|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 23, 2005 15:46:03 GMT -5
Great, you think we should do it. What Jersey and I are saying is, obviouslt those in power are not doing it. How do we influence them to do so? If my questions were not clear to readers, let me be more clear. No one is arguing that there aren't ideas, legitimate ideas, out there from DFW and others about how to raise funds etc. The problem is that we're nowhere close to the point of raising funds due to front office blockades. What is lacking are ideas that address how we, as fans, can move the bureaucracy away from this posture so that they can get around to doing what DFW has delimited with the 1789 fundraising. Unfortunately, ideas are lacking on this question, and discussion is far too repetitive. Also, I fear that the issue here is not my alleged lack of understanding of certain posts, as DFW wrote. I read each of them very carefully, as they are carefully crafted. 007 and SF are both intelligent people, they must not have understood either.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,132
|
Post by RBHoya on Apr 23, 2005 15:59:12 GMT -5
Dam, this thread feels really heavy on rhetoric. I think it's safe to say we all WANT to have on an on campus facility and stop playing at MCI(EDIT: I mean stop playing almost ALL of our games there--a couple per year is OK), and the NEED to do so is documented as well. Articulating that need is good and something that needs to be a part of the bigger plan, but spending too much time on HoyaTalk articulating it is just preaching to the choir. 98% of the posters here are onboard, I'd guess. To make the case to the University, we'll need to articulate the point well, but that's only a part of the LARGER plan. There are other questions that need to be addressed, questions that are arguably more fundamental. As you might know I'm only a freshman and thus not as well-versed on the topic as many of you; however, I hope my naivete proves beneficial here. Maybe by asking stupid/simple questions, we can get together the foundations.
Who are we lobbying? Frankly, I dont have any idea. I know the case we're making, but to whom are we making it? Right now, we're probably not making it to anyone, but to whom SHOULD we be making it?
What is the best way to get their attention/bring this issue to the forefront? Once we target someone, then we have to work to get their attention, and decide what's the best way to persuade them.
Are we trying to get money from people to show that this issue is important to us, or do we just need names? Apparently the last effort at a petition was unsuccessful because it was just a collection of names... why do we need more than just names? What DO we need-- money? contact info? and what becomes of those once we have them?
Once we've got all these things set, THEN we can move onto the next phase. THEN we can talk about how to best articulate the case like DFW wants to emphasize. THEN we can talk about websites like buffalo, jersey, and others have been mentioning. THEN we can talk about letter writing campaigns as someone else mentioned.... all of that stuff. It just seems to me that everyone is on a slightly different page, despite the fact that we all have the same goal. I see no reason that a number of different tactics can be incorporated (such as a petition, a letter writing campaign, and a website that gives information on how to participate in those). But first we need to answer some fundamental questions to help give direction to the rest of the effort. That's my opinion at least.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 23, 2005 16:03:42 GMT -5
Great post, RB. I agree that those boldfaced questions are the important ones right now. Everything else is a short term distraction.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 24, 2005 15:32:40 GMT -5
The rent setup with MCI is not a straight rent payment. Rather, it is a division of revenues (there may be a rent component, as well). MCI gets all the ticket revenues up to a certain attendance, then MCI and GU share until a certain attendance, then MCI gets the next group, then GU, etc. The initial cutoff is pretty high, I think, though the HHC didn't give me exact numbers. I think MCI keeps all parking and concessions revenue. SFHoya, I appreciate you responding to my question. However, if anyone out there has numbers, I think it would be beneficial for the board to see them. If we only speak in generalities, there is no way to tell if the University is getting screwed on its rent deal with MCI or not. You say "the initial cutoff is pretty high," but I don't know what that means. Pretty high could mean 5,000 tickets or 12,000 tickets. Also, doesn't there have to be a rent component as well? If we were only giving away a part of our ticket revenue, playing at MCI would be a GREAT deal for the University. Consider: we can only sell 3,000 tickets for McDonough. If we sell 10,000 tickets for a game at MCI, and GU gets only 30% of the revenue, we break even. (In a purely financial sense. Obviously there is more than $$$ involved in getting an on-campus arena.) So far the only figure tossed out is the $75K for the Cap Center game. I doubt that figure would apply to a team that plays all its home games at MCI, but let's assume for a second it does. That's 14 home games at MCI last season x $75,000/game = $1,050,000 paid to MCI in rent. Now assume the average ticket price is $20, and GU gets 50% of the ticket revenues (a generous percentage if MCI's cutoff is "pretty high" as SFHoya said). $20/ticket x approx. 10,000 average attendance / .50 = $100,000. $1,050,000 paid in rent - $100,000 ticket revenue = $950,000 poured down the drain last season by the University. As I said above, I doubt the University has to pay as much rent as the once-a-year Cap Classic. Ticket sales will also hopefully be up in future seasons. But it would seem to me the University has to be bleeding money on its rent deal. Even if you take away the numbers above, MCI can basically ask for whatever it wants. Where else are we going to play? I just think that if we're going to have this discussion, actual financial figures need to be weighed. As in "it would cost $18M to build the John Thompson Convocation Center. Georgetown loses $1M to MCI Center every year in rent payments. An on-campus arena would pay for itself in under two decades." Conversely, if all we're giving up is part of our ticket revenue, the University isn't really being hurt financially, so why shouldn't the administration be pushing the arena to the back of the 20 year plan? Like I said above, I think the odds are on the University giving large sums of money away to MCI on an annual basis. If the HHC has this information, why not make it known so that when we all clamor for a new stadium to be built we can include those figures?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 24, 2005 19:56:49 GMT -5
On a lighter note, I hit my head on the ceiling of the McD upper level, such as it is, when I was climbing into the bleachers. Maybe if we create McDonough Veterans for Truth we can get a ton of donations for some ad spots to be run on campus television. And if it's Sunday, it's meet the press...
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 25, 2005 8:14:55 GMT -5
Per the Hoya Hoop Club two years ago or so (so...the number may have gone slightly up or slightly down since then), the number is $85,000 per game. As an earlier email indicates, that's not a "rent" charge per se, but the way the arrangement works is that the MCI Center gets to keep the first $85K in ticket sales. Georgetown gets to keep the next $85K in ticket sales. Any revenue beyond that is split. So...depending on which seats are filled (i.e. what the average cost of the paid ticket is), you need between 5,500 and 7,000 PAID fans at a game before Georgetown sees a dime.
Note that the attendance figures released by the school: 1) are inflated to begin with, and 2) count all of the complimentary tickets that are given out. It's impossible to say how much, but the paid attendance is certainly well below what gets announced.
An important part of any "How much does it cost us to play at MCI" equation is that MCI gets to keep ALL of the money from concessions...I won't begin to estimate it, but that's got to be considerable, in terms of lost opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2005 10:18:20 GMT -5
Thanks Aleutian, that's what I was looking for. I'll post some more thoughts later.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 25, 2005 10:52:21 GMT -5
I should have added one key point that may not otherwise be clear..it's not just that MCI gets to keep the first $85K that comes in, but they're guaranteed at least that amount each game...and the guarantee comes out of paying fans before it comes directly out of GU's pocketbook.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Apr 25, 2005 11:21:58 GMT -5
Great points Aleutian. Last year we had 1-4k comps per game, depending on the game. We don't get any money from those folks, nor do they count toward our $85000. If we have 2000 attendees, we're losing 60,000 on that game.
I believe we have been losing a bit on MCI, net, for the past few. That means NO REVENUE from ticket sales.
Convinced yet?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2005 14:25:11 GMT -5
Alright, math time again. Average attendance last season was 7837. YB says we comp 1000-4000 of those tickets each game. If his data is correct, the average number of free tickets per game is 2500, putting the average number of paying customers per game at 5337. We played 14 regular season home games at MCI plus 1 NIT game, a total of 15 games. MCI gets the first $85,000 worth of ticket sales, Georgetown gets the next $85,000. Any additional revenue is shared evenly. Georgetown prices tickets at three levels, according to GUHoyas.com. Lower level seats are $22.50, Upper level seats are $15, and a few seats in the rafters are available for $5. I estimate the average ticket price at $17.50. That's because about 45% of the seats are offered at $22.50, and 45% are offered at $15. The remaining 10% are offered at $5. (I'm estimating based on the MCI seating chart, found at graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/gu/nonsport/mci-center-map-lg.jpg) (NOTE: I realize I'm basing this figure on types of tickets OFFERED rather than types of tickets SOLD, which is what really matters. However, there's no data out there which would allow me to base average price on the latter. I actually think if there were reliable data the average ticket price would be highe based purely on the personal observation that there are more butts in the seats on the lower bowl at MCI than the upper level.) If 5337 fans pay $17.50 to see a Georgetown basketball game, ticket revenue is $93,397.50. MCI Center gets its $85,000, and Georgetown keeps $8397.50. Multiply that figure by 15 home games and Georgetown makes $125,962.50 on ticket sales over the course of the season. One thing I haven't accounted for is attendance inflation, because there's no way to measure it accurately. However, it is important because if you assume, for example, that GU inflates attendance figures by 1000 heads per game, the University's profit drops back into the red. (GU would be losing $136,537.50 if that were the case). Hypothetically, if Georgetown had an on-campus arena seating 7,000 (I use that figure because that's what Esh discussed in the press 5 years ago), and we charged $17.50 per ticket, we'd make $122,500 for every night we sold out. If we sold out every game in a season in which we played 15 regular season home games, the University's profit would be $1,837,500. So MCI rent is surprisingly (to me at least) not a gigantic cost for GU. Right now the University is hovering around the break even point. It is safe to assume that in good years GU will make money off ticket sales, and in bad years it will lose money. An on-campus arena would provide some stability for the University because ticket sale money would never leave campus. The University would never lose money because of a rent agreement, and there is good potential for the University to profit from having an on campus arena. However, if the basketball team continues to improve, there's good profit potential if the team stays at MCI also. MCI's capacity for basketball is 20,674. Ticket sales (@$17.50 average) would total $363,370 for a sold out game. GU would get its $85,000 plus an additional $96,685 in shared revenue with MCI. A season of sold out games at MCI, however unlikely, would net $2,725,275 for the University. Returning to more realistic figures, in order for the University to make the same amount on ticket sales at MCI that it would from a 7,000 seat on-campus arena, the basketball, the team would have to average 14,000 per game. This is probably how the administration looks at the problem. An on-campus arena would probably cost over $15,000,000 to build, and there's seemingly just as much profit potential at MCI. A basketball team's performance and attractiveness to recruits can be improved in cheaper ways than building an on campus arena. We've got a good coach, a good practice facility in McDonough, sweet uniforms (starting next season), and we should do pretty well next season in the new Big East. Why shouldn't the team continue its upward trajectory? That view would be shortsighted for a few reasons. First, as I said in my previous post, MCI can screw the University over whenever the current agreement expires. It may even be a year-to-year agreement. I don't know. But if Georgetown does start averaging over 10,000 fans per game, why wouldn't MCI take advantage? Georgetown has nowhere else to go. It's not prudent to look at the current agreement and assume it will go on for two decades if the arena isn't under contract for that long. An on campus arena would provide the comfort of financial stability. Second, an on campus arena shows everyone (alumni, fans, players, coach, potential recruits) that the University is committed to Georgetown Basketball. Currently, I, for one, am not so sure they are. So, to sum everything up, playing at MCI isn't so bad financially for now. While I still think we need an on campus arena, I think its tough to argue it should be built before other needs such as the Science Center given the above data. In other words, while I don't agree with the administration, I can see where Jack is coming from.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 25, 2005 14:37:27 GMT -5
To add to your speculation about oncampus arena...I don't think there is anyway the university could charge the same prices for oncampus games. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine that there would be 45% of the seating in the $22 range in a college arena. Sure there would be some (more like 10% of the seating -- like the folding seats on the floor during exhibitions and some McDonough games) but I would think the average seats (60%) would have to drop into the $15 range with a large percentage (40%) falling below $10 as student seating. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2005 14:38:48 GMT -5
An important part of any "How much does it cost us to play at MCI" equation is that MCI gets to keep ALL of the money from concessions...I won't begin to estimate it, but that's got to be considerable, in terms of lost opportunity. I didn't include this in the above post because I didn't want to get too off track, but I think this shows how tied the University's hands are when it comes to negotiating with MCI. It is logical we'd get a cut of concessions -- nobody would be selling hot dogs and beer on Saturday afternoons if we weren't playing. If GU asks for that cut, and MCI says no, the University CAN'T DO ANYTHING about it. What are we going to do, threaten to play all our games outdoors at RFK? It would appear MCI is taking advantage of the administration now by not sharing concession revenues, so why shouldn't we think MCI will continue to take advantage by raising the rent whenever we start to draw more fans?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2005 14:45:32 GMT -5
To add to your speculation about oncampus arena...I don't think there is anyway the university could charge the same prices for oncampus games. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine that there would be 45% of the seating in the $22 range in a college arena. Sure there would be some (more like 10% of the seating -- like the folding seats on the floor during exhibitions and some McDonough games) but I would think the average seats (60%) would have to drop into the $15 range with a large percentage (40%) falling below $10 as student seating. Just saying. I think its safe to assume we'd do what most colleges with smaller arenas do and charge one ticket price for admission. I used $17.50 for the on campus hypothetical to make the numbers line up better. However, UCONN charges $25 per ticket, Syracuse charges $16, so its not too unreasonable to think we'd charge that much. Besides, if we keep regular admission at that price it would be easier to hand out free student tickets, which is something we should already be doing, IMO.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 25, 2005 14:55:42 GMT -5
Besides, if we keep regular admission at that price it would be easier to hand out free student tickets, which is something we should already be doing, IMO. I agree 100%, however I've long been of the opinion that GU should just increase it's student fees by $100 and give all students the tickets for "free." I mean have you ever seen our student fees compared to those at places like GW? American? I have, we make out like bandits. I'm talking $1000s of dollars difference.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 25, 2005 15:06:48 GMT -5
Couple of Little Points:
I think the University is probably in the red overall, and frankly I think it's considerable.
I think your math is largely correct, except that you don't take into account student tickets and the magnitude of the attendance inflation.
Students count in the equation...they're a relatively sizable proportion of the attendance...and the ticket price they pay is much cheaper than the average you go with.
The attendance is inflated by 1,000 per game at a bare minimum. For games that don't draw well, I think it's inflated much more than that.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 25, 2005 15:10:36 GMT -5
Breaking even on a revenue sport is not where you want to be.
For most schools, revenue sports help fund the other sports. The question is not if we are losing money, but how much money are we giving up?
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Apr 25, 2005 15:18:41 GMT -5
Wait, are you saying GW/Amer charge more in student fees, or less? I can't tell what/who the "we" is in your statement. I agree 100%, however I've long been of the opinion that GU should just increase it's student fees by $100 and give all students the tickets for "free." I mean have you ever seen our student fees compared to those at places like GW? American? I have, we make out like bandits. I'm talking $1000s of dollars difference.
|
|
GPHoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 466
|
Post by GPHoya on Apr 25, 2005 15:21:07 GMT -5
If fund raising is a zero sum game (a subject for fair debate and discussion) so that raising money for a McDonough/convocation building project means that the money won't be available for some other use--say the endowment-- and one associates a reasonable return on investment on the funds raised, then the costs of renting MCI may be modest by comparison to the costs for building an arena that will be intensively used 10 to 20 times a year. Add to that the use of political capital to overcome the relatively legitimate neighborhood concerns around parking and traffic and I can understand (without agreeing) why the administration has not moved this up on the list of projects to tackle.
A visionary leader could argue that fund-raising for this project would actually grow the pie in the short and long-term. An on-campus arena could create a shared cross-generational spirit building experience that protects and develops the basketball and university franchise while both are still vital. It would be a legacy for the courageous administration that overcame the many obstacles to moving forward. In my mind, however, avoiding the cost of MCI rent does not provide the best case for pursuing this project.
DFW's alternative downside legacy of squandering the basketball franchise and contemplating the university with only a basketball past would appear to be something that the administration is willing to risk or may mistakenly believe that it has dodged for a sustainable time period by hiring JT III. The later course is a high risk gamble with no obvious fallback plan. The window for having a choice of which legacy to pursue is not likely to stay open for another five years and the last five went by in a blink.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Apr 25, 2005 15:39:56 GMT -5
Wait, are you saying GW/Amer charge more in student fees, or less? I can't tell what/who the "we" is in your statement. Both GW and American charge $1000s more. Especially GW...they get about $5K in student fees charged. Of course, they also have nearly the highest tuition in the country...but hey. Even American is about double our student fees.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 25, 2005 15:44:14 GMT -5
Couple of Little Points: I think the University is probably in the red overall, and frankly I think it's considerable. I think your math is largely correct, except that you don't take into account student tickets and the magnitude of the attendance inflation. Students count in the equation...they're a relatively sizable proportion of the attendance...and the ticket price they pay is much cheaper than the average you go with. The attendance is inflated by 1,000 per game at a bare minimum. For games that don't draw well, I think it's inflated much more than that. Leaving out student ticket prices is actually a pretty huge omission from my analysis. If student ticket prices are the same as in '03 when I graduated, it's $10 a ticket. I would guess that, on average, students make up around 25% of the overall attendance figure. So if we rework the average ticket price figures a little bit, let's say 25% of tickets sold cost $10, 40% cost $22.50, 30% cost $15, and 5% cost $5. That takes into account my casual observation that more lower deck seats than upper deck seats are sold as well. That reduces the average ticket price by one dollar to $16.50. That puts the University really close to the break even point before attendance inflation is factored in. I know a lot of people on the board think attendance is hugely overstated, but I'm still skeptical because there's no actual data for or against it and I think it's pretty difficult to say with any conviction/accuracy "well when I went to the game it looked more like 3450 and they reported 5000." One argument in your favor would be that if inflation is big enough for the casual observer to notice, its got to be in the thousands. As far as the program being susbstantially in the red, that's probably true. There are multiple costs associated with the basketball program that I haven't listed: coaching salaries, student transportation to games, uniform costs, travel expenses, etc. However, a new stadium alone is not going to put the program in the black.
|
|