Gary Bettman's contradictory statement

[Polydorus]

Wait a minute, how about different caps for different teams, tied to their respective revenues?

Revenue sharing would solve that problem nicely.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Wait a minute, how about different caps for different teams, tied to their respective revenues?

As crazy as you may think that sounds it really isn't that bad an idea. Different markets have different costs of living. If you are transfered by the company you work for they normally give you a cost of living adjustment to reflect the change in the market you are going in to. If the NHLPA were willing to work with in that framework (which they would not btw) I'm sure something could be worked out. That would protect all teams when they make trades and when they try to sign players.

As an example, a player who is working in New York and being paid $3 million a season would only have to make $1.78 million in Phoenix to have similar spending power. That decreases to $1.6 million in St. Louis (I guess that makes Chris Pronger's $10 million per even more gaudy than most realize). If the players want to get tied to real world economics (which they don't) I'm sure something could be worked out quite easily.

 

[dawgbone]

#1Who's McCarthy?

He meant McCarty... don't be ignorant, it makes you look petty.

#2 Maltby makes less than $2 million.

$1.925 mil... thanks again.

If the league took the 24% rollback, only Draper would be over $2 million, at 2.1.

Great... so you essentially reset the contracts back to 2000. What will prevent Detroit from going back and bumping Draper back up? Nothing, and it effects 29 other teams.

And no, ticket prices in Detroit have no influence on Colorado's ticket prices. They are set where they are to maximize revenues. If Detroit is paying $30 more per ticket, Colorado isn't necessarily going to bump their price up $30... why would they? They aren't catering to the Detroit market, they are catering to thier own.

 

[dawgbone]

That disputes my claim that it applies to UFAs how? Draper and Maltby were signed to these high contracts because of their impending UFA status. Which in the case of Draper wasn't such a bad investment, since a comparable UFA checker Marchant got 4mil/year from Columbus. Again, they were (or at least very close to) UFAs when signing these contracts, so you have to find another reason to disagree.

Marchant got $3mil/year from the Jackets.

 

[dawgbone]

The statements may or may not contradict, but the driving force behind the two caps would be the same. The league wants cost certainty (read: discount) and the consumers want cost certainty (read:discount).

Another thing that could be considered contradictory, is that different markets are being considered when it comes to getting the maximum revenue (read: squeeze the fans). But when it comes to paying salaries from those revenues, suddenly all the markets become the same. Wait a minute, how about different caps for different teams, tied to their respective revenues?

The league wants cost certainty, and is doing something about it.

If the fans in Toronto wanted cost certainty, or lower ticket prices, they aren't doing a damn thing about it. If you want lower ticket prices, don't go to the game.

Basic logic folks.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Don't participate then. With you posting that kind of post helped you get more post ? Just ignore it if you're annoyed by it.

EXCUSE ME! Kaiped Krusader is one of the FEW who has posts that are consistently thoughtful, intelligent, and stimulate discussion. That is more than I can say for you who posted a lot of crap when Russia beat Canada for the gold in the WJC 2 years ago and I have paid no attention to since. I encourage KK to keep postiong whatever (s)he feels like because more often than not it adds greatly to the conversation.

I'd love to compare the average sales price per ticket for the Leafs or the Rangers, and compare it to a "new" franchise.

This is really the heart of the CBA battle. Certain teams have revenue streams that are MUCH greater than other teams. This can be due to several factors, but one of the major factors is what the local market will bear for tickets.

People have ripped on the Rangers and Leafs for some big contracts. I think this is wrong because these teams business model supports contracts at this level. I think it's much worse when PHO signs Brian Savage to a 4 year $14M contract, because that contract is KILLING the franchise. If the Leafs bomb on a contract (Anders Erikson for example), they pay him $1.5M to play in the minors and don't miss a beat. A team like the Penguins gave Kovalev away because the Rangers agreed to pick up some other dog contracts (Wilson, Laukanen) that the Pen's couldn't afford.

Every non-UFA contract sets a new precedent in the NHL, regardless of who signs it, so the biggest mistake sets the salary bar. Then factor in that players have greater leverage (see below) when holding out in most cases, and salary creep is inevitable.

I say that players have the leverage because if a team struggles with a major player holding out, a team can fail to make the play-off's with major economic impact. If a player holds out long enough, he gets traded, and the team that trades for him almost always thinks he's worth what he's asking for, so he the player then gets what he wants.

Look at Mironov for the Hawks from 5 years ago. They trade 3 good young players for a guy they think will be their #1 d-man. BoBo holds out for a crazy amount of money, and the Hawks REALLY struggle coming out of the gate. They feel they won't make the P/O's unless they turn it around in a hurry, so they sign BoBo to what he wants. Then to add insult to injury he backloads the contract so the QO after his contract expires is on a much higher base amount. Other example is Peca. Sabres hold the line, but Mad Mike will pay Peca the $4MM he's looking for, so MP gets what he wants in the end.

Excelletn analysis. The NHL is in trouble because teams tried to compete when they were incapable of doing so. Toronto has a high salary; they have the highest ticket prices; they have been sold out for every game since before the Stone ages; they are living within their means. Another team doing so is the Minnesota Wild, but on a different scale. They have been quite successful being in the lower end of the team salary list; they have very reasonable tickets; they have a building that is full most if not all nights.

The problemi isn't the Leafs, The Rangers, the Wild, or some others. It is those who hand out ridiculous contracts and cannot afford them.

 

[dawgbone]

They increase or decrease based on thier individal market on a micro level. The big teams are all within a certain range, and those teams can have an impact at the macro level. Demand won't go down much if prices are increased 10-15% in order to stay competitive with another team that has just increased their tickets 10-15%.

So as long as teams are winning, or drawing a lot of people (aka, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, etc...), their ticket prices are within 10-15% of each other...

And you think that means they set their prices based on each other?

If Colorado has a team like Pittsburgh, can they fill the arena on the ticket prices a 1st place Detroit team has?

Nope.

Ticket prices are based on how many people want to see your team. You set them at a point where you maximize revenue. What Detroit charges has no bearing on what you charge.

Detroit has no bearing on what Toronto charges either. It cost me less money to go to Detroit to go to a game (including driving and staying in a hotel), than it did for me to go to a game in Toronto, and I live 25 minutes away from the ACC.

In other words, Denver is a wealthier market per capita than Detroit. If the overall ticket price max was set on a market by market basis, Colorado's tickets would be much higher than Detroit's. So why aren't they?

Basic common sense. Metro Detroit is over 4.5 million people. Metro Denver is 2.5 million. Per capita is a nice number, but it doesn't really tell any kind of a full story, especially with a 2 million person differential in population.

 

[ceber]

Another team doing so is the Minnesota Wild, but on a different scale. They have been quite successful being in the lower end of the team salary list; they have very reasonable tickets; they have a building that is full most if not all nights.

TMR's Fan Cost Index places the Wild in the top third of the league when it comes to ticket prices. I'm afraid to see what happens in the future.

 

[shveik]

The league wants cost certainty, and is doing something about it.

If the fans in Toronto wanted cost certainty, or lower ticket prices, they aren't doing a damn thing about it. If you want lower ticket prices, don't go to the game.

Basic logic folks.

Just because the league is doing something about what it wants, and is not doing something that fans want, doesn't make fans wishes invalid. Unrealistic, maybe, but not invalid. Plus, it looks like the fans doing something now: asking.

 

[shveik]

Marchant got $3mil/year from the Jackets.

Does it change anything about what I said?

 

[shveik]

Ticket prices are based on how many people want to see your team. You set them at a point where you maximize revenue. What Detroit charges has no bearing on what you charge.

Detroit has no bearing on what Toronto charges either. It cost me less money to go to Detroit to go to a game (including driving and staying in a hotel), than it did for me to go to a game in Toronto, and I live 25 minutes away from the ACC.

You'll get no argument from me on this. Different teams operate in different markets so they charge what they can to maximize their revenue. Quite simple.

But RFAs are just as bound to their own team as the fans are.

 

[mackdogs*]

Does it change anything about what I said?

No but us Oilers fans are sensitive about the Marchant topic. I'm sure he just corrected you so you don't make the mistake again going forward. And IMO $1 mil/year is not nominal, so it deserves correcting.

 

[London Knights]

The reason ticket prices won't be capped is because that limits revenue. Gary Bettman isn't out to limit the NHL's revenue, although the way the league has been run over his tenure that is debatable, but he is out to limit the players revenue.

Just like Bob Goodenow is the representative of the players, Gary is the representative of the owners. His best interest is the bottom line of the owners. He isn't doing anything "for the fans" and if you believe it when he says that then I feel sorry for you because you are in for a big letdown.

This whole lockout is about one thing, and that is money. If you limit how much Toronto can make that doesn't improve the financial state of the game. If you make bad teams with no market average teams with a slightly smaller market, but them cut 10 million off how much money Toronto makes every year that means you have to hope that other teams make that money up and more to improve the state of the game. It isn't something Gary is willing to do.

It's unfortunate that the fans aren't going to benefit from the lockout, unless you are a fan of a team that spends below 30 million, but that is the reality of the situation.

Personally I'm more impressed with how Gary was able to keep a straight face during the press conference following the NHLPA rejecting their proposal. For 3 months he shoved down our face how the last NHLPA proposal was worse than their last one. And then Gary and the NHL did the exact same thing just this last week when time is running out. Both Bob and Gary are incredibly inept.

 

[mackdogs*]

Just like Bob Goodenow is the representative of the players, Gary is the representative of the owners. His best interest is the bottom line of the owners. He isn't doing anything "for the fans" and if you believe it when he says that then I feel sorry for you because you are in for a big letdown.

Gotta disagree here. As a crazed fan of my beloved Edmonton Oilers, we need a new CBA or we will lose our team entirely. A couple more years of the current CBA would have meant Edmonton would either have to fold or move to the highest seller.

So actually Gary is doing something "for the fans". It's just more for the fans of smaller market teams since fans of the big spenders don't want to lose their unfair advantage.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

TMR's Fan Cost Index places the Wild in the top third of the league when it comes to ticket prices. I'm afraid to see what happens in the future.

I went to a Wild/Leafs game in St Paul last year. I found the ticket prices to be very fair, actually quite a bargain compared to the ACC Leafs ticket prices. The building and game experience at the Xcel are probably the best value for the dollar. I am more likely to go to a game in St Paul than I am Toronto or any other location now that I have been to the Xcel.

Do you have a link for this TMR fan cost index? I would like to have a peak at it.

 

[ceber]

I went to a Wild/Leafs game in St Paul last year. I found the ticket prices to be very fair, actually quite a bargain compared to the ACC Leafs ticket prices. The building and game experience at the Xcel are probably the best value for the dollar. I am more likely to go to a game in St Paul than I am Toronto or any other location now that I have been to the Xcel.

Do you have a link for this TMR fan cost index? I would like to have a peak at it.

Sure thing: http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm

I have no opinion concerning the accuracy of their data. Buyer beware, I suppose.

Glad you enjoyed the game here. That was one of the few I missed, unfortunately. I heard from others it was one of the better ones for us last season.

 

[txomisc]

They increase or decrease based on thier individal market on a micro level. The big teams are all within a certain range, and those teams can have an impact at the macro level. Demand won't go down much if prices are increased 10-15% in order to stay competitive with another team that has just increased their tickets 10-15%.

In other words, Denver is a wealthier market per capita than Detroit. If the overall ticket price max was set on a market by market basis, Colorado's tickets would be much higher than Detroit's. So why aren't they?

because ticket prices arent based soley on per person income. This is where demand comes in. Your name says it all, Hockeytown. There are simply more rabid detroit hockey fans than there are colorado fans. Obviously more fans = more demand to get tickets = higher ticket prices

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Glad you enjoyed the game here. That was one of the few I missed, unfortunately. I heard from others it was one of the better ones for us last season.

Thanks for the link.

I really enjoyed the game. They have a great crowd in St Paul. It an awesome arena for hockey. I wondered all over during the pre game warm ups checking out all corners of the building and couldn't find a place that the ice seemed far away. It should be the model for what new teams look at when building new arenas.
The day of the game the paper ran a story, "The NHL Circus Arrives!" It had a picture of Tucker sitting on some player on the ice. It became a rally cry for the hundreds or thousands of Canadians who had made the trip south. We had a great time in the little pub across the street in one of the hotels, chatting with Wild fans who were most accomodating. I hope to make it back some time over the next couple years, but not for a Leafs game; I want to go to cheer for the Wild the next time, so I will look for a Habs or Wings game.

 

[Russian Fan]

EXCUSE ME! Kaiped Krusader is one of the FEW who has posts that are consistently thoughtful, intelligent, and stimulate discussion. That is more than I can say for you who posted a lot of crap when Russia beat Canada for the gold in the WJC 2 years ago and I have paid no attention to since. I encourage KK to keep postiong whatever (s)he feels like because more often than not it adds greatly to the conversation.

Don't mistake me for another guy that I think is name Russian_Fanatic or something like that. People who know me , knows that it,s not my style.

 

[hockeytown9321]

So as long as teams are winning, or drawing a lot of people (aka, Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, etc...), their ticket prices are within 10-15% of each other...

And you think that means they set their prices based on each other?

If Colorado has a team like Pittsburgh, can they fill the arena on the ticket prices a 1st place Detroit team has?

Nope.

Ticket prices are based on how many people want to see your team. You set them at a point where you maximize revenue. What Detroit charges has no bearing on what you charge.

Detroit has no bearing on what Toronto charges either. It cost me less money to go to Detroit to go to a game (including driving and staying in a hotel), than it did for me to go to a game in Toronto, and I live 25 minutes away from the ACC.



Basic common sense. Metro Detroit is over 4.5 million people. Metro Denver is 2.5 million. Per capita is a nice number, but it doesn't really tell any kind of a full story, especially with a 2 million person differential in population.

I do agree with you to a certain extent, but if its all about supply and demand, why didn't Detroit charge their 2004 prices in 1998? If it was 100% supply and demand, every market would have figured out their maximum prices years ago and charged it? Detroit has had to increase their prices because of their increased payroll. They have had to increase payroll to stay competitive with the other elite teams. When Detroit increases its payroll by signing or trading for someone, Colorado has to respond. Their fans demand it. Now Colorado's payroll goes up, so they have to increase their ticket prices.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The reason ticket prices won't be capped is because that limits revenue. Gary Bettman isn't out to limit the NHL's revenue, although the way the league has been run over his tenure that is debatable, but he is out to limit the players revenue.

What a load of garbage. Bettman is not trying to limit the league's revenue but is limiting the player's revenue? And how is he doing that? In a deal where the revenue is guaranteed to both sides and the players get 55% of revenues and the owners get 45%? Wow, that sucks! How can anyone be so heartless as to guarantee that for every new dollar of revenue that is generated that the players will get a dime more than the owners? The inequity is just unbelievable! Burn Bettman and the owners at the stake! How dare they offer the players the majority of revenues!!! As the game grows so does the revenues, the majority of which goes to the players. If the players are so sure they are such an important factor and will take the game to greater successes, put their money where their mouths are and sign a deal that guarantees them the majority of the revenues.