Subject: Stadium Build Ratios?

I still disagree with you. In my opinion seats are still the best possible option. Want to expand your stadium but you don't want to invest in roofs? Expand your seats along the line. When you have more money you can start with the stands behind the goal.

okay, you are right, there is no general rule, it all depends on what you can afford:

i think at the very beginning its best not to invest in your stadion at all. when the number of your supporters starts growing, you should start expanding your stadion continously

- it makes sense to build seats along the line, but as long as the numbers of supporters is raising fast, its better to build anything at all than to wait until you can afford seats. the important thing is that you sell as many tickets as possible. don´t bother if you earn only a little with a single ticket, no problem, you did not have to invest much.

as soon as you can afford it, its best to start building seats along the line because of the better income.... you can also upgrade your terraces to benches or seats. and if you can afford roofs or even an all seats, all roofed stadion and you are still able to expand in time, than its certainly best to do so.
(edited)

I would tend to disagree with Luut on one point and that's assuming your stadium has no roof.
The ticket price behind the goal for a seat or a bench is the same whereas the building cost for seats or benches is not the same. So based on this (no roof option) I would consider benches behind the goal more adequate than seats.

Figures for demand for each ticket type
• Standing 7%
• Terraces 29%
• Benches 38%
• Seats 26%

These figures state the % of fans that will want each seat type. The highest demand is for seats, which means that they are more likely to fill than the rest of the ticket types

according to your number the highest demand is for benches not seats... can correct or confirm this?

Yes luuut you are right too, infect my ground i am going to build it along line with seats , corners and after goel beanches ;)

The ticket price behind the goal for a seat or a bench is the same whereas the building cost for seats or benches is not the same. So based on this (no roof option) I would consider benches behind the goal more adequate than seats.

It may be cheaper to build benches but it also costs money to remove them when you do finally upgrade to seats under cover and you dont get the money back from the benches either.
IMO, the best option is to work on the 2 stands along the lines(building seats) until you can afford to build smallish stands of seats under cover behind the goals(2000 seats under cover will cost around 400k euros).

If I could start over again, I would not build the benches that I have done with my stadium. Another point to make is under cover stands brings in more spectators than stands with no roof.

Of course, this is just my opinion and i'm sure others will disagree and have their own method for building up a stadium correctly.

Figures for demand for each ticket type
• Standing 7%
• Terraces 29%
• Benches 38%
• Seats 26%

These figures state the % of fans that will want each seat type. The highest demand is for seats, which means that they are more likely to fill than the rest of the ticket types

according to your number the highest demand is for benches not seats... can correct or confirm this


I conferm that because this persantages is only for new commers on sokker to no spend too much money, But i know when users come more friendly with this game start use another build along line with seats , corners and after goel beanches
(edited)

it's good enough for me the numbers are confirmed...

You're probably right in the long term...

I'm looking at the A-League at the moment and only one guy (bot now) has a one stand with a roof.
I mean for us the weather is good, 24 games played so far only one game had showers so I wouldnt say the weather has a great effect in our case (rules says fan base, mood and weather affects crowd).

I do think for the vast majority of us that havent heaps of money the best value for money when you start is to have seats along the line and benches behind the goal. I'm have a team in Div III, if roof arent justify in the top division of my country you should see where I come from...

Supporters select the cheapest stand from the ones that suit them. However, a spectator is likely to buy a ticket for a stand with a higher cost, if their preferred seat is sold out.

Surely the "likely" means that not every fan who wants a standing ticket or a terrace ticket will buy a seat. This whole argument really hinges on what percentage of fans that want a lower ticket actually will upgrade their ticket if their preferred ticket is sold out.

I've just done some quick number crunching under the assumption that the 7% / 29% / 38% / 26% ratios for ticket demand that have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread are accurate.

To simplify things I've used along the line, no roof ticket prices. (So no this isn't exact but it illustrates the point)

Standing -> 3,20
Terraces -> 6.40
Benches -> 10.00
Seats (under roof along line) -> 14.00
(Note: I'm using Australian dollars if these numbers aren't familiar to you)
(Note2: regardless of type maintenance is 1.20 per seat)

Depending on what percentage of fans desiring a lower ticket will upgrade determines the most profitable stadium build.

As a nice round number assume 10000 fans want to turn up to the game, so:
700 fans want a standing ticket
2900 want a terrace
3800 want a bench
2600 want a seat.


Note, that I'm only looking at the extremes here so:
Max standing, Min terraces, Min benches, Min seats
No Standing, Max terraces, Min benches, Min seats
No Standing, No terraces, Max benches, Min seats
No Standing, No terraces, No benches, Max seats


If we say that 51% of fans will upgrade to the next higher seat. (and in turn 51% of those upgrading would upgrade again)


Build ratios (stand, terrace, bench, seat) to stadium profit (actual attendance)
7% 29% 38% 26% -> $83,200 (10,000)
0% 32.57% 38% 26% -> $83,656 (9,657) (by removing all standing we maximise the demand for terraces)
0% 0% 54.61% 26% -> $81,337 (8,061) (by removing all terraces as well we maximise demand for benches)
0% 0% 0% 53.85% -> $68,930 (5,385) (by removing all benches as well, we maximise demand for seats)

(maxing terraces more effective than maxing benches or seats)


If 59% of fans upgrade

7% 29% 38% 26% -> $83,200 (10,000)
0% 33.13% 38% 26% -> $83,948 (9,713)
0% 0% 57.55% 26% -> $83,921 (8,355)
0% 0% 0% 59.95% -> $76,739 (5,995)

(Maxing either terraces or benches provides the best return)


if 68% of fans upgrade

7% 29% 38% 26% -> $83,200 (10,000)
0% 33.76% 38% 26% -> $84,275 (9,776)
0% 0% 60.96% 26% -> $86,922 (8,696)
0% 0% 0% 67.45% -> $86,377 (6,745)

(Maxing benches provides the best return)

If 69% or more fans upgrade then maxing seats is best.


Now there are a lot of assumptions above, but if anyone has managed to slog through it all I think its clear that the "likelihood of fan upgrading their ticket" is the determining factor on how you should build your stadium.

P.S. Yes I realise I haven't covered the advantage that a roof provides as far as protecting you from the weather as well, but neither have I included the prices of actually building the different types of seats.

Edit: The numbers have now been edited to include seat maintenance costs

Conclusion

51-59% Upgrade -> Max Terraces
60-68% Upgrade -> Max Benches
69%+ Upgrade -> Max Seats

Depending on the exact % a combination approach may indeed be better than maxing a particular seat type.
(edited)

:O this is very interesting - so if you can afford to build seats, its still not guaranteed that you make the best profit - it all depends on the percentage of visitors, who would upgrade their tickets.

since you are using A$ i cant see if you calculate using the netto-income of every seat (ticketpriece minus 0,75 € costs of each place) if you forgot about this, terraces would lose nearly a 1/4 of their income.

the problem is that its hard do say how many visitors actually do upgrade their tickets, so building the perfect stadion is still a puzzle. the only method i can think of is if someone decides to quit - he could rebuild his stadion to check.

rats..
(edited)

very good study...
I think we'll clear some asumptions in the future and come back to this study with more tools.
Very good start!

Very good point... updates to follow.

The actual $ amounts aren't really relevant to the point anyway. The whole situation is completely contrived to try and illustrate that stadium costruction is dependant on the proportion of fans that will upgrade their ticket.

It is also dependant on few other factors such as fan base, fan mood and weather.

The A-League and I will publish it later this week only fill on average their stadium at 80% of their total capacity so far this season, I mean your are the only exception since your stadium is too small.

In my opinion you need to look at the bigger picture, I agree with what you are saying but you need to consider the 7 other teams of your league in term of what they bring to you during your home game. Your stadium needs to be design around your league taking into account all parameters.

once I get an accurate predicting attendance model we'll be able to take this a step further if you want...