IBC

Pirates wrote:24

I think that qualifies you as an official tour "groupie".

Mariners wrote:

Pirates wrote:24

I think that qualifies you as an official tour "groupie".

He probably hit groupie status at show number 10 on the tour.

So are you now claiming that the Forbes revenue figures are only from basketball operations (ticket/suite sales) and don't included TV revenues, advertising, concessions, etc?

No, I'm saying that when you are working in the world of basketball "Business Operations" is all of the above, and "Basketball Operations" is about the players, coaches, etc. "Basketball Operations" does not bring one dollar into an organization. Of course it would be impossible for an organization to bring in any money without the popularity and existence of the "Basketball Ops" side of the house.

Brett, if that isn't the biggest steaming pile of markting bullshit I've ever heard. U2 came to Seattle and played at Key Arena. U2 didn't play at Key Arena because it is where the Sonics play, they played there because it was the best available venue in Seattle for their concert. If the Sonics leave and U2 comes back to Seattle they will play in Key Arena whether or not the Sonics are still here or not.

Tim McGraw is playing at the Ford Center in Oklahoma City. You think he's playing that venue because Oklahoma City has an NBA team right now? They don't, he's playing there because its the best venue for his concert. So, based on your theory, who would be playing at the Ford Center if they had an NBA team? Celine Dion? Isn't she one of the biggest draws in the world these days?

Perhaps I went a little too far with too little explanation in my example there. When a band tours they are most certainly going to choose the cities where they can sell out or have a strong fan base. U2 didn't go to Memphis, but I could probably gurantee that every major country concert tour that year did.

Arenas that are more attractive for performers CAN charge a higher ticket % on concert sales and still have the performer show up there. I promise you the Staples Center and Key Arena both made more per ticket ($ charged per ticket, concession $'s, merchandise $'s) off of U2 then the Hartford Civic Center did (all 3 actually have similar arena capacities). There's a good chance that if U2 even thought about Memphis, they decided against it because the per ticket charge by the arena may have been too high for a show in a country stronghold.

Concert tour pay-out from an arena can come one of 3 ways:
1) Agreed upon one-time payment to band
2) Band pays one-time payment to arena and collects all ticket sales revenue
3) Split % of ticket sales probably w/ some sort of initial money to the band

Yes, often times an NBA team plays in the best arena in the biggest market - just like musicians would want. I promise you, though, when the Key Arena was making a pitch to U2 to perform they mentioned the fact that the Sonics played there. It's just true - it may not be the straw that breaks the camels back, but it's a feather in an arena's cap and a positive PR and marketing tool to have an NBA team play in your arena.

Seeing the sales flyers that MSG uses to make their pitch to musicians, tours, etc. the first thing that is shown is the arena going nuts for Willis Reed. People may want to play at MSG regardless, but if the Knicks ever left and a musician had to decide between the Brooklyn Nets arena or MSG there'd be a hell of a lot more decision on their hands then you think.

Z, that whole part about the arenas is bullshit. Sure, a marketer is going to mention that it's home to the Knicks or Sonics or whomever. That doesn't mean anyone is actually going to give a shit. Whether the knicks play at MSG or not isn't going to be a deciding factor on picking MSG v the Nets' Arena UNLESS the decision maker(s) is a big Knicks fan. Otherwise it's going to be a matter of seating capacity, performance suitability and in a very few cases, intangibles... like being able to say you played Madison Square Garden as opposed to something like United Waste Disposal Arena.

Z, that whole part about the arenas is bullshit. Sure, a marketer is going to mention that it's home to the Knicks or Sonics or whomever. That doesn't mean anyone is actually going to give a shit. Whether the knicks play at MSG or not isn't going to be a deciding factor on picking MSG v the Nets' Arena UNLESS the decision maker(s) is a big Knicks fan. Otherwise it's going to be a matter of seating capacity, performance suitability and in a very few cases, intangibles... like being able to say you played Madison Square Garden as opposed to something like United Waste Disposal Arena.

Maybe you just sit the next couple of plays out. You're not paying attention...I'll try to spell this out for you:

The more prestigious your arena, the better the shows you get. Very few places will build a stadium w/o having a pro sports team in mind. The main reason the Key Arena was built was for the Sonics. The main reason the FedEx Forum was built was for the Grizzlies. The reason MSG is as presitigious as it is is because of the Knicks - they built that arena.

The reason MSG and Staples Center make more off of these concerts is they can negotiate better deals. Staples Center and MSG 1) would not have been built w/o the Knicks and Lakers and 2) would not be as prestigious w/o the Knicks and Lakers.

Please name me one famous arena that does not have a pro sports team (no, the Mall does not count). The pro sports team is the sell on the stadium being built, and they are the ones who build the brand name of the arena.

The reason MSG is so prestigious itself is because of the Knicks, yes. That's the sports world. In the music and entertainment industry, it's prestigious because it's in downtown New York City. If the Nets played there and the Knicks played in NJ, MSG would still be the big draw.

New York City would not have built a 20,000 seat arena for concerts - as nice as that might be, no chance my friend.

If the Barclays is 3x nicer then MSG (as it appears like it will be) and the Knicks continue this inane backslide into irrelevance I'll bet you MSG will get the OAR's, and Barclay's will start to get the U2's.

Royals wrote: Please name me one famous arena that does not have a pro sports team (no, the Mall does not count). The pro sports team is the sell on the stadium being built, and they are the ones who build the brand name of the arena.

Of course pro sports teams "help get" arenas/stadium, etc built, because you don't build a huge arena without having/planning on having an anchor tenant to provide the base rent which supports the project. Just like a commercial developer doesn't build a huge shopping mall without having large retail anchor tenants, who's rent provides the base support for the project.

That said, entertainers don't pick one arena/stadium over another because of the "pro-sports" franchise that plays at one venue over another. Hell, if U2 wanted to play at the venue with the best pro sports team in town, they would have been playing down at QWEST Field and not in Key Arena. The reason they chose Key Arena was because the venue best fit THEIR needs. It had nothing to do with which pro-sports team plays at the venue.

Yes, some arenas/stadiums/ become more famous because of a great professional sports team that might play in that venue, however entertainers go to the venues that bet fit their particular needs. Saying entertainers pick venues to play in based on a venue having a professional sports team there is just marketing BS. Yeah, maybe you'll fool the Gordon Lightfoot's of the entertainment world into buying that line, but the U2's and Rolling Stones of the world play where they want to, and its not based on the underlying professional sports franchise that occupies a venue 40-80 days a year.

Z, look up the definition of the word Arena. The term is rooted in sport and competition. If some sort of sports team or competition isn't associated with the facility, it's not going to be called an arena (unless it's being named by a marketing retard). It's going to be called something else. Like Boston's Wang Center or the Esplanade, Radio City Music Hall in NY or the Hollywood Bowl.

Musicians don't care if an NBA team plays in the facility!

If the Barclays is 3x nicer then MSG (as it appears like it will be) and the Knicks continue this inane backslide into irrelevance I'll bet you MSG will get the OAR's, and Barclay's will start to get the U2's.

The Knicks sliding as a team will have absolutely NOTHING to do with who chooses to play at MSG. Zero, Zip, Nada, NOTHING.

The Knicks sliding as a team will have absolutely NOTHING to do with who chooses to play at MSG. Zero, Zip, Nada, NOTHING.

People still play at MSG because it is the place to play right now. MSG is a shithole. If Barclay's is nicer AND the Nets outplay the Knicks then the people will go there. If the Knicks start winning MSG will still be THE place to watch games and the place to play - regardless of how much of a shithole it is.

Musicians want to play in "the" place to play in town. For example, even with Red Rocks available, the Pepsi Center has seen a massive jump in revenue in concerts over the last three years. They give a lot of the credit of that to AI and Melo who have made the Pepsi Center relevant again.

Here's the backslide to that - the Hartford Civic Center has seen a drastic decrease in their revenue dollars from concerts since the Whalers have left. The Meadows has become the place to go in town for concerts.

Also a bit incorrect on the HCC vs. Meadows. People will play the Civic Center if they have an indoor show. An outdoor grand show will go to the Rent in East Hartford 9 times out of 10 (Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, the Police.) Kanye is playing the meadows, and he didn't even sell it out. That would probably be why he decided not to do the rent. All the "jam" bands (DMB etc.) will play outdoors too because that is just their niche.

I'm typically with you on arguments Z, but just not this one.

I'm not talking about the habits of performers. I'm saying that concert revenue at the Civic Center has declined since the Whalers left. That's just a true statement, not an assessment of band activity.

Bruce Springsteen plays a lot of his shows at big venues inside. As do the Rolling Stones. They just choose the Rent because it's a hell of a lot more relevant then the Civic Center right now.

no, they choose the rent because they tour stadiums, not arenas. a lot of times an artist will tour one or the other, rarely both, unless it's on a separate leg of the tour.

5/22 Dublin, …IRE RDS Arena On Sale Now
5/23 Dublin, …IRE RDS Arena On Sale Now
5/25 Dublin, …IRE RDS Arena On Sale Now
5/28 Manchester, GB Old Trafford On Sale Now
5/30 London, GB Emirates Stadium On Sale Now
5/31 London, GB Emirates Stadium On Sale Now
6/14 Cardiff, GB Cardiff Millennium Stadium On Sale Now

Taken from the Sprinsteen website...these dates look pretty frikkin' close to one another...

a lot of times. did i say every time? no.

also, if they do do both, they are likely to play the stadium in the bigger market for them in order to maximize profit. plain and simple.

Royals wrote:

The Knicks sliding as a team will have absolutely NOTHING to do with who chooses to play at MSG. Zero, Zip, Nada, NOTHING.

People still play at MSG because it is the place to play right now. MSG is a shithole. If Barclay's is nicer AND the Nets outplay the Knicks then the people will go there. If the Knicks start winning MSG will still be THE place to watch games and the place to play - regardless of how much of a shithole it is.

Musicians want to play in "the" place to play in town. For example, even with Red Rocks available, the Pepsi Center has seen a massive jump in revenue in concerts over the last three years. They give a lot of the credit of that to AI and Melo who have made the Pepsi Center relevant again.

Here's the backslide to that - the Hartford Civic Center has seen a drastic decrease in their revenue dollars from concerts since the Whalers have left. The Meadows has become the place to go in town for concerts.

Z, there may be something to what your saying generally, but you picked a shit example in terms of Madison Square Garden, which first became a concerts and sports in 1879 as a track cycling area (whatever that is). The Madison Square Garden brand attracted major boxing events in the 20's and 30's, as well as the New York Rangers in 1925, and what really cemented it in the minds of people was as a home for circus. The Knicks didn't get there until 1946, and it was the Garden that attracted them rather than the other way around. In fact, the Madison Square Garden brand has arguably more cache than the Knicks, and the reason that MSG is MSG has nothing to do with the Knicks and everything to do with its location in Manhattan. Performers who choose to perform at MSG rather than the Net's new arena will do so because MSG is in Manhattan and the Barclays Center is in Brooklyn, and the prestige of playing MSG, or a demographic choice about playing in Manhattan vs. Brooklyn, is a lot more important than how the NBA team is doing.

Of course having an anchor tenant has value, I saw what happens when an arena loses that anchor tenant in San Jose during the lockout, but that being said the concert schedule did not slow down without the Sharks in the building, if anything there were more concerts because there were more available dates. Sports teams love to believe that they are the key to the success of arenas, but the anchor tenant is only a small piece of arena management.

Z, can I hear your argument that the Big East tournament plays at MSG because the Knicks play there?

Also, what about the Mohegan Sun arena? Why do people play there? Because of the freaking WNBA?

Athletics wrote:

Royals wrote:

The Knicks sliding as a team will have absolutely NOTHING to do with who chooses to play at MSG. Zero, Zip, Nada, NOTHING.

People still play at MSG because it is the place to play right now. MSG is a shithole. If Barclay's is nicer AND the Nets outplay the Knicks then the people will go there. If the Knicks start winning MSG will still be THE place to watch games and the place to play - regardless of how much of a shithole it is.

Musicians want to play in "the" place to play in town. For example, even with Red Rocks available, the Pepsi Center has seen a massive jump in revenue in concerts over the last three years. They give a lot of the credit of that to AI and Melo who have made the Pepsi Center relevant again.

Here's the backslide to that - the Hartford Civic Center has seen a drastic decrease in their revenue dollars from concerts since the Whalers have left. The Meadows has become the place to go in town for concerts.

Z, there may be something to what your saying generally, but you picked a shit example in terms of Madison Square Garden, which first became a concerts and sports in 1879 as a track cycling area (whatever that is). The Madison Square Garden brand attracted major boxing events in the 20's and 30's, as well as the New York Rangers in 1925, and what really cemented it in the minds of people was as a home for circus. The Knicks didn't get there until 1946, and it was the Garden that attracted them rather than the other way around. In fact, the Madison Square Garden brand has arguably more cache than the Knicks, and the reason that MSG is MSG has nothing to do with the Knicks and everything to do with its location in Manhattan. Performers who choose to perform at MSG rather than the Net's new arena will do so because MSG is in Manhattan and the Barclays Center is in Brooklyn, and the prestige of playing MSG, or a demographic choice about playing in Manhattan vs. Brooklyn, is a lot more important than how the NBA team is doing.

Of course having an anchor tenant has value, I saw what happens when an arena loses that anchor tenant in San Jose during the lockout, but that being said the concert schedule did not slow down without the Sharks in the building, if anything there were more concerts because there were more available dates. Sports teams love to believe that they are the key to the success of arenas, but the anchor tenant is only a small piece of arena management.

I believe kids these days would describe that as being 'pwned'.

Z, you're wrong. You can keep fighting and continue to make a fool of yourself or you can slyly change the subject or you can acknowledge that there were points brought up here that you hadn't considered before and you realize now, as any sane individual would do, that nobody cares if an arena is home to an NBA team when they book their concerts.

RedSox wrote: Z, you're wrong. You can keep fighting and continue to make a fool of yourself or you can slyly change the subject or you can acknowledge that there were points brought up here that you hadn't considered before and you realize now, as any sane individual would do, that nobody cares if an arena is home to an NBA team when they book their concerts.

And this from a guy who knows more about being wrong than anyone in the league.

Athletics wrote:

RedSox wrote: Z, you're wrong. You can keep fighting and continue to make a fool of yourself or you can slyly change the subject or you can acknowledge that there were points brought up here that you hadn't considered before and you realize now, as any sane individual would do, that nobody cares if an arena is home to an NBA team when they book their concerts.

And this from a guy who knows more about being wrong than anyone in the league.

Damn right. I speak from experience. Being wrong is one thing, it happens to everyone. Continuing to run into the wall over and over and over again is something else entirely, and it's what you're doing here.

Z, there may be something to what your saying generally, but you picked a shit example in terms of Madison Square Garden, which first became a concerts and sports in 1879 as a track cycling area (whatever that is).

Fair enough - never went that far back on MSG - I know they currently market the Knicks (God knows why) as the headliner for all their sales and marketing collateral.

Also, what about the Mohegan Sun arena? Why do people play there? Because of the freaking WNBA?

Haha - what a joke. The Mohegan Sun's arena was built because all casino's build a place for people to perform on a bit larger scale. Then the Mohegan Sun BEGGED to have the WNBA team play there to the NBA. Literally begged - the league was looking at putting a team in the Civic Center until Mohegan jumped in - because they wanted to make the arena more attractive for perfomers choosing between Foxwoods and Mohegan. Now it's the most successful team in the WNBA and is the key point of Mohegan's pitch to performers. I should have used that one as an example - thanks for reminding me JP!!!

Seriously Bren, not paying attention - keep playing with your Lincoln Logs.

I get what you guys are saying and there are some arguments I'd take back - but my 2 biggest points:
1) There's not going to be an NBA team in Seattle in 2 years...In fact, I talked to one of my former bosses at the NBA today about another topic and he said that the league and the city have started side negotiations with our GC and the City. The ask was that our legal group act on behalf of Bennett and Stern to keep them out of the discussion.

2) The primary reason an arena is attractive is because of the anchor tenant - which is usually a basketball team. Without said basketball team there is no big arena.

I'm not sure these are very debatable...everyone keeps trying to break these down and down and down - the reality of the situation is that the general arguments I'm making are tough to argue against...

2) The primary reason an arena is attractive is because of the anchor tenant - which is usually a basketball team. Without said basketball team there is no big arena.

Attractive to who? The owner of the Arena?

I think its already been pretty well established in this thread that "other users" of the arena really could care less who the anchor tenant is or even if there is one, and really just care whether the arena meets their particular needs.

But sure, if you want to throw that mellon out there we'll give you that. Of course, the owner of an arena is going to be attracted to his anchor tenant, as an invester the anchor tenant is paying him the largest percentage of rent.

1) There's not going to be an NBA team in Seattle in 2 years...

That one is actually going to be decided by a federal judge in Seattle, Washington. The trial hasn't even started yet and Clay Bennett is already begging for a settlement prior to trial which doesn't look good for him and his Oklahoma City ownership group at this point. In addition, of course the NBA is going to try and talk to the City of Seattle to get them to settle behind the scenes, but I just don't see that happening based on the City attorney's comments he's been making publically.

We'll, see, but either way it is going to be a long two years for Clay Bennett and David Stern.

Z, if you think having a WNBA team made Mohegan Sun more attractive to performers.... then the league might have to organize an intervention to get you off crack.
Why then would Mohegan Sun want a WNBA team? Because a WNBA team is a LOCK (sort of) for a fixed number of bookings every year. They provide a reliable revenue stream. Mohegan can pitch the WNBA all they want, that doesn't mean the performers are going to give a shit. They aren't. If you're marketing the Knicks (or any basketball team) to U2, then you're either too stupid to know U2 doesn't care or too lazy to customize your sales pitch to the needs of your customers. The performers want to know how many butts are going to be in the seats, how much money they'll get from each and how the facility suits the needs of their performance. Mohegan Sun is a destination all it's own, the WNBA is successful there because people are already there for the casino. Would I ever go out for the purpose of seeing a WNBA game? Hell no, and neither would anyone else I know. If I'm out at a casino and I'm getting a little bored with gambling and drinks and want to switch things up and Oh look, there's a WNBA game starting in an hour in the building next door, might I go check it out for shits and giggles? Yeah, I might. just like I'd never head out somewhere to See Wayne Newton or Siegfried and Roy, but if I'm there anyway and I'm bored with what I'm doing or just want a break, then maybe I'd go check the show out.

Royals wrote:

Z, there may be something to what your saying generally, but you picked a shit example in terms of Madison Square Garden, which first became a concerts and sports in 1879 as a track cycling area (whatever that is).

Fair enough - never went that far back on MSG - I know they currently market the Knicks (God knows why) as the headliner for all their sales and marketing collateral.

Also, what about the Mohegan Sun arena? Why do people play there? Because of the freaking WNBA?

Haha - what a joke. The Mohegan Sun's arena was built because all casino's build a place for people to perform on a bit larger scale. Then the Mohegan Sun BEGGED to have the WNBA team play there to the NBA. Literally begged - the league was looking at putting a team in the Civic Center until Mohegan jumped in - because they wanted to make the arena more attractive for perfomers choosing between Foxwoods and Mohegan. Now it's the most successful team in the WNBA and is the key point of Mohegan's pitch to performers. I should have used that one as an example - thanks for reminding me JP!!!

Seriously Bren, not paying attention - keep playing with your Lincoln Logs.

I get what you guys are saying and there are some arguments I'd take back - but my 2 biggest points:
1) There's not going to be an NBA team in Seattle in 2 years...In fact, I talked to one of my former bosses at the NBA today about another topic and he said that the league and the city have started side negotiations with our GC and the City. The ask was that our legal group act on behalf of Bennett and Stern to keep them out of the discussion.

2) The primary reason an arena is attractive is because of the anchor tenant - which is usually a basketball team. Without said basketball team there is no big arena.

I'm not sure these are very debatable...everyone keeps trying to break these down and down and down - the reality of the situation is that the general arguments I'm making are tough to argue against...

MSG markets the Knicks as hard as they do because they also own the Knicks, and so they get a double whammy out of marketing them both. Come on dude. As far as side negotiations, of course side negotiations are going on, that's standard procedure. Bennett and Stern would love to do a quick end run on a settlement because it's going to get really ugly for both of them, and I'm sure that privately Stern has told Bennett that he's only going to let it get so ugly before he withdraws his support.

By the way, it's absolutely debatable that the primary attraction of an arena is its anchor tenant. Hell, they're building a big new arena in Kansas City right now without an anchor tenant and hoping to attract an NHL team. There is a beautiful arena down in Bakersfield, CA that attracts some pretty cool shows despite the fact that it shows nothing but minor league sports because the facility is nice. The caliber of the facility and the demographics of the market are much bigger draws than who the anchor tenant of a building is. You want evidence for this? Here it is: have you ever seen a concert promotion that says "come see XXX at the Whatever Arena, home of the Whoevers?" The only time you see a team mentioned is if the concert is in conjunction with a game. If playing at the home of the Knicks, Sonics, or anyone else was such a big draw for promoters you'd see the connection advertised, which you never do. I think you're arguing from the wrong perspective. For an arena builder/owner/developer the anchor tenant is absolutely crucial, but a concert promoter doesn't give a crap what's going on in an arena on the days his show isn't going on there.