It may be simple math, but after reviewing the Greensboro Coliseum's part of the 2005-06 city budget, it is apparent that the loss of the Generals hockey team as a tenant cost the coliseum a few million dollars.
Actual 2003-04 revenue with the Generals: $13.2 million; projected 2004-05 revenue without the Generals: $9 million.
Even with the ACC Tournament scheduled in 2006, income (in 2006) is projected at $9.7 million, so the ACC Tournament's impact on 2003-04 could not be the difference.
The Generals might not have actually made the $4 million difference, but hockey fans were exposed to other coliseum events and activities. Events that appear to have suffered since the end of local hockey because many of those fans are no longer exposed to other coliseum events.
What's $259,000 when you are losing $4 million in coliseum revenue, laying off full-time and part-time employees and decreasing visitors along restaurant row on High Point Road? The city is quickly becoming known as the host to the largest empty coliseum in the country. (I call it an investment in the community.)
Don Moore
Greensboro
Comments (4)
Hi Don I miss going to the games too, but apparently there just aren't enough of us. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Greensboro teams lose money every year? I miss local hockey too but I don't know how to get others interested enough to support a local team. That's the answer there have to be enough people attending to make a hockey team a profitable venture.
Posted by yellowdog | May 25, 2005 8:57 AM
The Monarchs made money. The Generals are reported to have lost money. However, when you look at what is publically available, it is apparent that with the Generals there was an additional $4 Million running through the coliseum's coffers. Who knows where that money went? It didn't go to Art Donaldson; may be the city knows.
Posted by Don Moore | May 25, 2005 7:30 PM
I agree that the Coliseum lost more money without the Generals than it did with them, but I don't believe the $4 million is accurate. There are a number of other significant factors in play here. For example, the Coliseum did not have the Men's ACC Tournament or the Big Ten/ACC Challenge in 2004, both profitable events. Also, very few big name performers have done touring concerts this past year, and that makes a big dent in revenue as well.
The Coliseum's main revenue is "parking and popcorn" (concession sales), so when there are not as many "bodies in the building," income suffers greatly. While Generals attendance was not particulary high, those patrons did provide a steady income stream to the building. Also, corporate advertising, box suite and club seating sales, and sponsorships have been negatively impacted with 35+ fewer events (hockey games) being offered.
The Coliseum's financial department is compiling the actual losses directly attributable to the absence of the Generals this year at my request. I do not know what the final number will be - I "guess-timate" it will be more than the $259,000 figure, but considerably less than $4 million.
Another explanation of that additional $4 million in the budget -- 2006 expenses are going to be considerably higher due to three basketball weekends in a row -- Women's ACC, Men's ACC, and 1st & 2nd Round NCAA Regionals. But then, these events will have offsetting revenues and will actually generate more income than the additional expense.
Posted by Sandy Carmany | May 26, 2005 9:44 AM
.....so what do we do if the figures show that the Generals' presence would have reduced the deficit? Do we say "Sorry guys....please come back."?
.....why couldn't we have figured all this out BEFORE the team went under?
Posted by bubbanear | May 27, 2005 7:35 PM