’t the case. Regardless of my debates with you or anyone else on the subject, Omar’s aggressiveness and the Wilpon’s checkbooks, while there are no guarantees in life, every sign points to Omar doing whatever needs to be done to make the Mets competitive and relevant year after year. Even if they don’t get to the post-season, they should be legit contenders to get there.
45,000 seats is an embarassment. Interestingly, the new Yankee Stadium will have the same number of seats as it currently does, its just that the proportion of cheaper to more expensive seats will be inverted (its currently 20,000 in lower bowl, 30,000 in upper bowl.) That at least makes sense.
How sad wil it be when its easier to get a Yankees ticket than a Mets ticket,
I don’t think new Shea has to be 57,000, but to me there is a huge universe of difference between 45,000 and 52,000 or even 50,000. Freaking Camden Yards has 48,190 seats, and Baltimore doesn’t even come close to NYC’s pop, let alone the metro area as a whole. Why the Mets think they can barely edge out the Phils in attendance (CBP holds 43,000) is a mystery. Yes, there are a bunch of seats at Shea that go unsold because the sightlines are horrible.
Incidentally, based on my last conversation with the Shea ticket folks, they are only given preference to full and 1/2 season ticket holders for the new Stadium (thus they are pushing hard for sales of those packages.) As of my last conversation with them (this summer) there is no commitment to 6 pack holders, or mini-plan holders for the new stadium.
All that said, in the absence of a large and vocal public outcry (which I don’t see coming, and would need to be significantly louder than 200 people on the internet, or even 20,000 people) I think this is inevitable. Fred Wilpon is resolute on his desire to resurrect Ebbets Field notwithstanding advice to the contrary. He will stress “initimacy” blah blah blah blah.
For me, the bottom line is this. If I can’t get to the games, or have to pay a king’s ransom for the privilege of a nosebleed seat for the next 4 seasons (and usually I can only get to weekend games, obviously the most popular), I’m finding another team to root for. Plain and simple - - make it impossible for me to go to games for no reason other than squeezing more $ out of fewer seats, and you’ve lost me as a fan.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
I also am in agreement. I just started taking my kids (7 and 5) to Shea this summer. How am I going to afford any tickets for a family of four come 2009? I will sign your petition no problem.
November 6th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
I don’t believe a petition will have one iota of impact on this. The problem is that sparse attendance at Shea for midweek games creates a defensible case for a 45K seat stadium, and pointing out that in the Reagan Administration Shea busted through 2MM in attendance is not relevant.
Keep in mind that this is (at least nominally) a privately financed stadium deal - - don’t know that the city would hold up on infrastructure costs because people complained that there was reduced seating.
(If anything, the prospect of fewer cars jamming up the Van Wyck or Grand Central Pkwy probably made the infrastructure changes and attendant costs easier to sell to any communities that would be affected, esp. the National and State Park services to the extent it impacts Flushing Meadows Corona Park).
In addition, telling the powers-that-be “Well, Omar is willing to sign Zito and Soriano and a million other players that will at least increase t-shirt sales” won’t do the trick either. You would have to be able to present an economic model that quantitatively demonstrates that each additional win boosts attendance by a demonstrable percentage and project it forward. Showing that the underlying assumptions sustaining such model are reliable is dicey, but its at least something (especially if you can tie it in to increased positive economic activity in Corona, or whatever additional entertainment-and-business complex they try to bootstrap on top of “new” Shea.)
That’s no guarantee - - Oakland often has a much better W-L record than the Giants across the Bay, but their attendance numbers still generally suck. (That is why they’ve closed off sections of their upper deck).
But barring that, I believe we are stuck with the number, and once the first cornerstone is laid, its 90-95% a done deal. (It probably is done already - - I assume whatever zoning and construction permits they have specificy a 45,000 seat stadium - - boosting it by 10,000 or so would probably require generation of new engineering reports and EIS (environmental impact statements) that are always attendant to these sorts of projects. (Exhibit “A” - - all of lower Manhattan).
I’ll conclude by noting that my disappointment with the reduction of seats in new Shea dovetails with some of my misgivings about the Yankees being considered the Mets chief rivals. My experience has been that Yankees-Mets packs the house (often with many Yankee fans) but other games, ESPECIALLY mid-week games, get mediocre to pathetic crowds, including games against division rivals like Philly, Florida, even the Braves do not result in a packed house. I know all the excuses and rationalizations, but at the end of the day, the numbers speak for themselves. The Yankees pack their Stadium not because of 3 Subway Series games a year, but because of meaningful and intense rivalries with the Red Sox, Orioles, Angels, even the D-Rays. Thus, the past 10 years and attendance records the past 2 seasons show they “deserve” a stadium remaining at about 57K.
Whereas mediocre crowds at Shea and nothing approaching a “lions and hyenas” rivarly with the NL teams (including NL East) results in an unfortunate, but predictable, drop in stadium capacity just when the team is sparking increased interest. Combine that with Wilpon’s mooney-eyed love affair with the departed Bklyn Dodgers and their charming, but tiny and hitter-friendly bandbox of a park, and the end result is no surprise.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
JD,
I don’t have a sense that we normally disagree except about that one issue of “Yankee Hatred.” I’m glad you agree. I don’t think that comparatively weak weeknight attendance (35-40,000 generally) creates any kind of argument for the smaller stadium. Attendance is climbing and was very impressive this year. If there is the normal post-breakout year bump and if the popularity of the team continues to grow as it did last year, a significant number of home games will sell out. Most will, I predict, if there are only 45,000 seats in the stadium. It seems to me to be bad business sense to alienate so many fans (and TV watchers and radio listeners) by making it virtually impossible to attend a ballgame. Fred Wilpon can still create his homage to Ebbett’s field with a 50,000 seat stadium. That’s all I ask.
Dana
November 6th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Dana:
(I was just kidding on the disagreement). Obviously, however, the comparatively weak weeknight attendance did create some kind of argument for the smaller stadium. Maybe that was all that the bank syndicate deemed acceptable when they did the discount cash flow study when they were pricing the bonds to finance this (not muni bonds, whatever financing Wilpon is putting in).
I know if I was evaluating it, I wouldn’t base my revenue streams on 1 or 2 seasons in the past. I’d look to a much longer range of numbers from at least a 5-10 year period (which in the Mets case ain’t great) , look at comparables from other new stadiums (probably all over the map - - - Philly and Detroit had disappointing “honeymoons” for their stadiums), and also factor in (unique for NY) that there is a second team in town competing for revenue dollars (which is a “curve buster” as far as revenue and attendance is concerned) and also note that the Yankees are also getting a new stadium. Presumably the bankers (and Wilpons) focused on the summer tourism months and are assuming (with reason) that the Yankees will continue to be a materially more significant tourist draw than the Mets.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that it creates a defensible economic case for the smaller stadium while still giving a royal screwing to loyal Mets fans who don’t want to donate a kidney to attend games. The Wilpons may get what they want (more crowded games and increased revenues) but the numbers will be goosed by higher tix prices, concessions, and less product available for purchase. T
The Yankees will still be top dog in town yet may be a more accessible ticket, oddly enough (absent massive changes Willet’s Point won’t be much of a ‘destination event’ the way River Avenue and its bars and bowling alleys has become the past 10 years, combined with much faster access to Manhattan).
What they SHOULD have done is keep both stadiums roughly the same size but explored the feasibility of moving Shea closer to Manhattan (I find it astonishing to believe that chunks of L.I.C. wouldn’t work - - if they can smack downtown Brooklyn with eminent domain for a new Nets arena, so much of LIC is already zoned industrial its mind-boggling (though I will concede that simply using the current Shea/parking footprint was legally and logistically easier.)
All of the above is speculation, but it would at least be easier to tolerate if Wilpon can claim his hands were tied by his lenders and the city. If in fact this results from an Onanistic desire to recreate Ebbets Field hook line and sinker, that is a very sad and pathetic statement. (Personally, and I say this as a Brooklyn native, its bad karma to punt the Polo Grounds through the uprights. The Mets roots are deeper with the NY Giants than Bklyn Dodgers, from their first stadium to the very logo worn on their caps!!!)
I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate that he didn’t “truly” replicate Ebbets, because Ebbets only held 34, 219 at its height. Were that to have happened, the only way people would be able to get access would be to recreate certain scenes from MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (”Two men enter….one man leaves.”)
November 7th, 2006 at 12:15 am
I guess I still can’t understand why a bank, or economic considerations of any kind, would determine that 45,000 was the right size for the stadium and 50,000 wasn’t. It couldn’t be that much more expensive to build a 50,000 seat stadium than a 45,000 seat stadium and there would be a pretty good likelihood of filling those 5,000 seats with regularity.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:35 am
I agree that the difference between 45,000 and 50,000 seems pretty de minimus. I’m also not an investment banker (in my prior practice I got to see the results of their work, usually when a deal went kaplooey, but I’m generally dependent on expert consultants.)
I am also not certain that 5,000 seats makes that huge a difference, but then again, 5,000 seats is rougly equivalent (give or take 1,000) to Radio City Music Hall’s seating capacity. So it might increase the footprint, especially if you want 360 degree access, though I think that would be handled vertically.
These things are not an exact science (as are all comparable analyses). Usually the bank probably looks at what attendance has been for the past few years and uses that figure to project outward. If the Mets average season attendance hovered around the 34,000 to 40,000 mark, that is probably the metric they used (and lets be honest, if the Mets averaged 45K per night that would be an increase from where they usually are at, esp. in midweek games. The announced attendance almost never gibes with reality).
They also likely factored in a new stadium in the Bronx and those revenues and attendance figures, and concluded that the Mets had some upside potential, but that, assuming this season as a benchmark, that the scenario would probably remain on the status quo side, especially when they looked at comps for new HOK-constructed ballparks (nearly all of which do not exceeed 48,000). Not saying they wouldn’t have financed a bigger park, but it might have increased the interest rate on the bonds, and Wilpon may have decided (esp, after years of failing to sell out a 57 thou seat park) that he didn’t want to pay an additional point or two.
I think you can construct a good argument that for the 1st year, maybe 2, those additional 5K seats would get filled, NY being what it is. But if the Mets started doing impressions of 1970, 1974, 1987, ior 2001, that probably came in, especially because, as I mentioned before, CBP had very disappointing numbers its first 2 seasons, and Philly is an extremely large East Coast market.
(Dana, this is also why I take the “Yankee Hatred” and other issues slightly more seriously than the average Joe. At a certain point, at these dollars, the game is obviously more than a game, its a megabusiness, and to the extent any of the idosyncracies of Mets fans (i.e. treating the Yankees as more important rival than the Phillies) impact that business, its troubling [academically] to me.)
November 12th, 2006 at 4:45 am
Number 1. It’s too late. They started building it 6 months ago.
Number 2. The Wilpons have shown no desire to listen. They do not believe they have any need listen to us (and they are right). They think they can charge us whatever they want (and they are right). They think we will suck it up and pay (and they are right).
Ticket prices will go up if CitiField has 45,000 seats, or if it has 450,000. I don’t understand how reducing capacity is a means to increase revenue. Whatever you charge, if you sell more of them you make more money. No?
I was never very good in advanced mathematics, but I think the more seats you can sell, the higher the potential revenue. Someone should explain why I am wrong.
While I’m kvetching, whatever happened to that retractible roof from the original plan? You remember, the one that would prevent you from freezing or sitting miserable in a puddle? My love of authentic ballpark discomfort faded by the late 70s.
“Too expensive” is the usual knee jerk response. Only it’s not. More people will come (or show up) and spend lots of money if they know they won’t get wet or have their teeth chatter. And, you can use the building for gainful employment of some kind the other 3/4 of the year when baseball isn’t being played.
Again, my economics knowledge must be lacking. Just like if you have more seats, the more tickets you can sell, I think the more days you can have events in the building, the more money you can make.
Here, I don’t think it’s short sightedness. I think George and the Wilpons are both afraid of Cablevision raising hell politically and by messing with TV revenues. Remember, the Dolans killed the West Side Stadium (and thanks to them for doing so).
One thing to be happy about… they also dumped that field-on-a-rolling-tray idea. You just knew that would never work out.
So how about it Fred, Jeff?
November 13th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Liman:
I agree that its probably too late, and the Wilpons’ refuse to listen.
In terms of why they make money on a smaller stadium, that’s a little easier. Year long attendance numbers only tell part of the story - you have to take into account discount incentives. For example, early this season the Mets had a number of games where upper deck tix and back rows loge and mezz. were $5.00. On another occassion they had a $2.00 internet ticket special. The house was packed, but I’m sure they lost money on it. Usually you hope concessions revenues make up for the hit you are taking on the ticket price, but that is uncertain and has smaller margins.
The fact is that Mets attendance in midweek has not been that great, and keeping the Stadium open for a crowd of 57 thousand if only 28-30 thousand shows up increases operating costs. You have to pay vendors and have equipment and supply costs for people who don’t show up. Plus, keep in mind NYC owns Shea so there are rental payments.
What the Wilpons want is to be able to get 45,00 thou people nightly over at least a 5-10 year period, who are paying full price for their tix, and spending a ton of dough for parking, food, and souveniers, and they want to do that over (I’d guess) at least a 7-10 year period. More accurately, the bank that is floating the bonds to fund the construction costs wants that as far as the rate being charged, and looked at the past discount cash flows and comps from other stadiums. Unfortunately, comparable company analysis is inaccurate, and DCFs often underweight or overweight “X” factors.
But no bank or analyst is going to say “well, if Jose Valentin has another good year attendance and revenues increase by x%.” They don’t care. The Wilpons look at their historic attendance figures, look at the comparable new-generation ballparks, and (in my opinion, mistakenly) apply that logic to Shea. As I said, I don’t think the new park should be 57,000, but the difference between 45,000 and 50,0000 is about the seating capacity of Radio City Music Hall, and that is a materially meaningful number.
It may be that in a few years attendance levels trend down to where they’ve been historically (which suggests that the Mets have other problems) but in the initial period, its a royal screwing to loyal fans based on flawed but (unfortunately) a financial basis that is defensible.
And I’d also add that if long time fans can’t get tickets, but the Mets soon wind up again flopping around the NL East cellar, when that fact is coupled with a brand new Stadium in the Bronx, it presents some real challenges. Long time fans who don’t want to spend mega bucks will get pissed and at least some will abandon the team, but the increase will be temporary.
If anything, that risk suggests (much to the chagrin of some) that the Mets perpetually go hog wild on flashy free agent signings, because they want to draw away the tourist dollars the Yankees have snagged in droves the past 5-10 years, and tourists generally ain’t interested in hauling out to the Queens or Bronx to see Jose Valentin or Chad Bradford. They want marquee players.
That 4 million attendance figure at Yankee Stadium didn;t arise because of Miguel Cairo, its because of Jeter and A-Rod etc. The Wilpons and Minaya are drooling to get something like those attendance numbers, and couldn’t give a damn that “die-hard” fans would prefer a youth movement. They figure that big names and a more precious commodity (fewer and pricier seats) will accomplish that.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
December 11th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
How do the restaurants add capacity to the stadium? They keep saying it will have 42,500 seats but an additional 2500 in the restaurants. Are you supposed to sit in the restaurant for the whole game?