Nashville to raise ticket prices as much as 50%

[hockeytown9321]

Hell it isn't. Maybe you should tell me what it means then? "affordable" is a very relative term, 100$ ticket is affordable to business people who can put it on company expense account and never worry about it. 100$ to average 20$/h joe sixpack is not affordable over the season.

I think you're answering your own question here. Ticket prices are not afforable for the aerage fan. I'm not sure we needed a lockout to make sure corporations could afford them.

 

[Fugu]

From a season ticket holder's point of view here in Nashville...

We found out that our season ticket prices were going to be raised way back before the playoffs started. The Predators sent out a mailing to all season ticket holders with an explanation and a letter from Steve Violetta (I believe) along with some colorful charts and a "sliding" season ticket price chart (it had moving parts).

The fact that the Predators are looking to maximize their revenues from games where individual ticket sales have been high historically to me is not an issue. I believe that the fans will still come for the Detroit games (always a sellout here in Nashville - and will most likely be 4 of the "premium" dates) and price will not be an issue. I believe that other games that have not drawn as well traditionally (like weekday games) will be reduced to help get more people in the seats and hopefully generate some new fans by getting them into the building on "cheaper" nights.

The other key fact here that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that the Predators have one of, if not, the cheapest average ticket prices in the NHL. With our on-ice success over the past two seasons and managements efforts this summer to put us in great position to continue to make noise in the league...I don't have a problem with Leopold and Co. saying that they need a little more revenue from ticket sales to help offset their costs.

I think this will play one of two ways here in Nashville. I think either it will be largely ignored by the media because it was thankfully announced on a Friday so all of the editorials and columns throughout the weekend and on Monday will all be about football or one of our brillant "hockey-friendly" columnists here in Nashville will take the opportunity to write an "Earth-shattering" column on how "wise" this decision is to raise ticket prices.

I hope it will be largely ignored here, but I kinda fear that I'll see it twisted and turned into something that it is not over the upcoming week.

I think the original post to start the thread was more a poke at the NHL PR stance that claimed ticket prices, and thus directly player costs, were the problem. If only the league could control one, then the other would naturally follow. Obviously most people here choosing to engage in this discussion understand why and where ticket prices need to be. I'm a Wings fan too but I would like to see the Central improve overall, and I don't think it bodes well for the league if there is contraction. It the Preds can raise prices and increase attendance AND season ticket sales at the same time, more power to them!

 

[hockeytown9321]

and yours manages the cap pretty well for a team that pilfered the Edmontons of the league for a while, so no offense, but stop complaining.

elaborate please. maybe some examples?

 

[guinness]

I think hockey tickets are stupidly expensive as it is (in the bigger markets), once you factor in Ticketmaster charges, tickets for the nosebleed seats at Wings games are over $50, so I haven't gone to a game in years. Plenty of corporate buyers, so Illitch doesn't mind, but you just wind up with bandwagoners (who show up after Dec.) and a few die-hards.

Probably cheaper for Wings fans to drive to Columbus or Nashville and watch a game in person than at home.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I think the original post to start the thread was more a poke at the NHL PR stance that claimed ticket prices, and thus directly player costs, were the problem. If only the league could control one, then the other would naturally follow.

At least someone gets it.

Really what I'm trying to figure out is why fans are not outraged by this. Its not like Nashville is the only team to announce an incrase this year.

 

[DanKramerHabs]

... I don't see what there is to be outraged at. The NHL and NHLPA could say anything they wanted to. Nobody I know anyway thought that the lockout was about ticket prices. Perhaps some people here posted about it, I didn't really browse this board during that period of time, but I feel that it would be just idiotic to believe that.

Obviously ticket prices will be set by the market. This has nothing to do with player salaries, whether they are $75K or $8M. Each team will set its prices to maximize its own revenue, just like before the lockout.

The lockout was about allowing all franchises a chance to be competitive and stable. Yes, there is still some trouble, like the semi-instability of the Penguins, but on the whole, the league looks pretty good right now. I'd say any single team could win on any given night. And perhaps it could have been true as well before, but the strive towards parity is certainly on the right track.

 

[nomorekids]

I'm amazed that after a season in which the Carolina Hurricanes and the Edmonton Oilers made it to the finals...and teams like Buffalo, Nashville, Anaheim and Calgary....all previous "small market" teams...had great success, while previous "haves" had to play on the same level field as everyone else....that anyone could complain about the post-CBA NHL.

I'm a big baseball fan, and a Mets fan at that...nothing terrifies Mets, Yankees, Red Sox fans more than "hard cap"(which will never happen, the baseball union would terrify Jimmy Hoffa), but with that in mind, I'll be the first to admit that baseball is terribly inherently broken.

Before the capped NHL, so was hockey.

 

[melubsdonna]

Some of us have taken economics of professional sports have we here? .

Fans can be outraged about higher ticket prices, but if they still go to the games, then the owners win. If the owners feel they can raise ticket prices by 50% and gain more profits then they will do it. Do you think Owners own professional teams for the sake of leisure activity? maybe in the old days, but now owners want to make money. This is a big business that ultimately comes down to profits.

 

[Pepper]

Furthermore, there were plenty of exceptions to your rule- several low payroll (or lower than Toronto) teams were successful, and there are examples of high payroll teams that while drawing lots of fans, had little on ice success. What you are confusing here with regard to payrolls and success is that under the old CBA teams that were consistently successful on the ice (Cups, winning records) had to spend more than those in the cellars. Obviously, the NY Rangers and to a lesser extent Toronto, are good examples of less on ice success yet little loss of revenues.

That was my point entirely. You want a winning team? Spend a lot. That was the name of the game in the old CBA.

If you look at last year’s success stories, they will have to pay more for (a) the same level of talent, or (b) more for even less talent… which seems to be the most likely scenario, old or new CBA.

In the old CBA you couldn't keep the core of the team unless you had high payroll. In the new CBA the situation is practically the same for every team. That's the point of the new CBA. Equal playing field ('equal' being a relative term compared to the old situation)

Let me introduce you to another concept used in economics and market assessment: market potential. It incorporates things like supply and demand, elasticity in demand, and pricing at a level that the market bears… explanations to follow below.

Please, I have a masters' degree in business, I know all about that.

I don’t call $16 MM a “small†discrepancy. That would buy me a Luongo and a Chara, or Lecavalier, Richards and Modin or Gomez, Gionta and Brodeur. Sure, it reels in what could’ve been spent under the old CBA by a handful of teams spending >$50 MM, but to say the discrepancy is not significant is erroneous. Furthermore, these players’ prices could not be bid upon until they were 31. It was a classic case of overpaying for depreciating assets.

16M discrepancy is VERY small compared to 50M discrepancy. If 16M gets you that, 50M will get you ALL of those players you mentioned.

It's small when compared to previous situation.

If Nashville wins the Cup for the next 3 years, their revenues will no doubt increase (I hope) but they will not be anywhere near Toronto’s revenues. That’s where market potential comes into play. The CBA does offer hope to fans of teams everywhere that “on any given Sunday†they get a ride in the pumpkin coach, however at midnight they still won’t wake up in Toronto revenue-wise!

That's not the point - the point is that Nashville might reach a situation where they can have a financially healthy team even with 44M payroll. Nobody expects them to become a moneymaker like Leafs and frankly no team can ever reach Leafs level in terms of revenue.

I understand inflation. However you contradicted yourself without realizing you did so. “All prices keep rising.†Teams just got a 24% price (player cost) decrease with the new CBA. Furthermore the average salary went from $1.8 to $1.2 MM.

I was talking about long-term, not just one year. And the one-off 24% player cost reduction was done to correct the market.

Purchasing power is a measure used in economics to determine cost-of-living relative to time (and thus a measure of inflation) and to other regions. It measures how much you have to spend on a basic basket of goods. In fact, purchasing power in the US has been steadily decreasing for many years now due to inflation (which in turn is driven by the cost of energy, current account balances and trade balances… which also affect exchange rates, etc.).

Are you sure about the US situation? Over here in Europe purchasing power has increased steadily at the rate of 1-3% annually for the last 10 years or so.

I find it very hard to believe that U.S is different, U.S has enjoyed a healthy GDP growth since early 90s which means increasing purchasing power 99% of the time. There hasn't been stagflation in the last 15 years or so according to the data I've seen.

Again, see pricing at what the market will bear. Ticket prices should always be based on market supply and demand and no CBA can alter the economic reality that Toronto has greater demand for tickets and thus can charge a greater price.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[hockeytown9321]

I'm a big baseball fan, and a Mets fan at that...nothing terrifies Mets, Yankees, Red Sox fans more than "hard cap"(which will never happen, the baseball union would terrify Jimmy Hoffa), but with that in mind, I'll be the first to admit that baseball is terribly inherently broken.

Actually, nothing would terrify the owners of team like the Pirates and Royals more than a hard cap. If baseball did away with the luxury tax, those small market teams would be gone. The Yankees pretty much subsidize them.

Go find any Bud Selig quote about their current CBA. He has nothing but good to say about it.

 

[OG6ix]

Nashville had problems with their attendance with the discount prices they had last year. They are going to bomb by raising ticket prices to as much as 50%.

 

[nomorekids]

Actually, nothing would terrify the owners of team like the Pirates and Royals more than a hard cap. If baseball did away with the luxury tax, those small market teams would be gone. The Yankees pretty much subsidize them.

Go find any Bud Selig quote about their current CBA. He has nothing but good to say about it.

Of course, but if baseball had a fair system of revenue sharing...and more stringent policies were enacted to ensure that owners of the aformentioned teams HAD to re-invest the money into the team rather than pocketing it(which they almost all currently do), it'd be a different story. Keeping teams viable, alone, isn't what makes for a good CBA. Keeping them viable and having everyone able to compete, YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT...is.

I know what your attitude is, "The Wings make money...so if we want to snatch up Iginla and Vokoun when they become free agents...why should we have a cap keep us from doing so?" It's the same thing that lets the Yankees have more tied up in ONE PLAYER than the Marlins do in their entire team. But viability isn't, "Those that make money, if they're smart with it, can buy the right players year in and year out. Every now and then, a cinderella team will make an underrated move here and there and sneak in, as well." That's NOT parity, at least not in the real world.

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

Actually, nothing would terrify the owners of team like the Pirates and Royals more than a hard cap. If baseball did away with the luxury tax, those small market teams would be gone. The Yankees pretty much subsidize them.

Go find any Bud Selig quote about their current CBA. He has nothing but good to say about it.

With a hard cap, teams like the Pirates and Royals would actually be able to compete. With a hard cap, there is revenue sharing (see NFL) amongst all teams, or amongst the smaller market teams (see NHL). I'm pretty sure these two teams would be able to survive off some of the revenue from the Yankees and Red Sox alone.

Cap = parity, a chance for all team. I am so happy a cap is in place, because it gets tedious seeing teams like Detroit always at the top. The AL East in baseball is a joke. Everyone knows that the Red Sox or Yankees will win the division because they can spend more than other teams. In the NHL, every division is up for grabs.

 

[nomorekids]

Nashville had problems with their attendance with the discount prices they had last year. They are going to bomb by raising ticket prices to as much as 50%.

Do some research. Nashville's season ticket base is on par with most of the teams in the mid levels of attendance. Individual game sales are also good. The thing that was brought to National attention....and even mentioned in the Poile press conference after Dumont was signed was that the problem is and has been the same: local businesses DO NOT buy tickets like they used to. There are NEVER open seats in the upper decks, not even during the week...but down by the glass, it's vacancy after vacancy. Empty luxury boxes, as well. While you may see empty boxes or glass seats at a Wings game on a Wednesday in December...and you do...any Wings fan will tell you...you still see the game announced as a sell-out and it doesn't matter, because the seats are paid for. I'm not sure why they can't sell these weekday blocks.

As an aside, Nashville experienced the sixth biggest percentage increase in attendance, last year. Average attendance rose almost 1000 per game...but you don't see that mentioned.

 

[hockeytown9321]

With a hard cap, teams like the Pirates and Royals would actually be able to compete. With a hard cap, there is revenue sharing (see NFL) amongst all teams, or amongst the smaller market teams (see NHL). I'm pretty sure these two teams would be able to survive off some of the revenue from the Yankees and Red Sox alone.

Do you really think if baseball got a hard cap, the Yankees would still be forced to contribute $75 million into the various revenue sharing funds like they did last year, or that Kansas City would get a check for $50 million(about $20M from the luxury tax fund, and that $50M is $13M more than they spent on payroll in 2005)

What do you think a the hard cap in baseball would be? They made roughly $4.5 billion in revenue last year. If you used St. Gary's magical parity formula of of 54%, it would put the salary cap midpoint at $81M per team. Now if the Royals can't survive and compete with a $37M payroll and $20M in free money from the luxury tax, how are they going to to reach a floor of $60 or $70M without the Yankees help?

 

[Stars-Preds]

Success on the ice + Additions to payroll = Raised Ticket Prices.
Not sure why anyone is surprised. As mentioned before the 50% hike is only for seven premium games and there are nine NHL teams that use this type of variable pricing (we better get used to that because soon a majority of sports franchises will use variable pricing IMO).

Nashville ticket prices are still below the league average so I have no problem with Nashville raising the prices.

 

[Hawker14]

i took a look at the preds' season ticket pricing and the lower bowl prices don't seem that expensive compared with the rest of the league. if businesses aren't supporting the team, it's probably one of two things: the team's marketing is failing, or the business community doesn't see value for the cost.

nashville may be forced to eventually bring down their top end (lower bowl) seat pricing to be comparable to a place like buffalo, which would be an all around good thing for the fans.

 

[Dave is a killer]

i took a look at the preds' season ticket pricing and the lower bowl prices don't seem that expensive compared with the rest of the league. if businesses aren't supporting the team, it's probably one of two things: the team's marketing is failing, or the business community doesn't see value for the cost.

nashville may be forced to eventually bring down their top end (lower bowl) seat pricing to be comparable to a place like buffalo, which would be an all around good thing for the fans.

I agree wholeheartedly

 

[vbet*]

Nashville had problems with their attendance with the discount prices they had last year. They are going to bomb by raising ticket prices to as much as 50%.

And this coming from Mr every Canadian team should be transferred to the US.

 

[DownFromNJ]

The foolish argument of others does not lend credibility to your own foolish argument.

Find me a single economics professor who does not agree with him. Ticket prices are controled entirely by demand. Owners will try to pump every cent out of their arena by raising them until the price is no longer elastic. Payrolls come later into the equation. The amount of revenue (money from tickets and tv mostly) collected determines how much he is willing to spend on payroll - not the other way around.

Sure, having more competitive teams will mean that the on ice product is better which means that ticket prices will rise with demand. But there isn't much room for demand to go up. When selling 15,000 tickets in a 19,000 seat Arena 41 times a year is considered poor, you know that the owners have room to raise prices.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

Nashville spends to the max?

You obviously were not privy to the countless discussons during the lockout that high ticket prices were the greedy players' fault and had nothing to do with supply and demand.

Could we please move on to something else. The lockout is over and done with thank goodness. I can understand that the big markets like Detroit who used to be able to buy any players they wanted can be a little sour to the salary cap. But you know what it's a new era in the NHL all 30 clubs have a shot a Lord's Stanley not just Detroit and that's a good thing.

 

[Hawker14]

. When selling 15,000 tickets in a 19,000 seat Arena 41 times a year is considered poor, you know that the owners have room to raise prices.

using these hypothetical numbers, the owners would have no room to raise prices.

if there was demand for 20,000 tickets in a 19,000 seat arena, owners could raise prices. but if 4,000 seats are empty, there isn't much room for ticket increases. i know these aren't the actual figures for the preds but you lost me with your rationale.

with the way you worded it, it seems you are misinterpreting the dynamics of supply and demand.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

Man, hockeytown9321 is bitter. Let it go it's over. Bettman did a fantastic job during the lockout. And I don't think that they are to many unhappy fans right now.

 

[SPARTAKUS*]

... I don't see what there is to be outraged at. The NHL and NHLPA could say anything they wanted to. Nobody I know anyway thought that the lockout was about ticket prices. Perhaps some people here posted about it, I didn't really browse this board during that period of time, but I feel that it would be just idiotic to believe that.

Obviously ticket prices will be set by the market. This has nothing to do with player salaries, whether they are $75K or $8M. Each team will set its prices to maximize its own revenue, just like before the lockout.

The lockout was about allowing all franchises a chance to be competitive and stable. Yes, there is still some trouble, like the semi-instability of the Penguins, but on the whole, the league looks pretty good right now. I'd say any single team could win on any given night. And perhaps it could have been true as well before, but the strive towards parity is certainly on the right track.

Right on

 

[Hawker14]

Man, hockeytown9321 is bitter. Let it go it's over. Bettman did a fantastic job during the lockout. And I don't think that they are to many unhappy fans right now.

he could've achieved this last lockout ('94-'95). count me among the bitter !