Master Index of Archived Threads


22 Games over 50,000

Frayed Knot Aug 12 2007 07:14 PM

At least I think that's what I heard from one of the talking heads during today's game; that the Mets have drawn at least 50K in what amounts to over 1/3 of the home dates this season. Do you suppose that the conflict between the above and the fact that they're building a sub-45,000 seat stadium out in the parking lot occurs to the Wilpons? * Hey, I'm "Whitey" Jones !

Edgy DC Aug 12 2007 07:16 PM

You know, it strikes me that it's probably easier to make the same money accomodating fewer.

Frayed Knot Aug 12 2007 07:21 PM

Oh Jeff Wilpon essentially said just that a while back; that you don't really make all that much money off those last few thousand seats so that it's not really worth it. However I'm still not all that sure that that's the best model to follow. I understand why it doesn't need to be 55,000+ but something a little closer to 50 than 40 seems like a good idea for NYC. I also wonder if they listen to two of their announcers talking about the glories of growing up in the cheap seats and contemplate losing the next generation's young Howie & young Gary.

Edgy DC Aug 12 2007 07:36 PM

No, I don't think they contemplate that. The next generation's cheap seats is going to be watching on SNY. I disagree with that, though it hasn't hurt the Knicks much to be inaccessible live to the fans who idolize their players. Has it? It might motivate the Mets and the Yankees to expand their playhouses a little more if other teams weren't prohibited from coming into their territory, as MLB's blue ribbon panel suggested.

Gwreck Aug 12 2007 07:51 PM

Sunday's game was the 23rd. Granted, the Mets don't make much money of the last few thousand seats, but that's also because they're obstructed view and realistically only get sold for opening day, playoffs, and the games vs. the Yankees (which is why we have only 5 sellouts this year). I don't think there's much doubt that a lot of people are going to get priced out of going once the new stadium opens.

Valadius Aug 12 2007 08:11 PM

Speaking of our new stadium... What the FUCK is wrong with EVERY SINGLE EXECUTIVE who signed off on the deal with Citigroup?!?!?!? They couldn't go with Citibank Park or Citigroup Stadium, or with another company altogether. They HAD to approve the STUPIDEST name they could have POSSIBLY come up with. Citi Field?!?!?!?!? Does ANYONE in the front office have a fucking BRAIN?!?!?!? Have you realized what you've done?!?!?!? You've opened the name of the stadium up for ridicule, as anyone can plainly see what MFY fans and the like are gearing up to call it: Shitty Field. We need a name change, and fast.

Edgy DC Aug 12 2007 08:24 PM

I think you need to exercise perspective. Or punctuational restraint. Do you think anybody with a mind to would have trouble working "shit" into "Citicorp Stadium?

metsguyinmichigan Aug 12 2007 08:41 PM

I think the idea is that if you lower the seats, you create demand and the entire season sells out before the season ever starts. That way, you balance out those early April nights when attendance is below 50,000 and those crappy rainy days when people don't come. Plus, you have all the money in the back by April 1.

slugger1138 Aug 12 2007 09:00 PM

Didn't some member of the Mets brass explicitly state that they were going for a Fenway Effect (the scenario described by metsguyinmichigan) by lowering the number of seats.

TransMonk Aug 12 2007 09:23 PM

It's pretty simple supply and demand. The average game attendance at Shea over the past 20 years has been 30,149. 2007 is the only year in the history of the stadium where the average attendance has exceeded 45,000. It's going to seem small during those few stretches when the Mets are in first for long periods of time. The park is still going to seem big during those rebuilding years (or decades).

Edgy DC Aug 12 2007 09:33 PM

slugger1138 wrote: Didn't some member of the Mets brass explicitly state that they were going for a Fenway Effect (the scenario described by metsguyinmichigan) by lowering the number of seats. Yeah, but, holy shit. It's slugger.

Elster88 Aug 12 2007 09:42 PM

Valadius wrote: Speaking of our new stadium... What the FUCK is wrong with EVERY SINGLE EXECUTIVE who signed off on the deal with Citigroup?!?!?!? They couldn't go with Citibank Park or Citigroup Stadium, or with another company altogether. They HAD to approve the STUPIDEST name they could have POSSIBLY come up with. Citi Field?!?!?!?!? Does ANYONE in the front office have a fucking BRAIN?!?!?!? Have you realized what you've done?!?!?!? You've opened the name of the stadium up for ridicule, as anyone can plainly see what MFY fans and the like are gearing up to call it: Shitty Field. We need a name change, and fast. Didn't THIS conversation HAPPEN like SIX months AGO? IT'S gotta BE in THE archives SOMEWHERE.

G-Fafif Aug 13 2007 12:53 AM

InCitiousness in action: in the midst of Saturday night's game-tying rally, the words "Lets Get It Done" appeared on DiamondVision. OK, I thought. They were followed by the Citi logo. Over and over again. So now our rallies are sponsored. When Reyes was called out at the plate, I'm surprised a toll-free number for billing disputes wasn't posted on the scoreboard.

Nymr83 Aug 13 2007 02:18 AM

this thread is deja vu, we had this whole conversation already

seawolf17 Aug 13 2007 06:09 AM

this thread is deja vu, we had this whole conversation already

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2007 07:24 AM

]The park is still going to seem big during those rebuilding years (or decades). I don't think this is going to happen. Not that I don't believe there'll be rebuilding (read: bad) years - but MLB attendance as a whole is just at a much higher level now than it was during the '70s & '80s so I don't foresee a return to the days where even bad NYC teams average 15K/night as did happen in decades past. Throw in that the new place will be - at least for a while - an attraction in and of itself and I'd be surprised if we're not looking at a Jacobs Field-like string of sellouts or near-sellouts for anything short of a really, really bad team. And while that scenario is certainly part of the appeal of the smaller place to them, I think it's going to be too small a lot more often than too big for the foreseeable future and that they might come to regret their decision to slice the capacity as low as they did.

Willets Point Aug 13 2007 07:40 AM

The solution of course is to have two ballparks.