What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Struggling teams - why not "timeshare"? (1 Viewer)

Sweet Love

IBL Representative
I have been thinking about this for a while, but just saw a couple of topics today that made me think the subject of struggling teams doing a timeshare between two cities. The NFL is popular for many reasons, but one of the reasons that I do not think it is discussed enough, iss because it is convenient for professionals in the 21st century. For me, if someone gave me season tickets to the Carolina Hurricanes (I like hockey as much as football) and told me they are free and food and parking is "comped", BUT, I had to show up for all 40 home games, I would turn them down. On the flipside, if given the same offer for the Panthers, I would take it in a heartbeat, even though they are 2.5 hours away from me. Why? Because it is easy to dedicate 8 Sundays to an outing versus 40 random days for an almost equally long event.

Where I am going with this is that as simple as it may seem for teams to fill their stadium, it still costs a lot of money and there are just not enough people willing to go to even 8 games. It really would be a sin if a team like Buffalo or Jacksonville lost their teams. By timesharing with another city, it would drive up revenues (in the case of Buffalo) or total attendance (in the case of Jacksonville). Obviously, you need a close city in proximity to be able to pull this off. I am sure there are die hards who would be extrememly opposed, but would you rather lose your team outright to LA or San Antonio? The biggest issue would be "how much do we share"? As a Raleigh resident, I would be thrilled with two games a year played at Carter-Finley stadium (NC State's home) by the Panthers. Wouldn't expect more as it may "water-down" the home field advantage and "true" home crowd too much. But it might just be enough to sell out those couple of games and ALSO get the people in the hometown (especially the people who show for 4-6 games a year) to come to the 6 games a year and therefore have a better chance of selling out ALL of the true home games. Thought it would be worth discussing...here are my pros and cons:

Pros:

Would drive up revenues by getting those seats filled

Market to a bigger crowd and gain more fans (and more monies) - i.e. expand the fanbase

Eliminate worries of a relo

Cons:

Lose some of that homefield (not homecrowd) advantage - especially in the short-term

Costs of renting a stadium, travel (although I believe the hometeam stays in a hotel the night before a home game)

Sub-par facilities in regards to NFL standards (no one is going to build a stadium for two games/year)

 
Where I am going with this is that as simple as it may seem for teams to fill their stadium, it still costs a lot of money and there are just not enough people willing to go to even 8 games. It really would be a sin if a team like Buffalo or Jacksonville lost their teams. By timesharing with another city, it would drive up revenues (in the case of Buffalo) or total attendance (in the case of Jacksonville). Obviously, you need a close city in proximity to be able to pull this off.
Buffalo is already doing this with Toronto, and it sucks. It pisses off local fans, it effectively handicaps the team by forfeiting home field advantage for a week, and I don't think it's worked out as well for the Rodgers Centre as its promoters had hoped, although I could be wrong on that last point.
 
Where I am going with this is that as simple as it may seem for teams to fill their stadium, it still costs a lot of money and there are just not enough people willing to go to even 8 games. It really would be a sin if a team like Buffalo or Jacksonville lost their teams. By timesharing with another city, it would drive up revenues (in the case of Buffalo) or total attendance (in the case of Jacksonville). Obviously, you need a close city in proximity to be able to pull this off.
Buffalo is already doing this with Toronto, and it sucks. It pisses off local fans, it effectively handicaps the team by forfeiting home field advantage for a week, and I don't think it's worked out as well for the Rodgers Centre as its promoters had hoped, although I could be wrong on that last point.
I would guess it annoys the Buffalo fans...at first, i would be annoyed too. BUT if it is necessary for revenue purposes, wouldn't you rather have 6 games in Buffalo versus none? Also, does Buffalo do this with regular season games, or is it just preseason?
 
Where I am going with this is that as simple as it may seem for teams to fill their stadium, it still costs a lot of money and there are just not enough people willing to go to even 8 games. It really would be a sin if a team like Buffalo or Jacksonville lost their teams. By timesharing with another city, it would drive up revenues (in the case of Buffalo) or total attendance (in the case of Jacksonville). Obviously, you need a close city in proximity to be able to pull this off.
Buffalo is already doing this with Toronto, and it sucks. It pisses off local fans, it effectively handicaps the team by forfeiting home field advantage for a week, and I don't think it's worked out as well for the Rodgers Centre as its promoters had hoped, although I could be wrong on that last point.
I would guess it annoys the Buffalo fans...at first, i would be annoyed too. BUT if it is necessary for revenue purposes, wouldn't you rather have 6 games in Buffalo versus none? Also, does Buffalo do this with regular season games, or is it just preseason?
This will be the third year in a row that the Bills play one of their regular season home games in Toronto.
 
Where I am going with this is that as simple as it may seem for teams to fill their stadium, it still costs a lot of money and there are just not enough people willing to go to even 8 games. It really would be a sin if a team like Buffalo or Jacksonville lost their teams. By timesharing with another city, it would drive up revenues (in the case of Buffalo) or total attendance (in the case of Jacksonville). Obviously, you need a close city in proximity to be able to pull this off.
Buffalo is already doing this with Toronto, and it sucks. It pisses off local fans, it effectively handicaps the team by forfeiting home field advantage for a week, and I don't think it's worked out as well for the Rodgers Centre as its promoters had hoped, although I could be wrong on that last point.
I would guess it annoys the Buffalo fans...at first, i would be annoyed too. BUT if it is necessary for revenue purposes, wouldn't you rather have 6 games in Buffalo versus none? Also, does Buffalo do this with regular season games, or is it just preseason?
This will be the third year in a row that the Bills play one of their regular season home games in Toronto.
How many games are season ticket holders charged for 7 or 8?
 
In most cases, this does not apply to NFL teams as fans have been more than willing to travel for their team. Secondly, the league, as a whole, has a much firmer financial foundation as compared to other leagues. Third, in order for this to work, there needs to be at least an equal stadium & facilities that would allow owners to profit. The crux of the problem is that the Panthers still suck, either in Charlotte or at Cater-Finley.

 
This would make sense in some areas to increase fan base in sparser areas or where the $ lies elsewhere (see GB playing in Milwaukee 1-2 times a year as they once did). Not sure it makes sense today.

The $ generated at the normal home stadium would go down for luxury suites, concessions and parking, so those contracts would have to be re-negotiated.

Interesting idea though.

 
In most cases, this does not apply to NFL teams as fans have been more than willing to travel for their team. Secondly, the league, as a whole, has a much firmer financial foundation as compared to other leagues. Third, in order for this to work, there needs to be at least an equal stadium & facilities that would allow owners to profit. The crux of the problem is that the Panthers still suck, either in Charlotte or at Cater-Finley.
I don't agree with this...8 games into the regular season and Wembley stadium sells out...it is a novelty. We could have given them the Bills and Carolina and the thing would have sold out. You try that game in Buff or Charlotte and the only people there are reluctant season ticket holders and "Make a Wish" foundation winners (and they are PO'd that was their wish 12 months ago).Also, by reducing the amount of games for the "home" city, you are reducing their fees, and therefore ensuring they will show. You can keep a percentage of tickets open to season ticket holders to buy and show to the second city, but the bottom line is that empty seats (whether paid for or not), still are leaving money on the table in the form of food, beverages, parking and merchandise. I go to a Jets game once per year and end up paying about $120 for the ticket and another $85+ in the aforementioned stuff.

 
This would make sense in some areas to increase fan base in sparser areas or where the $ lies elsewhere (see GB playing in Milwaukee 1-2 times a year as they once did). Not sure it makes sense today.

The $ generated at the normal home stadium would go down for luxury suites, concessions and parking, so those contracts would have to be re-negotiated.

Interesting idea though.
Absolutely...it would be an accounting mess in the short run...then throw in the PSL stuff and many teams would be sunk out of the gate. I do think you could charge a premium (extra 10-20% above the per game norm) for luxury boxes at the second city since they will be only paying for a couple of games/year.
 
The crux of the problem is that the Panthers still suck, either in Charlotte or at Cater-Finley.
I don't agree with this...8 games into the regular season and Wembley stadium sells out...it is a novelty. We could have given them the Bills and Carolina and the thing would have sold out. You try that game in Buff or Charlotte and the only people there are reluctant season ticket holders and "Make a Wish" foundation winners (and they are PO'd that was their wish 12 months ago).
Europe, or any one off game, is a novelty because there is no NFL there. Back to my point is that teams need to get better instead of shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. Move a late season home game vs ATL or TB to CF Stadium and you'll still have the same result, an ugly, ugly loss. 28-3 at halftime and you'll have the same panoramic view of empty seats.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top