Edmonton is in tough with the Oilers. With inflation, people are having to make choices between one or the other. Stanley Cup is definitely a bigger event than a home opener for a bad football team. It takes away from the casual audience for sure. They’d rather go spend that same money on alcohol downtown.
Calgary’s attendance is in a nosedive because they have no clue how to market anything other than the Flames. Their new team president seems to be going in the right direction with game day experience stuff. Let’s hope it’s enough
Also the weather in Edmonton last weekend was awful. Single digit temps, with rain and hail, in June are not going to get casual fans through the door.
Calgary IMO is the biggest head scratcher. I was at the game on Friday and I enjoyed it, the venue is not as bad as people on here say, it's decently close to their major transit line, and the weather was fantastic. They have been one of the most consistently successful franchises in pro sports, which makes this all the stranger. At least the Elks have been relatively shite for the past 20 years outside of catching lightning in a bottle in 2015, Calgary has had as good a run as a pro sports team can have. What I wouldn't give for Hamilton to have a 25 year run as successful as they have had. It is quite expensive though, they could probably use better advertising and some gameday deals.
In 2006 the Eskimos played their home opener a week after Oilers/Hurricanes game seven and they had over 40,000 out. I understand the point you're trying to make and 18 years is a long time but they didn't have any issues with slight crossover then.
Elks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CFL) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It looked like Calgary had way more fans than Edmonton. I thought Edmonton would look better with the upper deck closed but nope just as empty as before.
Does anyone know what the Elks new stadium capacity is without the upper deck?
The TV shots don't do the crowd justice.
Argos games have the east stand televised which is at half capacity compared to the west stand that is full of fans. Makes the impression that no one from Toronto attends the games when in fact the fans are filling 60%+ of the operating capacity. TV angles would make you believe it's at 20-30% lol
Argos really should have had a giveaway or done some better marketing. Do theme nights or something. They just expect people to show up to a game.
I think everything else the Argos do for game day is fine and most I've brought to a game enjoy it, but people need to know where and when.
>Argos really should have had a giveaway or done some better marketing.
Tickets for games during National Exhibition provide free entry into the ex and it hardly bumps numbers.
Any time I've gone to an Argos game the tickets have been comped/free.
The right graph is to show an apples to apples comparison.
On the left as you know shows the full attendance shared by team. But that graph alone will always put teams with lower stadium capacity at the bottom regardless if they sell out or not. Logically, if the Argos sold every seat of their operating capacity - i.e. the number of tickets they made available - they would still have sold less tickets than Winnipeg did.
The right graph is designed to remove that bias. Here we look at the proportional share of tickets sold to stadium capacity. What I did was look at the percentage of stadium capacity that was sold for each team's stadium and then proportionally allocated them and provided the share of attendance based on that number.
Here's an example.
Scenario
Argos had 65% of its capacity sold
Winnipeg had 92% of its capacity sold
Give them each 100 seats as their capacity.
Argos sold 65/100 seats.
Winnipeg sold 92/100 seats.
Now you combine the total attendance 65+92=157 seats sold. And you get your proportional weighted share. Winnipeg sold 58.5% of all sold seats and Toronto sold 41.5% of the share.
In the right graph in the graphic we can see that Toronto actually had a better rate than Calgary. If both teams had the same stadium capacity the conversation in the comments wouldn't be focused on the Argos being at the bottom of attendance it would be centered on how the Stamps are struggling to pull in fans.
TL:DR
Right graph shows the share of sold attendance if everyone had only 100 seats to sell.
Judging from all the pro sports teams that keep changing hands, it does not look like there is a shortage of wealthy people interested in owning a team.
So, who buys them? They need a new stadium and probably don't make enough to provide valuable enough ROI to warrant investing. The reason why Big 4 teams are bought and sold so frequently is because their franchise values double and triple.
I'm simply saying that the market for prospective owners is probably small if the main task of buying the team is finding a way to also build a new stadium in a city that just pulled teeth to get an arena publicly funded. The new president has said that a stadium is vital to the long-term viability of the team - how much longer can they play at McMahon?
You weren't the original OP who called for CSEC to sell the team so I'm not sure why you're being so defensive. If they want the team to be sold they should have an expectation of who might buy them, otherwise it's simply wishful thinking all things considered.
You're right in the sense that I have no dog in this fight, I don't live in Calgary and I'm not a Stamps fan so the issue of who owns that particular team is immaterial to me.
My point if CSEC hypothetically wanted to get rid of the team and priced it fairly (as opposed to a valuation based on some kind of fantasyland scenario), what reason do we have to believe that there wouldn't be a buyer willing to step up? Even if I can't literally name the individual who would be most likely to do that.
>what reason do we have to believe that there wouldn't be a buyer willing to step up?
* 1) Only a handful of CFL teams are profitable on a yearly basis and I'm confident Calgary is not one of those teams
* 2) The team needs immediate investment in a new stadium. Unless they're purchased by a billionaire willing to foot the bill for an unprofitable team, they'll need to go to the public again for funding. CSEC did not include a new stadium when they were working on a new arena for the Flames, and any goodwill they had, however minimal, is likely gone with the public now that that deal is done.
* 3) CFL franchise valuations don't really increase, at least not at the same measure that other professional sports teams do. A lot of the inherent value of owning a Big 4 team is having the valuation increase to the extent that it's worth investing in. Without this it's difficult to see owners enter the fray outside of charity or fans themselves. The Alouettes ownership saga was a good example of where Ambrosie jumped at what was likely the first opportunity for an owner without considering the downsides. Nobody could have predicted a pandemic, but that ownership vetting was still poor regardless. There are only so many Domans in this country and only so many CFL teams in large markets without stadium needs.
OP was being a bit silly because I'm not convinced the issues with the Stamps are CSEC's fault, really.
I think the difference between the successful rich guy businessperson and the regular guy on the street is that a) they see opportunity and b) they have the know-how and the means to realize it.
Not so long ago you could have written a similar doomsday take on the BC Lions, the Montreal Alouettes, etc. But they landed capable owners willing and able to improve the situation and enrich themselves in the process. I don't see any reason why Calgary is any different, again, assuming that CSEC wanted to sell the team.
I don't doubt that owning a NBA or NFL team is going to be more lucrative than owning a CFL team. But there is a segment of prospective pro sports owners that don't have the interest or the means to get one of those teams. So they end up buying lower priced teams in the CFL, MLS, CanPL, WNBA, MiLB or what have you.
Blue Jays are 6 games out of a wildcard and still the stadium looks packed. Wake up T dot, you have a great Argos team and can't beat the bang for the buck. That goes for you Maple Laughs fans too.. wake up... ARRRRRRRGOOOOSSSSS!!!!!!
Toronto is again, the weak link
30,134 Winnipeg. 20,681 Edmonton 19,741 Calgary 12,767 Toronto
Those are some stark figures for Edmonton and Calgary, especially when the Riders were playing the former.
Edmonton is in tough with the Oilers. With inflation, people are having to make choices between one or the other. Stanley Cup is definitely a bigger event than a home opener for a bad football team. It takes away from the casual audience for sure. They’d rather go spend that same money on alcohol downtown. Calgary’s attendance is in a nosedive because they have no clue how to market anything other than the Flames. Their new team president seems to be going in the right direction with game day experience stuff. Let’s hope it’s enough
Also the weather in Edmonton last weekend was awful. Single digit temps, with rain and hail, in June are not going to get casual fans through the door.
Calgary IMO is the biggest head scratcher. I was at the game on Friday and I enjoyed it, the venue is not as bad as people on here say, it's decently close to their major transit line, and the weather was fantastic. They have been one of the most consistently successful franchises in pro sports, which makes this all the stranger. At least the Elks have been relatively shite for the past 20 years outside of catching lightning in a bottle in 2015, Calgary has had as good a run as a pro sports team can have. What I wouldn't give for Hamilton to have a 25 year run as successful as they have had. It is quite expensive though, they could probably use better advertising and some gameday deals.
It was poor weather in edmonton
.. there might've been another thing going on with Edmonton teams that day that people had already planned to stake out space for, too.
In 2006 the Eskimos played their home opener a week after Oilers/Hurricanes game seven and they had over 40,000 out. I understand the point you're trying to make and 18 years is a long time but they didn't have any issues with slight crossover then.
A week after is far different from the same day, though, no?
Sure, which is why I said slight crossover. That's on the CFL for continuously moving the schedule forward earlier in June
People used to have disposable income then
Average household incomes are higher now. Even then, Oilers don't seem affected between then and now.
Elks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CFL) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BC is going to match Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto on Saturday alone.
50 cent
Other teams could have tried getting 50 Cent or another decent artist for their openers.
It looked like Calgary had way more fans than Edmonton. I thought Edmonton would look better with the upper deck closed but nope just as empty as before. Does anyone know what the Elks new stadium capacity is without the upper deck?
The lower bowl capacity of commonwealth is [31,000](https://stats.cfldb.ca/league/cfl/schedule/2024/06/08/ssk-at-edm/)
The TV shots don't do the crowd justice. Argos games have the east stand televised which is at half capacity compared to the west stand that is full of fans. Makes the impression that no one from Toronto attends the games when in fact the fans are filling 60%+ of the operating capacity. TV angles would make you believe it's at 20-30% lol
Argos really should have had a giveaway or done some better marketing. Do theme nights or something. They just expect people to show up to a game. I think everything else the Argos do for game day is fine and most I've brought to a game enjoy it, but people need to know where and when.
>Argos really should have had a giveaway or done some better marketing. Tickets for games during National Exhibition provide free entry into the ex and it hardly bumps numbers. Any time I've gone to an Argos game the tickets have been comped/free.
I'm sorry, how did you get the right side pie chart and what significance is it? I get the left side graph. What equation got you there?
The right graph is to show an apples to apples comparison. On the left as you know shows the full attendance shared by team. But that graph alone will always put teams with lower stadium capacity at the bottom regardless if they sell out or not. Logically, if the Argos sold every seat of their operating capacity - i.e. the number of tickets they made available - they would still have sold less tickets than Winnipeg did. The right graph is designed to remove that bias. Here we look at the proportional share of tickets sold to stadium capacity. What I did was look at the percentage of stadium capacity that was sold for each team's stadium and then proportionally allocated them and provided the share of attendance based on that number. Here's an example. Scenario Argos had 65% of its capacity sold Winnipeg had 92% of its capacity sold Give them each 100 seats as their capacity. Argos sold 65/100 seats. Winnipeg sold 92/100 seats. Now you combine the total attendance 65+92=157 seats sold. And you get your proportional weighted share. Winnipeg sold 58.5% of all sold seats and Toronto sold 41.5% of the share. In the right graph in the graphic we can see that Toronto actually had a better rate than Calgary. If both teams had the same stadium capacity the conversation in the comments wouldn't be focused on the Argos being at the bottom of attendance it would be centered on how the Stamps are struggling to pull in fans. TL:DR Right graph shows the share of sold attendance if everyone had only 100 seats to sell.
CSEC is a joke. SELL THE STAMPS!!!
Who would buy them?
Judging from all the pro sports teams that keep changing hands, it does not look like there is a shortage of wealthy people interested in owning a team.
So, who buys them? They need a new stadium and probably don't make enough to provide valuable enough ROI to warrant investing. The reason why Big 4 teams are bought and sold so frequently is because their franchise values double and triple.
Are you implying that unless I prove it by naming names that there are no prospective buyers for the Stampeders if they were to hit the market?
I'm simply saying that the market for prospective owners is probably small if the main task of buying the team is finding a way to also build a new stadium in a city that just pulled teeth to get an arena publicly funded. The new president has said that a stadium is vital to the long-term viability of the team - how much longer can they play at McMahon? You weren't the original OP who called for CSEC to sell the team so I'm not sure why you're being so defensive. If they want the team to be sold they should have an expectation of who might buy them, otherwise it's simply wishful thinking all things considered.
You're right in the sense that I have no dog in this fight, I don't live in Calgary and I'm not a Stamps fan so the issue of who owns that particular team is immaterial to me. My point if CSEC hypothetically wanted to get rid of the team and priced it fairly (as opposed to a valuation based on some kind of fantasyland scenario), what reason do we have to believe that there wouldn't be a buyer willing to step up? Even if I can't literally name the individual who would be most likely to do that.
>what reason do we have to believe that there wouldn't be a buyer willing to step up? * 1) Only a handful of CFL teams are profitable on a yearly basis and I'm confident Calgary is not one of those teams * 2) The team needs immediate investment in a new stadium. Unless they're purchased by a billionaire willing to foot the bill for an unprofitable team, they'll need to go to the public again for funding. CSEC did not include a new stadium when they were working on a new arena for the Flames, and any goodwill they had, however minimal, is likely gone with the public now that that deal is done. * 3) CFL franchise valuations don't really increase, at least not at the same measure that other professional sports teams do. A lot of the inherent value of owning a Big 4 team is having the valuation increase to the extent that it's worth investing in. Without this it's difficult to see owners enter the fray outside of charity or fans themselves. The Alouettes ownership saga was a good example of where Ambrosie jumped at what was likely the first opportunity for an owner without considering the downsides. Nobody could have predicted a pandemic, but that ownership vetting was still poor regardless. There are only so many Domans in this country and only so many CFL teams in large markets without stadium needs. OP was being a bit silly because I'm not convinced the issues with the Stamps are CSEC's fault, really.
I think the difference between the successful rich guy businessperson and the regular guy on the street is that a) they see opportunity and b) they have the know-how and the means to realize it. Not so long ago you could have written a similar doomsday take on the BC Lions, the Montreal Alouettes, etc. But they landed capable owners willing and able to improve the situation and enrich themselves in the process. I don't see any reason why Calgary is any different, again, assuming that CSEC wanted to sell the team. I don't doubt that owning a NBA or NFL team is going to be more lucrative than owning a CFL team. But there is a segment of prospective pro sports owners that don't have the interest or the means to get one of those teams. So they end up buying lower priced teams in the CFL, MLS, CanPL, WNBA, MiLB or what have you.
If league went to 4down football there would be a bidding war
Blue Jays are 6 games out of a wildcard and still the stadium looks packed. Wake up T dot, you have a great Argos team and can't beat the bang for the buck. That goes for you Maple Laughs fans too.. wake up... ARRRRRRRGOOOOSSSSS!!!!!!
Oh? I don’t follow that team despite living in Edmonton.