Brett Parker : Well, we’re spending in the neighborhood of $3 million to $4 million a year to develop and maintain this product. We developed it entirely in house so we own it, we own all the data like think that’s key. The main point of Money Ball from our perspective is to increase the number of games bowled per visit, so increased length of stay, and also increased frequency. And the product will really have two basic iterations. One is a full money version where we’re going to give you a series of challenges, and you can put up money against those and when actual money. The other is a free version where you have no money at risk. And you can win things like free game coupons, free food, discounts on food, et cetera. The point of both of those versions is identical to increase the number of games both per visit and to increase frequency of visitation.
Now, if you think about it, the average bowler comes in and boasts about 2.2 games per visit. And let’s just say that the average game we charged the average game rate is about $8. If you can increase that number of games bowled by one game per visit, right, which is the whole system is geared towards incentivizing you to do that will generate another $8 of bowling revenue per guest visit which drops at 100% margin. So the potential revenue increase from this product is enormous. And it’s basically all margin less the $3 million to $4 million of ongoing maintenance and improvement costs that we’re spending. The goal is not for the — in the money version, the goal is not for the house to make money. Although it could by offering odds, the house could be the counterparty, we could actually make money and adjust the odds up or down to have a hold so to speak.
That’s not the goal, the goal is to return basically all of the money to the player and in some cases, more than all the money they’ve put at risk. And the reason is because we have so much opportunity in increased revenue per visit, at high margin that we could give back up to the $8 that we’re getting for the incremental game bowled per visit and still be ahead economically. And so, it gives us a tremendous tool to sort of dial up or down what the incentive is to spur that increased pay per visit, and then to induce people to come back and bowl more.
Stefanos Crist : That’s great color. Thank you so much. If I can just squeeze in one more, you purchased, I think 400,000 or 500,000 shares during the quarter. Can you just talk about the decision that goes into that versus acquiring more centers or ramping up convergence?
Brett Parker : Well, we’re not capital constrained. So we sort of do all of it. We buyback opportunistically and we acquire every center or sign every lease that meets our hurdle rate. Hurdle rate being about 25% compounded over five years, with the terminal value factored in. So we started out the fiscal year with a significant cash balance. As you know, we generate prodigious amounts of cash flow and at the same time, we’re renovating centers. So we’re not capital constrained and we sort of are in a very virtuous position where all of these are very high IRR opportunities. And thus far, we haven’t had to pick and choose, we’ve just done all of them.
Stefanos Crist : Right, thanks so much.
Brett Parker : Sure thanks.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from Eric Handler with MKM Partners. Please proceed with your question.
Eric Handler : Good afternoon, and thanks for the question. Tom, I wonder if we could sort of revisit the group events segment from last year second quarter. Obviously, Omicron caused a lot of cancellations in those corporate events in the quarter. Can you go back and I vaguely remember you saying what the impact was last year on this. But let’s say whatever that number is, if we take that number and add it to the $40 million from group events that — that was your actual number from last year’s 2Q. Is that a good starting point to think about for group events in this year’s 2Q?
Thomas Shannon: It seems reasonable. I mean, we’re trending higher than that now. So I think you can use that as a baseline. But in Brett, we didn’t publish this number, but can we talk about what we did in Q4 on a cost basis and events?
Brett Parker : Through Q3.
Thomas Shannon: Okay, I don’t have that number handy.
Brett Parker : So through Q3, Eric our net revenue, or through Q1, sorry, was up 90% versus prior year, and 69% to pre-pandemic. So the momentum is really strong, it goes far beyond sort of getting back hold, which I think is the starting point that you were describing, where the trends are meaningfully more positive than that. For a number of reasons. But they’re — I think that’s probably a good place to start your equation is looking at the trends in the year-to-date, because there’s really nothing better to point to. And it’s the most up to date that, the momentum in that part of the business in particular is extremely strong. But we’re not seeing I think, what’s equally important, and this is directly in response to your question.
But we’re not — it’s not as if we’re seeing some replacement. So in the quarter, we saw events 69% versus pre-pandemic, as I said. We’re also seeing retail up 69% and league up 19%. So we’re doing better across all lines of business. It’s not just that and there isn’t any replacement that’s happening.
Eric Handler : Right, okay. That is helpful. And then with regards to your leagues and tournaments. Obviously, you just said you got like 19% growth, pre-pandemic. Just looking at the trendline sequentially in the fourth quarter, it was $21 million, which I think is a shoulder period for leagues. But last year, in the second and third quarter, you were like at $26 million $28 million. Like, how do I think about the seasonality of leagues? And in terms of, let’s say, signups, how is that tracking on a year-over-year basis?
