Costs of a 35,000 seat stadium

by Ellis on Jul 26, 2005 9:39 AM PDT Comment 14 comments

The A's have been talking about making their new stadium a 35,000 seat ticket to decrease their reliance on walk up sales; reaction to this has been mixed. See commentary here and here.

But how much will that stadium hurt us, the fans? The A's average attendance per home game was a mere 27,179 last season and since 1999, where the A's have been above .500 ever year and in the hunt for the playoffs attendance should be about as high as it can be expected to be over the next several years, it has averaged 24,467.

Understandably, that doesn't mean that each game had exactly 27,179 fans. So, using data from Retrosheet.org, I used the attendance logs of each game over the past 5 seasons (1999-2004, 2005 not listed yet) to see exactly how many games we would have sold out in a 35,000 seat stadium. The results: 96 games would have been sold out, approximately 23.7% of all home games. The average attendance of those games: 43,800.69. This means that if we'd been playing in the hypothetical new stadium, there would have been about 844,866 fewer fans over the five years, or about 168,973 a year. Assuming an average ticket price of $10 (arbitrary) that 1.68 million a year, or five rookies' salary. NOTE: this data doesn't include the playoffs, which are almost always sellouts for any team/stadium.

If you assume that a stadium increases attendance, the results change a little, but not really significantly. Increasing attendance by 10% create 112 sellouts (27.6%) with an excess attendance of 1,288,305. Increasing attendance by 20% creates 144 sellouts (35.5%) with an excess attendance of 1,818,918. Bottom line: the new stadium will really reflect only a minority of the games (there were 405 home games over this time). Everyone who wanted to would have been able to see the games at least 64.5% of the time.

IMO, the biggest impact would be on the growth of the fan base. As you can see from the charts below, more people showed up for the games against the big market teams: the casual fans tend to show up only for the games against big teams, like the Yankees, Giants and Mariners.

The breakdown of what teams we played during the hypothetical sellouts:

Visitor | Times played
----------+-----------
ANA | 9
ARI | 1
ATL | 1
BAL | 2
BOS | 8
CHA | 3
CLE | 3
DET | 2
HOU | 1
KCA | 6
LAN | 2
MIN | 2
NYA | 20
SEA | 12
SFN | 17
TBA | 2
TEX | 5
TOR | 1
----------------------

Complete list including dates here, data here and in .csv form here.

The information used here was obtained free of charge from and is copyrighted by Retrosheet. Interested parties may contact Retrosheet at 20 Sunset Rd., Newark, DE 19711.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Inflated numbers for WED

Problem with the A's is that attendance numbers are inflated by Dollar Wednesday. ONly A's know truly how much but it is bad.

I think if you remove Dollar Wednesday seat we are probably around 1.8 in attendance that will not do it.

by novaoakland on Jul 26, 2005 9:47 AM PDT reply actions

Check That Math Though

"The results: 96 games would have been sold out, approximately 23.7% of all home games. The average attendance of those games: 43,800.69."

There are only 81 home games in a season.

~This is a simple game...You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball. YOU GOT IT!?!

by BornInOakland on Jul 26, 2005 9:52 AM PDT reply actions

its over time

(1999-2004, 2005 not listed yet)

by AllThingsOakland on Jul 26, 2005 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions

We need more season ticket holders. that's why.

That way the A's know they are guaranteed more revenue in a given year which makes it easier to allocate money for player salaries. Even though our numbers have been about average, it's been made up mostly of walk-up or individual ticket sales.

The A's cannot take the risk of just having a "bad year", which could happen if you had three or four key players do down for most of the year or the season. That risk is always there for every team and when it happens, individual ticket sales take a nosedive.

Teams with a good season ticket base don't have that worry. Case in point Seattle last year: they still drew close to if not over 3 mil with the Mariners going into the tank. That would not happen here.

The economics of Baseball have changed in the last 15 years, and the reality is that there may be a lot of fans who never attend as many (or any) games again under the new system. I'm sure there are more than a few Giants fans who miss Candlestick and refuse to set foot in SBC for the same reason so many in AN do not want a new stadium.

I don't know what to say but we have to adapt. Though I DO think there should be a way for the A's to accomodate affordable seats in the new venue. But it'll probably be bleacher seats at best.

by Rob on Jul 26, 2005 10:01 AM PDT reply actions

too bad about the season ticket situation

I had the 20-game plan for a couple of years and probably went to 16-18 of the games in each of those years. Something would come up and I'd have to let go of my tickets.

Last year I didn't have season tickets and I went to 18 games and a couple at SBC.

This year I'm on pace to watch 20-22 games. Without season tickets. And, no, I don't go to $2 Wednesdays and I rarely buy the cheap seats.

I wish Wolff & Co. would do research surveys so they can see what fans are really thinking and how they're spending their money. I'll do what I can to help our team if someone would tell me what it is I'm supposed to be doing.

I have faith.

by BillybUcko on Jul 26, 2005 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions

I've discussed this previously, but ...

sell-outs lead to more sell-outs

Aside from just looking to increase the season ticket holder base, the A's also want fans to be forced to buy their tickets ahead of time - to committ themselves financially to going before anything has a chance to come up.

Also, I have to imagine that it is very inefficient to operate the stadium with huge swings between 12k games and 45k games. (not to mention the unpredictability of which games will be 12k and which will be 20k) The stadium and its staffing services have to be set up to deal with the big crowds - some of those costs (staffing, the actual hot dogs, etc) can be cut back for the low attendance games, others, though (capital equipment, hr services, etc) can't. The less fluctuation you get between high and low games, the more efficiently your stadium will run and the more profits you will make from each ticket and each hot dog.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 26, 2005 11:19 AM PDT reply actions

absolutely

Devo has nailed it.

If at 35K all of a sudden people have to be worried that they might not get a ticket, or the right ticket, all of a sudden you start selling out most of the time.

The interesting thing will be if in the 3-4 years before a new stadium ever shows up the A's win a WS and the Giants continue to regress.

I could see our attendance climbing back to close to 3 million on the natural, particularly if season tickets or season ticket plans gave one preferential treatment for the new yard.

Walkups were 9,000 last night-- on a Monday night. if this team keeps playing well, you could easily see an average of over 30,000 the rest of the way, even with the kids going back to school.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jul 26, 2005 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm probably the minority here, but...

...I kind of like being able to decide at 5:00 in the afternoon that I'd like to see the A's play, hop in the car, and be able to get tickets by walking up 20 minutes before the game starts. In fact, the easy availability of tickets is one of the reasons I ultimately became an A's fan- the more games you see in person, the more you like the team.

I guess I understand the economic stability afforded by having a high percentage of season ticket holders, but I feel like the laid back vibe of the A's goes hand in hand with people just being able to show up randomly and enjoy some baseball. It's a shame that that is so bad for the efficiency of the stadium.

by DavisAs on Jul 26, 2005 12:31 PM PDT reply actions

P.S.

I was one of the 9,000 who walked up last night

by DavisAs on Jul 26, 2005 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

And I'll be

one of the 9,000 to walk up tonight. I'm a walk-up for 90% of the games I go to because the park is so empty. I would probably get season tickets if they built a new stadium. I'm the type of A's fan that Wolff & Co. is banking on. Hey, we can all dream.

by eebie on Jul 26, 2005 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm sure you would ... so would I ...

Lew Wolfe would agree, it would be more convenient for us if we never had to commit ahead of time to buying a ticket ...

Lew Wolfe is not in the business of making anything more convenient for us except giving money to the team he owns. Why would he want to make it easier for us to not give him money?

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 26, 2005 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm chipping in

I used to do the walkup route, but I came to realize there's some pride to be a season ticket holder. Granted, I can't afford much, so I went with fielder's choice (20 tickets, my pick) for bleacher seats (I sit in LF anyways). It's not too expensive ($160) and also gives me the right to get first dibs come playoff time (Those prices hurt though!).

I know my $'s are a drop in the bucket for them, but it's something they can count on (4 years and counting now). I'll probably continue to buy season tickets as long as they offer a fielder's choice plan (I like eing able to pick my games).

As for a new park, it would be nice if it helps the team bring in more revenue. I'm one of the people that's bitter at Mt Davis and have fond memories of how the park used to look. (Thanks a lot Al, no trophy to show for it and every September the outfield gets all roughed up from the temporary seats for football games.)

The only thing I wish for in a new park (other than all the modern amenities) is finding a way to keep the spacious foul grounds. I know that in modern design it's a big draw to have fans close to the action, but I think from a baseball playing viewpoint, that foul ground has helped out our staff a lot over the years.

by Rickeyfan on Jul 26, 2005 1:15 PM PDT reply actions

True

but that is one of many people's biggest gripes about the colliseum; that one can never really get too close to the action.

by Pucking Insane on Jul 26, 2005 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Cheap seats impact on attendance.

At the game today, fighting my way through ridiculous crowds, it struck me how price sensitive A's attendance is. The 40K butts in seats today (thanks to $2 tix) is 4-5K more than showed up for the 2003 ALDS. Plenty of folks have been saying that Wolff's 35K seat stadium plan is too small, and that a winning team will fill the seats, but that has not been true in the post Haas era. The extra expense of a larger stadium is hard to justify if you can only fill it by selling tix at $2 (or having fireworks). Short term, any new park may sell out due to novelty, but will that last long enough to justify the expense of additional seating? And, given the price sensitivity of A's ticket buyers, might the increased ticket prices created by a new stadium drive attendance down in the long run? It seems to me that if the A's could only draw 35K during the ALDS with Boston, 35K is a pretty good estimate of the A's drawing power. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Wolff settled on 35K based on those numbers.

"I'm a lexicon devil with a battered brain."--Darby Crash

by lexdevil on Jul 27, 2005 6:13 PM PDT reply actions