domi interview

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
I think Domi it summed it up perfectly

"if those two can't build a partnership before september, step aside"

Lots of pro-PA stuff as expected, nothing major though.

Whatever Goodenow does he has already lost the game and the moment the game starts with 55% or whatever linkage, ****loads of players will be asking this question:

"why did we sacrifice $1.5B, a year of hockey and a large percentage of our future earnings to get a deal this bad for us?"

And guess what, Bob, Ted and Trevor can't answer it.

THAT'S the bottom line.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
petrobruin said:
With salaries at 75% of revenue dont you think it was prudent of the owners to raise ticket prices as the gate is the only real source of revenue.

Does common sense go out the window when people drink Bobs kool-aid.

And no ticket prices are very different in alot of nhl cities.

4 tickets in Boston on family night $100 ,4 tickets in Toronto (they dont have family night) $320.

thats pretty close!

:teach:

:banghead:

Not the same ticket prices, city to city, but the same ticket prices before and after the salary cap. Salaries in no way dictate ticket prices. Owners are the stupidest people on earth if they only raised ticket prices as salaries increased.

Owners set prices to maximize revenue. Simple economics 101. Talk all you want about players gouging the fans, but those same 4 tickets in Toronto will still cost $320, even after a salary cap makes the Leafs cut their budget in half.

Speaking of kool-aid, this is pure Bettman BS, trying to lump salaries and ticket prices in the "too high" category, getting confused people like you to believe that ticket prices are only high because salaries are high, and they will both drop together. Not even Bettman believes this any more, he has even (reluctantly) admitted that a salary cap does not mean lower ticket prices.
 

Morbo

The Annihilator
Jan 14, 2003
27,100
5,734
Toronto
We'll see exactly what the relationship is when prices don't go down a cent after the cap is put in place.
 

petrobruin

Registered User
Mar 19, 2002
683
28
London Ont.
Visit site
Not Once

gc2005 said:
:banghead:

Not the same ticket prices, city to city, but the same ticket prices before and after the salary cap. Salaries in no way dictate ticket prices. Owners are the stupidest people on earth if they only raised ticket prices as salaries increased.

Owners set prices to maximize revenue. Simple economics 101. Talk all you want about players gouging the fans, but those same 4 tickets in Toronto will still cost $320, even after a salary cap makes the Leafs cut their budget in half.

Speaking of kool-aid, this is pure Bettman BS, trying to lump salaries and ticket prices in the "too high" category, getting confused people like you to believe that ticket prices are only high because salaries are high, and they will both drop together. Not even Bettman believes this any more, he has even (reluctantly) admitted that a salary cap does not mean lower ticket prices.

DID i say that ticket prices will fall no !.You are correct ,and when they cannot cover costs of the product they raise ticket prices the biggest form income to cover revenue.

Look at it like the players are the car and the worker combined.

If the car cost less than what they pay the workers to build the car than the price of the car has to go up .

Economics 101 :teach:
 

WHARF1940

Registered User
Jan 2, 2005
832
0
down in a hole
Listen, if some of these small market teams had half a brain, they'd lower tix to get more money from parking and concessions when more people show up, which is where the big money comes in when owning a sports franchise. Ticket price levels are only partly because of salaries (and remember, the owners and the agents got those salaries so high, both sides are to blame for that) and partly because we dumb schmos keep paying them. 4 Tix in TO only cost $320 because the maple leafs can get it....demand. The problem is, that most other places can't, and have to lower their prices to fill their building. This is the revenue share argument. Get the money where they can (i.e. don't lower TO's tix prices just b/c they'll be making more profit after the cap, rather let the extra dollars benefit the whole league...just like any other franchise based business!!) I agree with everyone having similar payroll so that there is more parity in the league, but they HAVE to make revenue a centrally controlled aspect of the business, IMO...
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
petrobruin said:
With salaries at 75% of revenue dont you think it was prudent of the owners to raise ticket prices as the gate is the only real source of revenue.

Does common sense go out the window when people drink Bobs kool-aid.

And no ticket prices are very different in alot of nhl cities.

4 tickets in Boston on family night $100 ,4 tickets in Toronto (they dont have family night) $320.

thats pretty close!

:teach:


How does this relate to what you were talking about. You said the players were "bleeding the fans".. I said they weren't the ones raising prices and you come back with this tripe. If anyone is drinking something it certainly isnt me.. you just keep spouting the rhetoric of tiny tim and his band of ragged billionaires. Even though you never actually state that prices will go down, you certainly imply it and if you don't think that they will, then how in the hell can you still say that the players are "bleeding the fans"?
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
gc2005 said:
:banghead:

Not the same ticket prices, city to city, but the same ticket prices before and after the salary cap. Salaries in no way dictate ticket prices. Owners are the stupidest people on earth if they only raised ticket prices as salaries increased.

Owners set prices to maximize revenue. Simple economics 101. Talk all you want about players gouging the fans, but those same 4 tickets in Toronto will still cost $320, even after a salary cap makes the Leafs cut their budget in half.

Speaking of kool-aid, this is pure Bettman BS, trying to lump salaries and ticket prices in the "too high" category, getting confused people like you to believe that ticket prices are only high because salaries are high, and they will both drop together. Not even Bettman believes this any more, he has even (reluctantly) admitted that a salary cap does not mean lower ticket prices.

Owner set ticket prices to maximize revenues which means that if they can get more revenue by decreasing ticket prices and getting more fans in the building then they will. People who say that ticket prices won't go down don't take that into consideration.

Having a system where costs were constantly increasing made that sort of thing far more difficult but with a cap it will easier for the owners to do that.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
shakes said:
How does this relate to what you were talking about. You said the players were "bleeding the fans".. I said they weren't the ones raising prices and you come back with this tripe. If anyone is drinking something it certainly isnt me.. you just keep spouting the rhetoric of tiny tim and his band of ragged billionaires. Even though you never actually state that prices will go down, you certainly imply it and if you don't think that they will, then how in the hell can you still say that the players are "bleeding the fans"?

The players didn't want a cap on their salaries which means they didn't want a cap on ticket prices, the extra money has to come from somewhere, right?
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
mooseOAK said:
Owner set ticket prices to maximize revenues which means that if they can get more revenue by decreasing ticket prices and getting more fans in the building then they will. People who say that ticket prices won't go down don't take that into consideration.

Having a system where costs were constantly increasing made that sort of thing far more difficult but with a cap it will easier for the owners to do that.
Rising costs didn't make maximizing revenue any more difficult. A smart business owner maximizes revenue independent of product cost. If an NHL owner failed to do this, it wasn't due to the salary environment. It was due to his own lack of business acumen.

The owners could have players salaries at 60% of revenues, 54% of revenues or 10% of revenues. Ticket prices would be the same in every case.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
mooseOAK said:
The players didn't want a cap on their salaries which means they didn't want a cap on ticket prices, the extra money has to come from somewhere, right?
Well the players have accepted a salary cap. Do you think the owners will accept a ticket price cap?
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Weary said:
Well the players have accepted a salary cap. Do you think the owners will accept a ticket price cap?
There already is one, the maximum amount that fans will pay and that has already been reached.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
Weary said:
Rising costs didn't make maximizing revenue any more difficult. A smart business owner maximizes revenue independent of product cost. If an NHL owner failed to do this, it wasn't due to the salary environment. It was due to his own lack of business acumen.

The owners could have players salaries at 60% of revenues, 54% of revenues or 10% of revenues. Ticket prices would be the same in every case.
That is the problem, revenues have been maximized, there are no other ways to get more money. That is why a salary cap is required.
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
chiavsfan said:
Come on Thunderstruck, you know it's all Gary's fault because he is an NBA guy. Remeber?

PA argument number:
1) Gary Bettman is an NBA guy
2) Owners are hiding money even though we wont look at the books
bettman may be a former nba exec but goodenow is donald fehr's lap puppy and he is probably angling for fehr's job once he calls it quits. DO NOT underestimate the influence donald fehr has had on these negotiations!! (I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK AFTER THIS IS ALL SAID AND DONE)
 

snakepliskin

Registered User
Jan 27, 2005
1,910
22
Wilmington NC
mooseOAK said:
The players didn't want a cap on their salaries which means they didn't want a cap on ticket prices, the extra money has to come from somewhere, right?
Well it sure is'nt going to come from the tv networks!
 

not quite yoda

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
3,688
127
Visit site
What's sad about this is that this came from Domi. And Domi has almost zero power in all of this. He needs to either sway many many players to his position or convince player reps with the PA. Guys like Dagenais and Esche were also pissed off once upon a time and look where that got us. Big guns need to wake up. Big guns need to take the NHL out of the lawyers' hands.
 

Scoogs

Registered User
Jan 31, 2005
18,389
93
Toronto, Ontario
I really dont think the NHLPA is going to listen to the vets that are probably going to retire. If any group of players is going to make a difference, its going to be the young stars of tomorrow. Both sides will listen to anything they say.
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
R0CKET said:
You can make it as big of an issue as you want, but that doesn't change the reality that it is a fact that the PA chose not to look at the NHL's books.

Stop acting like an Oliver Stone groupie who sees a conspiracy behind every corner and start dealing with facts.

i think what gets lost in this is that it originally never was about "hiding money" so to say... go back to the levitt report and the comments that ensued, and what everyone was complaining about was the *definition* of hockey revenues. Somewhere along the way some people distorted the message and started saying that owners are hiding money. If a clear definition of hockey revenues is made, a team won't be able to hide their money if the PA & NHL jointly hire an independent group to verify the teams numbers at the end of every year
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->