Estimating Braves final attendance

[Enscheff]

The Braves have drawn 2,027,617 fans so far in 2017. They have recently been averaging ~22k during weekday games, and ~32k during weekend games (less on Sundays).

They have 12 weekday games remaining (264k), and 6 weekend games remaining (192k). Considering 2 of the weekday games are a Monday double header, they are looking at ~450k or less the rest of the season.

The Braves will not top 2.5 million in attendance this season. Before the rebuild, the Braves averaged about the same attendance they are seeing now. I'm quite positive the Braves did not build a new ballpark with the goal of equaling the attendance they enjoyed at the Ted.

If folks are wondering why the Braves have shed so much payroll this season, these attendance figures are why.

If anyone wonders why the Braves are rushing prospects to generate excitement, these attendance figures are why.

This cash cow isn't generating the cash that was promised, and management is getting antsy. The Braves weren't supposed to be terrible in 2017. The attendance was supposed to be closer to 3 million than 2 million. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few seats getting a little hot in the Braves FO.

[NinersSBChamps]

I don't think anyone was wondering why the Braves were/are rushing prospects.
It should be obvious to everyone. This is a business at the end of the day.

[Chico]

I think the plan was to trade Bartolo with Jaime at the deadline and they were not prepared to eat that salary, that caused the trade of SRod.

[chop2chip]

Attendance is still up ~25% over last year, which is about average for a new park. I'm sure the Braves were hopeful it would be higher, but the Braves are at least in an attendance position that is more reflective of their market size.

As for its impact on overall revenues, I think you are painting an incomplete picture by focusing solely on attendance compared to Turner. How do ticket prices at STP compare to Turner? Concessions? Merchandise? the new Battery revenues? The good news with a corporate team is that we don't have to base this on conjecture because we will have access to the financials sooner or later and we can do the comparison then.

[Chico]

Attendance is still up ~25% over last year, which is about average for a new park. I'm sure the Braves were hopeful it would be higher, but the Braves are at least in an attendance position that is more reflective of their market size.

As for its impact on overall revenues, I think you are painting an incomplete picture by focusing solely on attendance compared to Turner. How do ticket prices at STP compare to Turner? Concessions? Merchandise? the new Battery revenues? The good news with a corporate team is that we don't have to base this on conjecture because we will have access to the financials sooner or later and we can do the comparison then.

The thing with the Battery is it is making money all year long, not just home games. It's stiil not even finished, just like the roadwork allowing easier access is not finished.

I doubt ownership is looking to chope heads. They don't even have a complete picture yet.

[Hawk]

I think we've got to taper expectations on how the Braves might financially benefit from The Battery. It's more or less a strip mall that the Braves are leasing out space in. It's a value-add to ticket purchasers/fans but, to the best of my knowledge, the Braves don't receive any cut of sales. Also, I'm pretty sure they cut sweet deals with anchor tenants.

[mfree80]

Attendance is still up ~25% over last year, which is about average for a new park. I'm sure the Braves were hopeful it would be higher, but the Braves are at least in an attendance position that is more reflective of their market size.

As for its impact on overall revenues, I think you are painting an incomplete picture by focusing solely on attendance compared to Turner. How do ticket prices at STP compare to Turner? Concessions? Merchandise? the new Battery revenues? The good news with a corporate team is that we don't have to base this on conjecture because we will have access to the financials sooner or later and we can do the comparison then.

I don't think the sky is falling here. I suspect this will be like the original superstation. It allowed the Braves to act like a bigger market team than they really were until the really big markets figured it out and changed the rules to get their advantage back.

If this plan of being a landlord for the area around the stadium pays off as expected after a few years, it will become a model for other franchises and the Braves will again lose the advantage they have built.

The positive is, that this time the advantage may last until the TV contract is up... removing that built in disadvantage they have right now.

[Julio3000]

I think we've got to taper expectations on how the Braves might financially benefit from The Battery. It's more or less a strip mall that the Braves are leasing out space in. It's a value-add to ticket purchasers/fans but, to the best of my knowledge, the Braves don't receive any cut of sales. Also, I'm pretty sure they cut sweet deals with anchor tenants.

I agree, but it's worth noting that the organization's public messaging about it has been quite different.

[mfree80]

I agree, but it's worth noting that the organization's public messaging about it has been quite different.

I think they are intent on keeping the neighborhood around their home safe, inviting, and welcoming. Beyond that, you are probably correct.

[Enscheff]

Attendance is still up ~25% over last year, which is about average for a new park. I'm sure the Braves were hopeful it would be higher, but the Braves are at least in an attendance position that is more reflective of their market size.

As for its impact on overall revenues, I think you are painting an incomplete picture by focusing solely on attendance compared to Turner. How do ticket prices at STP compare to Turner? Concessions? Merchandise? the new Battery revenues? The good news with a corporate team is that we don't have to base this on conjecture because we will have access to the financials sooner or later and we can do the comparison then.

Assuming the new park drives a 25% attendance boost, I still don't see how that is going to translate into the 50%-75% payroll boost folks are claiming will take the Braves into the $150M-$175M range.

The Braves will be lucky to bring a $125M-$130M payroll to the table.

And I still seriously doubt the new ballpark pitch was made with the assumption of 2.4-2.5 million fans attending in 2017.

I have no doubt the team was supposed to be much better in 2017, and attendance was supposed to be 3M+ (20%-25% boost over the 2.5M figure at the Ted) as a result. Needless to say...mission failed.

[chop2chip]

Assuming the new park drives a 25% attendance boost, I still don't see how that is going to translate into the 50%-75% payroll boost folks are claiming will take the Braves into the $150M-$175M range.

The Braves will be lucky to bring a $125M-$130M payroll to the table.

And I still seriously doubt the new ballpark pitch was made with the assumption of 2.4-2.5 million fans attending in 2017.
I tend to side with you that those payroll numbers are not in line with reality though it is worth noting that McGuirk told a local paper that they envision the Braves eventually having a top ten payroll, so it's not as if the fans are feeding this notion unfounded.

ABC: If revenues increase like expected, will payroll increase?

TM: Absolutely. We are not going to be the Los Angeles Dodgers, which have become unsustainable. The Dodgers' operating theory is so unsustainable that they themselves have said, “We’re going to reduce $100 million of payroll.” It’s crazy what they did and they now know it. New owners do this. Almost every time baseball has a new owner they sort of go haywire and then they come back down. We’ve been in the middle of the pack as far as payroll — that’s not where we want to be going forward. We’re going to be much better.

ABC: Can we expect to see a top 10 payroll team?

TM: I think that’s where we want to be. I think we would expect ourselves to be. The proof is in the pudding. We have to have all of this coalesce and work. Our confidence level is so high that it’s as close to being in our plans as we can get it right now as far as our operating plan and how everything we are doing.

ABC: When can we expect to see the Braves in the top 10 in terms of payroll?

TM: I won’t give you a timetable, but you will start seeing major jumps 1/1/17.

[Enscheff]

I tend to side with you that those payroll numbers are not in line with reality though it is worth noting that McGuirk told a local paper that they envision the Braves eventually having a top ten payroll, so it's not as if the fans are feeding this notion unfounded.

ABC: If revenues increase like expected, will payroll increase?

TM: Absolutely. We are not going to be the Los Angeles Dodgers, which have become unsustainable. The Dodgers' operating theory is so unsustainable that they themselves have said, “We’re going to reduce $100 million of payroll.” It’s crazy what they did and they now know it. New owners do this. Almost every time baseball has a new owner they sort of go haywire and then they come back down. We’ve been in the middle of the pack as far as payroll — that’s not where we want to be going forward. We’re going to be much better.

ABC: Can we expect to see a top 10 payroll team?

TM: I think that’s where we want to be. I think we would expect ourselves to be. The proof is in the pudding. We have to have all of this coalesce and work. Our confidence level is so high that it’s as close to being in our plans as we can get it right now as far as our operating plan and how everything we are doing.

ABC: When can we expect to see the Braves in the top 10 in terms of payroll?

TM: I won’t give you a timetable, but you will start seeing major jumps 1/1/17.

That major jump got the Braves from $87M in 2016 to a little over $100M in 2017. That major jump was ~$13M.

Getting the Braves into the Top 10 would require 3 more "major jumps".

It is completely unrealistic to expect the Braves to increase payroll much past the $125M range in the near future. All these folks suggesting the Braves make major acquisitions are living in a fairy tale.

[chop2chip]

That major jump got the Braves from $87M in 2016 to a little over $100M in 2017. That major jump was ~$13M.

Getting the Braves into the Top 10 would require 3 more "major jumps".

It is completely unrealistic to expect the Braves to increase payroll much past the $125M range in the near future. All these folks suggesting the Braves make major acquisitions are living in a fairy tale.

I should mention this interview was from November 2015, so obviously the fact patterns can change substantially over two years. Also, that $13 million dollar bulb doesn't factor in the international free agents we signed, so I think you are understating the bump.

I don't think $150 million is completely unrealistic, but I think it would have to be in line with extending our own talent rather than signing marquee free agents.

[Enscheff]

I should mention this interview was from November 2015, so obviously the fact patterns can change substantially over two years. Also, that $13 million dollar bulb doesn't factor in the international free agents we signed, so I think you are understating the bump.

I don't think $150 million is completely unrealistic, but I think it would have to be in line with extending our own talent rather than signing marquee free agents.

I suppose we will have to wait and see how it all turns out. Maybe the folks holding out hope for a $150M+ payroll are right.

The fact the Braves had to dump SRod and needed permission to acquire Matt Adams tells me money is projected to be tight.

[mfree80]

[QUOTE=Enscheff;426730]I suppose we will have to wait and see how it all turns out. Maybe the folks holding out hope for a $150M+ payroll are right.


Very mature answer... Obviously, things are always changing so something said a few years ago might change for good or bad based on new developments. We sometimes find different definitions of payroll that can cause poor interpretations. As C2C said, the International spending may have been factored into the budgeting in unusual ways. We may see things like deferments, or other creative ideas. There may be increased spending on development or scouting.

Any of these things could change the overall budget, and affect the numbers in ways we don't see immediately.

[Enscheff]

The Braves have drawn 2,027,617 fans so far in 2017. They have recently been averaging ~22k during weekday games, and ~32k during weekend games (less on Sundays).

They have 12 weekday games remaining (264k), and 6 weekend games remaining (192k). Considering 2 of the weekday games are a Monday double header, they are looking at ~450k or less the rest of the season.

The Braves will not top 2.5 million in attendance this season. Before the rebuild, the Braves averaged about the same attendance they are seeing now. I'm quite positive the Braves did not build a new ballpark with the goal of equaling the attendance they enjoyed at the Ted.

If folks are wondering why the Braves have shed so much payroll this season, these attendance figures are why.

If anyone wonders why the Braves are rushing prospects to generate excitement, these attendance figures are why.

This cash cow isn't generating the cash that was promised, and management is getting antsy. The Braves weren't supposed to be terrible in 2017. The attendance was supposed to be closer to 3 million than 2 million. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few seats getting a little hot in the Braves FO.

This weekend with the Marlins the Braves drew 30k, 34k, and 35k. That's a 33k average. Unfortunately, that includes 18k tickets they gave away for free to displaced fans from Florida. So in reality, the Braves averaged 27k paying fans this weekend, even lower than the numbers I assumed when projecting them to get to 2.4 million for the year.

If the Braves don't even top 2.4 million in the first year of a new ball park...well...let's just say there won't be much of a payroll increase any time soon.

[mfree80]

This weekend with the Marlins the Braves drew 30k, 34k, and 35k. That's a 33k average. Unfortunately, that includes 18k tickets they gave away for free to displaced fans from Florida. So in reality, the Braves averaged 27k paying fans this weekend, even lower than the numbers I assumed when projecting them to get to 2.4 million for the year.

If the Braves don't even top 2.4 million in the first year of a new ball park...well...let's just say there won't be much of a payroll increase any time soon.

Enscheff: your analysis is always excellent. However, I think sometimes you make a leap to a conclusion that doesn't flow cleanly from the data. In this case, you may very well be correct, but there is also the possibility that the Battery will provide some new revenue streams that render the relationship between attendance and payroll not as direct as we might assume.

I suspect it may take a few years to get to that $150M payroll. I don't know, but I don't think we can assume a direct correlation between attendance and payroll.

[Knucksie]

If you look around, every team received an attendance bump from new ballparks. Eventually, the novelty wears off unless the team performs. Everybody loves a winner. The only ballpark that's a natural draw is Wrigley Field, WS notwithstanding, fans turned out no matter what happens on the field. This is somewhat true with Fenway too, but attendance would tail off with a losing season.

[Enscheff]

Enscheff: your analysis is always excellent. However, I think sometimes you make a leap to a conclusion that doesn't flow cleanly from the data. In this case, you may very well be correct, but there is also the possibility that the Battery will provide some new revenue streams that render the relationship between attendance and payroll not as direct as we might assume.

I suspect it may take a few years to get to that $150M payroll. I don't know, but I don't think we can assume a direct correlation between attendance and payroll.

Rest assured we will be talking about the Braves total payroll in a few months. Then we will see how correct the conclusions are.

And in a few years $150M won't be anywhere close to Top 10 in the game. It would barely be Top 15 today. Top 10 today would be about $165M, and in a few years probably closer to $180M.

Whichever execs are responsible for the "we will have a Top 10 payroll" projection are likely the ones whose jobs are in jeopardy right now.

[JxnMissFan]

Its hard to get excited about going to the park to watch a struggling Braves team play. It's even less exciting to go watch them play the Mets, Marlins and Phils who are equally as bad. Don't overlook the impact of playing alot of bad teams at home.

[Horsehide Harry]

For me, the question isn't if the Braves will get to 2.4 million with the current team. The more interesting (and unknowable) question is would the Braves have gotten to a similar point without hanging on to Teheran, Freeman and Inciarte plus signing Markakis, Colon, Dickey and Johnson and trading for Kemp and Garcia plus rushing up Swanson?

The novelty factor alone of the new park brings fans in but only winning can keep them coming back. The reason for the above was to accelerate the rebuild and it didn't work at least not for 2017 and that has been reflected by the relatively small attendance bump.

I don't believe the Braves will get a significant payroll bump this offseason because the FO and the mouthpieces aren't marketing the offseason that way. We aren't seeing any " hey look at all these young players and with the Braves planning to be big players in the offseason 2018 is going to be really exciting!" That's not happening and it would be happening IF they truly expected to make significant major offseason moves.

[thewupk]

Enscheff: your analysis is always excellent. However, I think sometimes you make a leap to a conclusion that doesn't flow cleanly from the data. In this case, you may very well be correct, but there is also the possibility that the Battery will provide some new revenue streams that render the relationship between attendance and payroll not as direct as we might assume.

I suspect it may take a few years to get to that $150M payroll. I don't know, but I don't think we can assume a direct correlation between attendance and payroll.

A few years to get to 150 million is going to cover the cost of inflation. Still going to be a low payroll.

[nsacpi]

A few years to get to 150 million is going to cover the cost of inflation. Still going to be a low payroll.

When the stadium was being built, the front office made a number of claims about how this would move the Braves back up to being a top 10 team when it comes to payroll. I wonder how much the variance from those claims reflects the FO being surprised by revenue flows and how much reflects them puffing things up as a PR exercise that they knew was at variance with their projections.

[thewupk]

When the stadium was being built, the front office made a number of claims about how this would move the Braves back up to being a top 10 team when it comes to payroll. I wonder how much the variance from those claims reflects the FO being surprised by revenue flows and how much reflects them puffing things up as a PR exercise that they knew was at variance with their projections.

We will have a top 10 payroll in 2020...when comparing it to 2015 payrolls

[Buzzworm]

Just imagine what would have happened if they would have sold to Blank instead of to Liberty.Sigh....

[Enscheff]

When the stadium was being built, the front office made a number of claims about how this would move the Braves back up to being a top 10 team when it comes to payroll. I wonder how much the variance from those claims reflects the FO being surprised by revenue flows and how much reflects them puffing things up as a PR exercise that they knew was at variance with their projections.

According to pozzies, the FO is never wrong. Therefore, they knew being a Top 10 payroll was never going to happen, and just made the claim as a show.

Also according to pozzies, they never really thought the FO meant it when they said "we envision being a Top 10 payroll", so it can't be considered a lie by the infallible FO.

[Horsehide Harry]

When the stadium was being built, the front office made a number of claims about how this would move the Braves back up to being a top 10 team when it comes to payroll. I wonder how much the variance from those claims reflects the FO being surprised by revenue flows and how much reflects them puffing things up as a PR exercise that they knew was at variance with their projections.

I have to believe that the "baseball people" really thought they were going to be given the payroll to be top 10. For me, that's the only way to explain the strategy of a rushed rebuild or reload if you will.

If the Braves had the money to go play in the FA class this year and next then it makes sense to look at a 3 year rebuild window. Otherwise, it was always going to be a 5+ year window to compete again which is at odds with what has been done to this point.

To me, I think the money people MUST have changed the commitment, possibly based on the short term failure to get significantly better, leaving the baseball people lurching for what to do and how to keep their jobs.

[Southcack77]

I have to believe that the "baseball people" really thought they were going to be given the payroll to be top 10. For me, that's the only way to explain the strategy of a rushed rebuild or reload if you will.

If the Braves had the money to go play in the FA class this year and next then it makes sense to look at a 3 year rebuild window. Otherwise, it was always going to be a 5+ year window to compete again which is at odds with what has been done to this point.

To me, I think the money people MUST have changed the commitment, possibly based on the short term failure to get significantly better, leaving the baseball people lurching for what to do and how to keep their jobs.

Why do you think the money people have changed the numbers?

[Horsehide Harry]

Why do you think the money people have changed the numbers?

Do you mean what motivated them to change the numbers?

Nothing but a guess, but I think someone like the Liberty liaison to Braves management told them what the number would likely be and Braves management took that number and built their strategy around it. That's why we got all the public discussion about increasing the payroll, etc. before the new park was finalized. I also believe that Braves management thought the payroll was going up because that is the only way I can see to reconcile the way they went about the rebuild with any kind of winning strategy. I can't see where Braves management would outright lie to the fans of the Braves and the money and votes behind the stadium and then set out to go through a half assed attempt at a rebuild. I think they expected to get payroll flexibility to really address roster shortcomings on a near term basis and that's why they went for the shortened rebuild or "reload."

The question then becomes did someone with Liberty lie to the Braves management? Was there a change in personnel where then new boss wan't the same as the old boss? I don't think it has anything to do with the sagging attendance because the money did not arrive as expected even before 2017 and certainly was a problem when they had to ask permission to add Adams early in the season when the record was unknown and attendance was mostly still in front of them. Now, failing attendance can be used, after the fact, as an excuse to not add payroll. But, I don't think it was the original driver.