Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
I think the non-hockey revenue assumptions need some work because that is one of the big revenues stream that the new building is supposed to unlock.
If the Scotiabank Saddledome calendar is to be believed, the building sat dark for virtually all the period May-September) with just 15 events on the calendar.
Seems low but if the 'dome is only used 100 - 120 days/year think how much potential revenue exists in those dark nights.
April, May and June are problematic because dates have to be held for a potential Stanley Cup run, but nonetheless.
Utilization of the building is the key to profitability and ROI. Somehow, I think it the model should reflect that. It impacts the Flames bottom line and the ability to generate ticket tax revenue.
I think it would interesting to play with the proceeds of a ticket tax based on building utilization. Ideally utilization assumptions could be risked (P100, P90, P50, etc.) and incorporated into the model.
And big thanks Bingo for doing this and generating this discussion.
|
Agreed.
I guess the best way to do it would be to pull the data from Rogers for the last calendar year and see how many nights it was utilized.
That would be a starting point.
The other issue is the city too. ... Edmonton has a great new arena, but I'm sure they're not getting the same interest as MSG, or even Toronto. I think I saw Katy Perry is playing MSG for 7 straight nights this month. So you can't go across the league as an average for blackout nights./
Next issue is impact of nights that are being utilized. The Hitmen, Roughnecks and Inferno don't pull in the same crowds as the Flames and likely don't spend as much money as the Flames crowd as well. So even that has a night that is blacked out on the calendar that only generates 30-40% of what a Flames night could.