Economists question Bettmans math

[PhillyNucksFan]

Well, I guess in that respect it is. You're saying there's no owner so there's really no curve to talk about being elastic or inelastic ... right ?

And joechip is one of those economic nerdytypes I was referring to when I mentioned Keynesian vs Hayakism. Personally I think they are both valid methods depending on the state of the economy. Keynesian methodologies may not be the flava of the month anymore but some of the 3rd world nations need the forced stability in their economy. Especially with globalization.

Too much thinking, playstation time.

Pretty much, regardless of yes or no owner, since one of the main reasons why i say, from a third person side, the deman is inelastic as in the numbers of people who are hiring vs the numbers of people who are looking to be hired. I am not talking about the demand as per product, which your theory would be true that, if a certain player (sakic) drops to 1M/year, demand for him increases. Im not saying that. I am only looking at the Aggregate Demand vs Aggregate Supply, AD vs AS in general. There are only 30 owners, fixed, period, regaradless how supplys change. If this is true, then the owners must be inelastic because there is no response to the supply from owners.

 

[joechip]

The players league is the worst thing I've heard of. While the players that will get spots on the 6-8 teams of the league will be happy, all the other players that are left behind will want nothing to do with it and will be willing to sign whatever the NHL offers them.

In other words, this would split the players and be the end of the union.

No, it's competition for the NHL and your dollars, and competition means that they will have to put a superior product on the ice for you and I to watch. this is a healthy process that puts the game of hockey back into the hands of those who pay to watch. That's all that matters. The Union is irrelevant. The NHL is irrelevant. Good hockey is all that should matter.

The institution of the NHL, the image, the history thereof may be part of the problem here, for all parties: the fans, the owners, the players.

Ta,

 

[PecaFan]

I thought the article was a little weak and somewhat shallow.

I think the reasons Bettman provided for why the deal didn't get done made sense to me. More than the article.

Yup. The article was totally shallow, and once again, as most analysts have done, simply only looked at the dollar figures.

They're only *part* of the offers, folks. You must examine the offer in it's entirety. The PA and the NHL offer were substantially different, the PA didn't just change the number in the owner's offer, and re-submit it.

Could these other points have been negotiated? It's hard to say. As much as we say "oh, those other things could have been dealt with", in reality both sides had huge trouble all along with this.

 

[joechip]

Well, I guess in that respect it is. You're saying there's no owner so there's really no curve to talk about being elastic or inelastic ... right ?

And joechip is one of those economic nerdytypes I was referring to when I mentioned Keynesian vs Hayakism. Personally I think they are both valid methods depending on the state of the economy. Keynesian methodologies may not be the flava of the month anymore but some of the 3rd world nations need the forced stability in their economy. Especially with globalization.

Too much thinking, playstation time.

First off, it's Hayek. Secondly, he didn't create the idea, free-market capitalism just exists (see Law of Supply and Demand) , much like Gravity, just exists. Keynes is very much still the 'flava of the month' as Lyndon Baines Bush keeps deficit spending to 'pump prime' the economy while creating a New World Order. The 3rd world doesn't need our help, that's what has kept them there for quite a long time.

In the end, I guess some of us need to do the thinking for the rest of us. We nerdy-types have to serve some purpose in the division of labor.

Then again, I'll be playing WoW tonight, need to get my Druid to 40th level and Dire Bear!

Ta,

 

[mr gib]

Bettman was the only one trying for a deal

through all if this i come to the conclusion that hockey fans may be the most ignorant bunch on the planet - bettman didn't want a deal - they are gonna break the union and bring in replacements - for crying out loud open your eyes

 

[SuperUnknown]

No, it's competition for the NHL and your dollars, and competition means that they will have to put a superior product on the ice for you and I to watch. this is a healthy process that puts the game of hockey back into the hands of those who pay to watch. That's all that matters. The Union is irrelevant. The NHL is irrelevant. Good hockey is all that should matter.

The institution of the NHL, the image, the history thereof may be part of the problem here, for all parties: the fans, the owners, the players.

Ta,

First, they'd have to play in a limited number of cities, and not in the best arenas. A 6-8 team league will not compete with a 30 teams league.

Good hockey is only part of the equation. Branding and availability is another. Also, who says the best players would all play in a 6-8 team league, especially since that league will probably not be able to compete with the NHL for salaries?

 

[ATLANTARANGER*]

You want to grow the sport?

Bettman wanted a deal, a deal where they wouldnt lose money every year and where they could grow the sport.

Its the grow the sport part that people cant understand, and why most economic evaluations dont take into account.....the payrolls of the teams have to be close!


Unfortuneately, the players wanted to grow their salaries more then play so there wasnt going to be any deal.

So yes, Bettman was the only one looking for a deal.

Why do you put teams in markets where hockey has no history, no fan base and where marketing surveys in those areas showed that when people were asked what they thought about hockey, the common answer was:
great, I use to do it all the time in school. Anytime I felt like a day off I played hookey from school!

Bettman has no idea what hockey is, other than that the sport uses the thing he puts in a drink!

 

[joechip]

First, they'd have to play in a limited number of cities, and not in the best arenas. A 6-8 team league will not compete with a 30 teams league.

Good hockey is only part of the equation. Branding and availability is another. Also, who says the best players would all play in a 6-8 team league, especially since that league will probably not be able to compete with the NHL for salaries?

I'm not arguing the speicifics of a Player league, Smail, just that there would be an opportunity for someone to produce a product that could compete with the NHL, and that this may be something the market will bear. If it does, we win. If it doesn't, we might still win, especially if the player's come to understand just what the risks are and how difficult it is to make a league work. The failing they may come to realize just what they had and be grateful for it.

Conversely, if they succeed the NHL will have to grapple iwth why they are losing fans to a rival league (*Cough* the WHA *Cough* Gretsky *Cough* Hull *Cough*) and adapt their product to suit the fans' tastes.

I don't presume to know anything about how this theoretical league would function, I'm not the one proposing it. All I can do is tell you that it's not a bad idea in specifcation/theory.

Ta,

 

[AM]

ahhhhhhh......

Why do you put teams in markets where hockey has no history, no fan base and where marketing surveys in those areas showed that when people were asked what they thought about hockey, the common answer was:
great, I use to do it all the time in school. Anytime I felt like a day off I played hookey from school!

Bettman has no idea what hockey is, other than that the sport uses the thing he puts in a drink!

To make money and grow the sport!