Polydorus
Registered User
- Feb 5, 2004
- 137
- 0
shveik said:Wait a minute, how about different caps for different teams, tied to their respective revenues?
Revenue sharing would solve that problem nicely.
shveik said:Wait a minute, how about different caps for different teams, tied to their respective revenues?
shveik said:Wait a minute, how about different caps for different teams, tied to their respective revenues?
hockeytown9321 said:#1Who's McCarthy?
#2 Maltby makes less than $2 million.
If the league took the 24% rollback, only Draper would be over $2 million, at 2.1.
shveik said: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.
shveik said: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?
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.Russian Fan said: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.
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.Beukeboom Fan said: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.
hockeytown9321 said: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?
Mayor of MacAppolis said: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.
dawgbone said: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.
dawgbone said:Marchant got $3mil/year from the Jackets.
dawgbone said: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.
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.shveik said:Does it change anything about what I said?
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.London Knights said: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.
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.ceber said: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.
Mayor of MacAppolis said: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.
hockeytown9321 said: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?
Thanks for the link.ceber said: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.
Mayor of MacAppolis said: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.
dawgbone said: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.
London Knights said: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.