Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Newcastle Battle Injury Woes Ahead of Tottenham

Top Five Per Game Attendance Figures, by Season, in Royals History

  1. 1989 - 30,589 per game
  2. 1987 - 29,537 per game
  3. 1988 - 29,377 per game
  4. 1986 - 28,652 per game
  5. 1980 - 28,256 per game

about 2 years ago Cimg0036_tiny Freneau 27 comments 0 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I think between Butler and Greinke people will come out.

I’d bet we average somewhere around 30K for Greinke starts this year.

Need the everyday guys to step up though.

by AlanSimpson on Nov 30, 2009 10:43 PM EST reply actions  

Only if they all take place on Friday Fireworks+Buck nights.

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Dec 1, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions  

What are you trying to say?

That winning means more people will go to games?

Ridiculous.

by KyleM on Nov 30, 2009 10:46 PM EST reply actions  

weird that there was that late 1980s spike

which really doesn’t totally coincide with the best years

by Freneau on Nov 30, 2009 10:55 PM EST up reply actions  

89 was great

sab won the cy young
brett was still around
and ofcourse BO

by wt on Nov 30, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions  

I think attendance spiked all around baseball

The 70s weren’t a great era for attendance. Oakland, for example drew an average of 6,199 fans per game in 1977. The Yankees led the AL in attendance with just under 26,000 fans a game.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 1, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions  

Who did the attendance report earlier this offseason? Was it AxDxMx?

How many individual games did the Royals go 28,000 this year?

I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.

by Warden11 on Dec 1, 2009 10:15 AM EST reply actions  

Yeah, it was me.

They actually had a fair amount of them, IIRC. The problem was they had games no one wanted to be at that had less than 15,000 and that really brought the average down, though they were never in danger of averaging more than 25,000.

by AxDxMx on Dec 1, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions  

Amazing what the afterglow from a championship can do

The late 80s attendance surge was a direct result of the 85 championship.

Too bad Glass doesn’t understand/agree with the concept of spending money to make money.

I’m oversimplifying a bit, because the regional TV markets and the influx of cable stations really changed the financial playing field – but you get my drift. Glass should be able to at least envision his franchise approaching he STL model – moderate to slightly above avg payroll, supported by a rabid fanbase. Think 100-110k annual payroll, and annual attendance of 2.5m to 3.0m. How does he get there? Well, unfortunately, because he ran the franchise into the ground for 15 years, he needs to show good faith and bump the payroll up to that level FIRST, then the attendance would follow. Sadly, he lacks the competitive desire to do so. It’s his money, so I guess I shouldn’t blame him. On the other hand, if he reluctantly became an owner only as a favor to Mr K, or because he mistakenly thought he could change the game’s financial structure to his benefit, then I can blame him, and would advise him to get the hell out.

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Dec 1, 2009 11:10 AM EST reply actions  

Whatever the state of competition

I’m pretty sure owning the Royals has been financially beneficial to the Glass family

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 1, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions  

See, that's my point

He could try harder to win, and still not kill himself financially.

Just my opinion.

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Dec 1, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions  

At some point he runs into diminishing marginal returns

And I suspect he might be at that point without trying to build a StL style fan base. Let’s face it, another 10,000 fans per game on average paying an average $25 per ticket (includes parking), means just an extra $20M in revenue. While I’m sure Glass would take the $20M, he’d have to spend the $20M or more on payroll to probably get that effect. Laying out $1 to make $1 isn’t really sound business strategy.

by AxDxMx on Dec 1, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

You've got a good point

I think there is more money to be made by a continuously successful team than just additional ticket/parking revenue. That stuff is the most direct (and is the easiest to estimate), but there’s certainly going to be additional revenue from concessions, merchandise, etc. The biggie, though, is a better/bigger television deal, which the Royals will probably never be able to land because of the sparsely populated region.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to why an owner owns a sports franchise. I really don’t think any team owner should get into the game with a primary goal of making a ton of money. Almost every owner is going to have an easier and better time making money at whatever business got him to the position he was in to buy a team. Buying a pro sports team should be almost entirely for the fun/competitive aspect of it.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie

by Sweep_the_Leg on Dec 1, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh hell no.

I would buy a sports franchise, just to sell it a decade later and make out like a bandit. I wonder if anyone has ever lost money on the sale of a MLB, NFL, NHL, or NBA team? It’s all about the profits for most owners. I mean, I’d spend money on my team, but only as long as I planned to break even at a bare minimum. And that’s if I had another income source because breaking even doesn’t get you paid.

You are right that there is more revenue in merchandise and TV rights, so maybe double or triple that $20M from tickets. The point I left unsaid was that it takes a present outlay to make the future profit, and if you make the wrong choices (i.e. Guillen 3/$36M), then that payoff isn’t there. It’s risky to try to elevate the franchise by spending more money. I actually think the way the farm system is working now, that Dayton may actually be setting the team up for long term success in the 2011-2016 range. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say 2-3 of the Royals Top 10 Prospects could become legit stars. That’s how far they’ve come.

And that paragraph above leads to the huge disconnect that is occurring at the MLB level right now. Dayton Moore’s drafts look awesome, why the hell does the MLB team suffer so much, and sign such crappy players? Will no one good actually come to KC?

by AxDxMx on Dec 1, 2009 4:20 PM EST up reply actions  

if you put all your eggs in one basket

you could spend more money on a larger number of smart, (safer), investments — more money int he draft, let veterans go, take more chances on guys like Nelson Cruz, which saves more money that can be redistributed…

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 1, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Great point

I’ve long advocated spending 15 or 20m on one genuine superstar as a starting point towards contending. If you pick the right guy, and he stays healthy, this is actually money well spent. Just take a look at fangraphs player values – Pujols/Utley type players are “worth” a whole lot more than the number I refer to above.

As a positive side benefit, it would sorta force Moore to search harder for bargains, thus eliminating his wasteful spending on mediocre free agents that has hampered his progress to date.

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Dec 1, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm hoping that Moore will have to do bargain shopping sooner rather than later

beause he’s no longer pulling in a GM’s salary

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.

Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 1, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions  

You're right in saying a genuine superstar is better to sign

Would you rather get 5-9 WAR from 1 player or 4? If you get it from 1, you have 3 other positions that have yet to be added to the total. One superstar plus 3 young players could be anywhere from 5 – 15 WAR for the same price you might sign 4 average vets and only get 0 – 8 WAR total (2 WAR each on average). The upside in that scenario is clearly the superstar player and 3 cheap, young guys.

by AxDxMx on Dec 1, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions  

On the late 80s attendance

My recollection of this period as a vendor:

Friday and Saturday nights routinely sold out, virtually all year round. They tried to run giveaways on Sundays, but oddly that day still only averaged in the low 20ks. Monday and Thursday nights were Royals nights (half price nosebleed tickets), and they drew MORE than Sunday games. Typically, these games would draw around 30-35k – especially during the summer portion of the schedule. Only down games were Tuesday/Wednesday – but because the ticket base was so much higher than it is today, those days would still be around 20K most of the time. So much easier to reach 2.5m when you start with a 13 or 14k season ticket base, as opposed to today’s base, which I think is around only 8k-10k?

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Dec 1, 2009 11:15 AM EST reply actions  

30.5K per game in 1989 is phenomenal

Every man, woman and child living in the city of KCMO at rthat time would have to attend 6 games a year to get to that number.

Of course—I know people outside of the city attend games, but its more of a frame of reference. Now it would be closer to 4 games a year.

by Cairo on Dec 1, 2009 12:34 PM EST reply actions  

I can't recall the exact data,

but I think the Royals once did an informal license plate sample of their parking lot around then; long story short, they really were a regional franchise, with something like one-fourth or even one-third of their attendance (on the weekends) coming from farther than 50 miles. This was cited as one of the main reasons artificial turf was installed – to ensure these particular fans that they could plan their weekend in KC with relatively little chance of rain ruining their trip.

Of course, that was a totally different era. There was no internet, no practical ability for fans to follow any team they wanted like they can today thanks to MLB network, MLB Media Services, etc. Basically, unless you wanted to root for the Braves or the Cubs, if you lived in Kansas or Nebraska, or even in parts of Iowa, you could only follow the Royals easily.

Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!

by loyal2sdad on Dec 1, 2009 5:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Really a missed opportunity

Regional sports networks have become huge and cultivating a regional market is how a city like St. Louis (which isn’t THAT much larger than KC) can operate closer to a large market franchise than a small market franchise. The Royals could be The Team for midwesterners west of Columbia had they marketed themselves better and made more games available – even if they have to pay cable providers to carry games. After all, I know a lot of people that became Braves or Cubs fans even though they were TERRIBLE in the 80s, simply because the games were on all the time before reruns of Perfect Strangers or “Beastmaster.”

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 1, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Nacho_small
Interview with Royals Review Editor Jeff Zimmerman
Small
OT: Determining the exact date of Ice Cubes "Good Day"
Royalsretro_small
The 100 Greatest Royals of All-Time - #26 Al Cowens
Small
2 years, 2 months and 22 days ago: Never Forget

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan