I hate that espn always makes fun of our empty upperdeck yet they never mention that its a football stadium and even then only like three other nfl teams have a bigger capacity.

 

do you think if the marlins offered all the outfield upper deck seats for a dollar that we'd see some fans in them?

 

our attendance up their now is 0 so it cant hurt. and do you think anyone would go for it ?

I hate that espn always makes fun of our empty upperdeck yet they never mention that its a football stadium and even then only like three other nfl teams have a bigger capacity.

 

do you think if the marlins offered all the outfield upper deck seats for a dollar that we'd see some fans in them?

 

our attendance up their now is 0 so it cant hurt. and do you think anyone would go for it ?

 

 

 

It would cost more for maintnance in those seats than there would be revenue coming in.

I hate that espn always makes fun of our empty upperdeck yet they never mention that its a football stadium and even then only like three other nfl teams have a bigger capacity.

 

do you think if the marlins offered all the outfield upper deck seats for a dollar that we'd see some fans in them?

 

our attendance up their now is 0 so it cant hurt. and do you think anyone would go for it ?

 

 

 

It would cost more for maintnance in those seats than there would be revenue coming in.

 

 

 

i know before we used to have four dollar tickets , if not that, then we should put a tarp across with our name like oakland does . =s

if I remember correctly.

Upperdeck for children was 1.50 and adults was 3.00 back in the early 90s

if I remember correctly.

Upperdeck for children was 1.50 and adults was 3.00 back in the early 90s

 

 

In Seattle, they're $6.50 and come w/ free hot dog and pepsi on Wed.

 

The Marlins can bang their drums all they want about how they're affordable family entertainment, but honestly, while the avg ticket price might rank in the bottom part of MLB, when you factor in only the cheapest seats, we're quite a bit higher than much of MLB. There's no reason why the upperdeck seats should be above $10 anywhere for such horrible seats.

the upperdeck used to be open thurs fri sat sun, then cut back to fri sat sun and currently, unless a game like the other night warrants it, only fri sat. they dropped sunday (day games) because it was dangerously hot and too many complaints about same. upperdeck has been for a number of years a haven for families with little kids.

I've always thought that the Upper Decks should be open down the lines with 4 dollar seats or so. They'd sell a ton of tickets, get people to games and maybe sell some concessions.

Even last wednesday, 31000 people means 45000 empty orange seats for ESPN to make fun of. Live with it until 2012.

Who cares what ESPN thinks/says?

When 60000+ people came to the playoff games in '97 or '03(can't remember which), that's still a record for a baseball game isn't it?

There was a buncha people in the upper-deck tonight. They were even getting into 'the wave' the lower deck was doing (that sh*t lasted a whole inning. jeeeesusssss)

if I remember correctly.

Upperdeck for children was 1.50 and adults was 3.00 back in the early 90s

 

 

In Seattle, they're $6.50 and come w/ free hot dog and pepsi on Wed.

 

The Marlins can bang their drums all they want about how they're affordable family entertainment, but honestly, while the avg ticket price might rank in the bottom part of MLB, when you factor in only the cheapest seats, we're quite a bit higher than much of MLB. There's no reason why the upperdeck seats should be above $10 anywhere for such horrible seats.

 

First of all, those 400 Level A seats are not horrible seats at all, from what I have heard. Never sat there, but there are a few folks on this board that do. And I've talked to others that say the same.

 

Complaining about prices now is just a prelude to what we are going to be hearing a couple years after the new pond opens. And will most likely be in the top 5 of excuses of why we will be seeing alot of empty blue seats in our future.

Who cares what ESPN thinks/says?

 

 

Evidently alot of folks. It's why we keep hearing the complaints. Of course, those are complaints from people sitting at home watching the games. Kinda ironic.

if I remember correctly.

Upperdeck for children was 1.50 and adults was 3.00 back in the early 90s

 

 

In Seattle, they're $6.50 and come w/ free hot dog and pepsi on Wed.

 

The Marlins can bang their drums all they want about how they're affordable family entertainment, but honestly, while the avg ticket price might rank in the bottom part of MLB, when you factor in only the cheapest seats, we're quite a bit higher than much of MLB. There's no reason why the upperdeck seats should be above $10 anywhere for such horrible seats.

 

First of all, those 400 Level A seats are not horrible seats at all, from what I have heard. Never sat there, but there are a few folks on this board that do. And I've talked to others that say the same.

 

Complaining about prices now is just a prelude to what we are going to be hearing a couple years after the new pond opens. And will most likely be in the top 5 of excuses of why we will be seeing alot of empty blue seats in our future.

 

I guess it's a personal preference, but I feel if you can't read a player's name on their jersey, they're poor seats. There's no way you can see balls or strikes from that distance, nor do you have adequate view of close plays. I guess I can see the value to some people to be able to see the whole field at once, I just feel as a baseball fan if I'm going to plunk down the kind of money it takes to go to a game these days, it should be close enough where you can see what's going on. That makes level 400 seats bad seats, in my opinion, especially when factoring in their relatively high cost. Heck, Fish Tank seats are cheaper than level 400's, and I would argue they're better seats.

 

As far as prices in the new stadium, I've been arguing for a long time that they're going to be quite high and preclude many of the lower-income families that can barely go to games now from going post-2012, which is not going to do anything to solve our attendance woes. All you have to do is look at the full stadium agreement for clues. The team will lease each parking space in the garages from the city for $10 each. Since the Marlins are a business and will price profit and margin, I guarantee those spaces wil lthen be sold back to fans for $15; nice 50% increase over current. By the agreement, they have to offer a certain amount of low-cost tickets for each game (I think it was 3-5000). Problem here is that they don't define what low-cost is; certainly it will be in relation with the rest of the available Marlins tickets and not in-line w/ low-cost tickets in MLB.

 

While I don't begin to know the complexities of their leasing agreement, revenue sharing and their books in general, I do know that if their goal is to maximize attendance (and thereby revenue) they're doing a piss-poor job of it. Sporting tickets in general are highly eleastic goods, meaning that quantity demanded is highly sensitive to changes in price; this is primarily due to alternative forms of entertainment that are similarly, or lower-priced. Basic economic models show that with elastic goods, to maximize revenue, you lower the price and sell and sell more units. When you have upperdeck seats >$10, I would contend you're not doing that.

By the agreement, they have to offer a certain amount of low-cost tickets for each game (I think it was 3-5000). Problem here is that they don't define what low-cost is; certainly it will be in relation with the rest of the available Marlins tickets and not in-line w/ low-cost tickets in MLB.

 

From what I remember the supposed low-cost tickets to be offerd at the new stadium are a token amount, something like 1000, and they'll be $15 each. In other words, a bunch of crap.

I guess it's a personal preference, but I feel if you can't read a player's name on their jersey, they're poor seats. There's no way you can see balls or strikes from that distance, nor do you have adequate view of close plays. I guess I can see the value to some people to be able to see the whole field at once, I just feel as a baseball fan if I'm going to plunk down the kind of money it takes to go to a game these days, it should be close enough where you can see what's going on. That makes level 400 seats bad seats, in my opinion, especially when factoring in their relatively high cost. Heck, Fish Tank seats are cheaper than level 400's, and I would argue they're better seats.

 

As far as prices in the new stadium, I've been arguing for a long time that they're going to be quite high and preclude many of the lower-income families that can barely go to games now from going post-2012, which is not going to do anything to solve our attendance woes. All you have to do is look at the full stadium agreement for clues. The team will lease each parking space in the garages from the city for $10 each. Since the Marlins are a business and will price profit and margin, I guarantee those spaces wil lthen be sold back to fans for $15; nice 50% increase over current. By the agreement, they have to offer a certain amount of low-cost tickets for each game (I think it was 3-5000). Problem here is that they don't define what low-cost is; certainly it will be in relation with the rest of the available Marlins tickets and not in-line w/ low-cost tickets in MLB.

 

While I don't begin to know the complexities of their leasing agreement, revenue sharing and their books in general, I do know that if their goal is to maximize attendance (and thereby revenue) they're doing a piss-poor job of it. Sporting tickets in general are highly eleastic goods, meaning that quantity demanded is highly sensitive to changes in price; this is primarily due to alternative forms of entertainment that are similarly, or lower-priced. Basic economic models show that with elastic goods, to maximize revenue, you lower the price and sell and sell more units. When you have upperdeck seats >$10, I would contend you're not doing that.

 

 

I guess it is a matter of personal preference but I can't tell you how vehemently I disagree with almost every one of your comments.

 

The A section of the 400s is in my estimation a great bargain for the money. I purposely moved up there years ago from the field level lower bowl for a number of reasons and I've not wanted to go back downstairs (except perhaps as it regards the concessions which are meager and more poorly run than anywhere else in the stadium) since. To fully disclose though, I have access to a skybox and Founders Club seats with some regularity but most weekend nights I sit upstairs as do a bunch of regulars (mostly families)as much for the camaraderie as anything else.

 

To compare it to the Fish Tank or any of the outfield seats unfavorably is I think ridiculous. I've done both. First of all every play is right in front of you as opposed to watching all the infield (especially) action from behind which is the case in the Fish Tank. Does Cody Ross up against the wall in deep center seem a good ways away? Absolutely. But so does homeplate from the Fish Tank. At least you can see the play develop and you are watching the trajectory of the ball from the moment it's struck to the moment it's caught. Second you are absolutely able to call balls and strikes. To suggest you can't read the names on player's uniforms is not true at all, your point is well taken, but right now it's not accurate. How the upperdecks in the new stadium work out I can't say but as much as I loathe landshark, that is not a problem from the seats I've been describing. One thing that is really great, you get to see the whole field at once. And an interesting phenomenon occurs - the game seems to actually slow down - it's hard to explain you have to experience it to find the value - and you also get to see what every player is doing on any given play or situation in a way that lost to you at field level. It's so much easier to pickup who the cutoff guy is or where the pitcher is going to backup on a play, etc.

 

Can you see players up close and personal as you would from a Founders Club seat? Of course not, but they don't look like ants either. One would be surprised how good the game looks from up there, especially if you sit in the A seats of 445-454. This idea that people in the 400s can't "see what's going on" really is dead wrong. I'd suggest to anyone who is downstairs to come up for an inning and see for themselves, I think most would agree it's an enjoyable experience and a good way to watch a ball game, the whole ball game. Now if you want to sit all the way up at the highest points in the stadium that's a completely different story but for most people in the 400s they'd say they get their monies worth.

 

As for parking while your thinking is basically correct, you have the numbers wrong. When it comes to parking the Marlins begin paying at a number closer to $11.75 and periodically as is spelled out in the agreement their price increases so that by the end of the agreement they are paying almost 80+% more than when it started. Absolutely parking has to increase and it will increase from time to time. What is uncertain is how much they will markup parking. It may be that they determine that they will lose money on parking to a) fill the lots and garages they have to rent 100% of the spaces in anyways for every game for 30 years+, b) build into ticket prices some contribution towards it so the parking fee appears more reasonable and/or c) by filling the lots and garages to the max they are creating eyeballs for the advertising you'll be seeing on every available space and structural support in them. Conceivably the marketing revenue may exceed the parking revenue in those buildings.

 

Your pricing argument also has a few flaws in it. First of all, low-income families who attend games right now are still paying for parking if it is a nice night, or three rain delays and everyone goes home soaked and miserable. If you have kids and that the family I take you're talking about, endless rain delays or scorching sun can turn a neatly planned family outing to a ballgame into a nightmare. Second, the whole business model idea is to shift away from families as their core marketed to group to corporations and the trade off for the families you've identified may well be they attend less games but know they will have a great experience when they do. As for your elasticity theory it's not valid. In fact the opposite happens. By going from 70,000 (in theory) to less than 40,000 and dramatically increasing corporate buying you have compression not elasticity. Less seats, means higher prices for the relatively few available seats on the night of most games as opposed to today where there is almost zero reason to buy season tickets or in advance as a Marlins fan (fans of out of town teams buy early to be guaranteed they get to see their faves) because you know seats will be there if you want them and if it looks like rain you just make plans for another night. The Cubs' fan in South Florida has a finite number of chances to see their Cubbies each season and they along with Mets and Phillies and to a lesser extent Dodgers fans may feel the only way to get the seats they want are to buy a you pick'em season ticket plan so they can get in on the games they want, and once they have may in fact spend time being Marlins fans when their teams aren't around because they already paid for the ticket package and might as well use them.

 

As for maximizing ticket sales and the "piss poor" job you think they are doing, even in this economy those of you who have season tickets, ask your reps how ticket sales are going? From what I understand they are well ahead of plan and by some time next year, forget about 2011, they should theoretically have sold enough season ticket packages to fill 70% of the regular seats in the stadium every night in 2012. People are buying minimum season ticket packages that they have no intention of using right now just to get in the preferential line for 2012.

 

I expect my 2012 season tickets will be in one of the upper decks and I'm cool with that. To quote Luis Tiant, the "upperdeck been berry berry good to me".

When 60000+ people came to the playoff games in '97 or '03(can't remember which), that's still a record for a baseball game isn't it?

 

 

Not even close, in the late 1950's when the Dodgers had just moved to Los Angeles and played in the Coliseum they had over 90,000 at one game. And in the American League, Yankee Stadium used to hold 84,000 back in the 1930's. I think old Cleveland Municipal Stadium also held over 75,000 for Indians games. So no, our 67,000 at playoff games is no where near a record.

Marlins2003- This is obviously an argument in perspective and opinions, thus is an argument no one will ever win. Like I tell my 4 yr old, we all have our likes and dislikes. I don't have much experience outside of Joe Robbie, but I have gone to games in the upperdeck at 3 parks now (4 if you count the second level at Disney's Wide World of Sports for ST) and have had the same experience every time. I feel removed from the game, which in turn speeds the game up. I can't see "Detail", like whether a runner was safe or not at 1st on a close play. Sightlines didn't seem natural, thus I lost sight of the ball a lot. Perhaps it matters where in the upperdeck you sit; seats around home probably and mch better than ones around the bases (which I've had the misfortune of having every UD experience). Regardless, I always regretted the decision to sit up there.

 

Considering most MLB teams' ticketing structures have Upperdeck seats as one of the cheapest, if not the cheapest, price points, I would say that many people (MLB exectives, fans, et all) have the same view of Upperdeck seating. I think most people have the viewpoint the closer to the field the better, even if it's from the OF. I'm not belittling your opinion, I just think you're in the minority in said opinion.

 

As far as ticket prices, demand and the marlins' business model, I'm too tired to post a rebuttle to your posting (drove back to Orlando after the post game party at gate h). I'm pretty sure I prefaced my comment about elastic demand for sporting tickets as "most sporting tickets." The situations you laid out are certainly exceptions to the rule and show some sporting tickets to be inelastic;however, when you consider 80-90 home games over the courseof an MLB season, there's not exactly scarcity in aggregate.

Upper deck isn't bad at all.

 

I just think it's highly overpriced.

If it rains, which it seems like it always does, there's no area to go hang out to wait it out.

You'd have to walk down to the 100 level.

Or, you can try and bunch up along the edge with everyone else that's trying to do the same.

 

I like the view.

I like the freedom of having empty seats around.

You cannot see balls and strikes, but you can see the whole field and see exactly what's happening.

 

I hate sitting in outfield terrace or fish tank and not knowing if a ball hit the wall, went over the fence, or if the play was made because one cannot see it.

One has to judge by the crowds reaction.

I thought 2003 was the guy that liked the upper deck near the railing. I can understand it. It's all opinion. Personally, we like the Fish Tank. For many the same reasons. We like the folks around us. We see the plays develope from start to finish. And unlike what has been stated, we can track the ball from the bat to the glove, or the crowd.

 

On most Sundays we can be found in 245 up against the wall for the comfort of the shade and a/c once we open those windows. That's between home and 1st. Because we aren't there all that much, and because we are used to where our regular seats are, I do have a problem tracking the ball there from time to time. And judging where it is going (fair or foul, and the distance). Maybe that's the same reason for others that don't sit in the OF much. Proof of that to me would be on these rare days we have a good crowd and hearing them cheer when a fly ball is hit, when we can clearly see it's just another out.

 

Pricing for tix and parking? I expect middle of the pack average. Probably around twice what we are paying now. How anyone could expect less is beyond me. We all wanted our own pond and somehow some seem to think it should be at no cost to us. Reality is going to bite them right in the butt. Complain all they want, it's what they wanted. It's also one of many reasons why I say after the new stadium smell wears off, the attendance drops. For a event only fan base (the place to be seen) the pricing isn't going to be worth going to the games. Until near and into the playoffs, when once again it will be the place to be seen.

I hate sitting in outfield terrace or fish tank and not knowing if a ball hit the wall, went over the fence, or if the play was made because one cannot see it.

One has to judge by the crowds reaction.

 

 

In the 90's my season tix were in 130, row 3. Had no problem seeing what was happening. Clear view of all walls.

 

Now we are in, and have been for quite some time, in 127, row 1. I think we started in about row 5 and each year were able to move down and towards the aisle a little more. It did take complaining to the brass about full season ticket packages should get priority over partial packages to finally get them to change their policy and we were able to make that final leap to row 1 on the aisle. Again, no blind spots in any of our seating. Excellent view of everything going on at all times. Unless you count that we have to stand up and look down to see a player pick up a ball that has rolled to our wall.

 

Point being......If you are going to be buying tickets as you go, expect the "less accomodating" seats. Buy some sort of package and get the better seats in return. In any section. Or go to StubHub and buy there at an inflated (over box office) price. We sell some of our week day and almost every Friday tickets there with no problems.

When 60000+ people came to the playoff games in '97 or '03(can't remember which), that's still a record for a baseball game isn't it?

 

 

Not even close, in the late 1950's when the Dodgers had just moved to Los Angeles and played in the Coliseum they had over 90,000 at one game. And in the American League, Yankee Stadium used to hold 84,000 back in the 1930's. I think old Cleveland Municipal Stadium also held over 75,000 for Indians games. So no, our 67,000 at playoff games is no where near a record.

 

 

If you check the actual numbers then I think you will see the numbers we put up in '97 were record crowds for playoff games (maybe it was just WS games) at that time. Or maybe they just classified that as a "modern era" record. But either way, do the actual research on it. I remember them saying something about it from time to time. It would be interesting to find out for sure. We also played in the coldest ever WS game. 15 degrees(?), minus wind chill.

 

As a side note/trivia.....Gloria Estefan and her hubby sent meals from their restaurant to Cleveland for the players so they could have that "at home" feeling.

When 60000+ people came to the playoff games in '97 or '03(can't remember which), that's still a record for a baseball game isn't it?

 

 

Not even close, in the late 1950's when the Dodgers had just moved to Los Angeles and played in the Coliseum they had over 90,000 at one game. And in the American League, Yankee Stadium used to hold 84,000 back in the 1930's. I think old Cleveland Municipal Stadium also held over 75,000 for Indians games. So no, our 67,000 at playoff games is no where near a record.

 

 

If you check the actual numbers then I think you will see the numbers we put up in '97 were record crowds for playoff games (maybe it was just WS games) at that time. Or maybe they just classified that as a "modern era" record. But either way, do the actual research on it. I remember them saying something about it from time to time. It would be interesting to find out for sure. We also played in the coldest ever WS game. 15 degrees(?), minus wind chill.

 

As a side note/trivia.....Gloria Estefan and her hubby sent meals from their restaurant to Cleveland for the players so they could have that "at home" feeling.

No, he's right. I did the research when he said that and he's absolutely right, which is weird because I swore I heard the same as you did.

 

Edit: Wikipedia with the glove save. Game 6's attendance of 67,498 was the highest single-game attendance for the World Series since Game 5 of the 1959 World Series, when 92,706 people filled the football-oriented Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

I've always thought that the Upper Decks should be open down the lines with 4 dollar seats or so. They'd sell a ton of tickets, get people to games and maybe sell some concessions.

 

 

The problem is that the people who would buy the $15-$30 seats would just buy the $4 seats instead, costing the team money. I'm sure they'd sell a few more seats, but I guess they figure that it probably wouldn't be enough to make up for the lost incoming revenue, as well the costs of maintenance/janitorial work/etc.

I've always thought that the Upper Decks should be open down the lines with 4 dollar seats or so. They'd sell a ton of tickets, get people to games and maybe sell some concessions.

 

 

The problem is that the people who would buy the $15-$30 seats would just buy the $4 seats instead, costing the team money. I'm sure they'd sell a few more seats, but I guess they figure that it probably wouldn't be enough to make up for the lost incoming revenue, as well the costs of maintenance/janitorial work/etc.

Yeah, exactly what I was thinking. If you have the upper deck open, you also need to have more security, maintenance workers, emergency services, concession workers, and probably other stuff I'm not even thinking of.