NY Post Larry Brooks: NHL Selling Out Fans - Not Games

[Pepper]

The ticket prices were never going down, but it was a good sized piece of the PR battle that the owners used and too many dumb people ate it up.

That being said, "more affordable" pretty much has to mean lower ticket prices, or status quo long enough for inflation to take over. If prices stayed the same or went up, they're not going to be more affordable.

"more affordable" is a very loose term and can be interpreted as "less pressure to increase prices".

And with the drop in prices last year, it can be said that tickets are indeed more affordable unless the prices will rise more steeply than before the lock-out.

 

[Pepper]

With good reason - it's the only thing he's ever been right about.



There's a lot of people who ate up everything Bettman said - I'm just glad I never bought it.

There are a lot more people who fail to understand the very basics of micro economics and the business environtment of pro sports franchises. Those are the same people who keep thinking Brooks was right.

 

[Drewr15]

So wait a minute - there are people who actually believe that the outrageous increase in ticket prices we saw in the last 10 to 15 years years in the NHL have NOTHING to do with the crazy increase in players salaries.

I never believed for a minute that ticket prices would drop but for a sport that is struggling to gain popularity in the US - ticket prices need to at least level off if not drop in order to attract casual fans. The only way to do that is to lower or stabilize expenses - and that is what the salary cap does. Of course the cap they put in was pretty much middle of the level what teams were spending anyway so of course ticket prices weren't going to drop significantly but look at what your teams ticket prices were in the late 80s and early 90s compared to today and compare to average player salaries between then and now and tell me the increase in salaries had nothing to do with it.

 

[Hasbro]

So wait a minute - there are people who actually believe that the outrageous increase in ticket prices we saw in the last 10 to 15 years years in the NHL have NOTHING to do with the crazy increase in players salaries.

Not at all related. The owners collect ticket money and then they pay players with money found in their leather couch.

Speaking for my team it's been in dire need of a market correction on ticket prices for a while. I can only pay $40 for an upper deck seat a few times a year, and that's versus paying $20 for twice as good a seat at a DU game.

 

[Drewr15]

Not at all related. The owners collect ticket money and then they pay players with money found in their leather couch.

Speaking for my team it's been in dire need of a market correction on ticket prices for a while. I can only pay $40 for an upper deck seat a few times a year, and that's versus paying $20 for twice as good a seat at a DU game.

Tell me about it. The increase in ticket prices have killed the Devils attendance. In '96 and '97 they were averaging 17k a game. My season tickets have since doubled in pricce and the Devs have been to 3 more cup finals and won 2 of them since and their attendance is down to 11k. When your basically the 8th or 9th most popular team in the area - you really can't have the second or third highest ticket price. Its ridiculous. I can get better seats at a Yankee game for less - what is wrong with that picture?

 

[crashlanding]

So wait a minute - there are people who actually believe that the outrageous increase in ticket prices we saw in the last 10 to 15 years years in the NHL have NOTHING to do with the crazy increase in players salaries.

Nobody's saying that there's no connection. However, I can't picture an owner lowering ticket prices unless he is forced to. As long as the owner is happy with attendance/revenues ticket prices will remain where they are.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Since no one seems to have been prepared to challenge a statement that has been repeated about a dozen times in this thread by Bling and picked up by NYR7 and others, and in fact the statement almost seems to have passed into the realm of accepted fact by virtue of its repetition, I suppose I will do so.

To Bling and others:

Exactly where do you get the idea that ticket prices are NOT lower? Contrary to a riduculous statement made earlier by Bling, the price reductions last year (which were reductions from 2003-04 levels) were not token isolated instances. They were huge and market-wide. I could dig up a link, but I am at work. The info is out there, however. Most markets experienced reductions in the double digits. There is not a scintilla of proof that prices have even returned to their former levels.

In addition to the price reductions THAT STILL EXIST, the system has missed out on three seasons (this year, last year, and the lockout year) where inflation has not acted to increase the prices from 2003-04 levels.

As for the silly point by NYR7 about inflation not having enough time to act or some other such nonsense (and NYR7 I know you can do better), anyone who follows NHL ticket prices knows full well that the rate of inflation for tickets has vastly outstripped the rate of inflation in the economy as a whole. A conservative estimate would be that, absent the lockout and what was accomplished thereby, ticket prices would be 15% higher industry-wide than they were in 2003-04.

I won't address the silly points made earlier about "incompetent ownership". I would suggest that such views are completely uninformed and contain about an inch-deep of insight, but I don't think that it even has that. Even the most cursory analysis does not support any of Bling's contentions, as amply pointed out by Timmy and others.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Nobody's saying that there's no connection. However, I can't picture an owner lowering ticket prices unless he is forced to. As long as the owner is happy with attendance/revenues ticket prices will remain where they are.

Actually, Crashlanding, I believe NYR7 said exactly that (that there is no connection) on the last page in this thread.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

When will you people understand that "more affordable" is not the same as "lower ticket prices"??

Sheesh, it shouldn't be that hard.

??????? What exactly does more affordable mean then? I'd love to hear this one

He said "IN THE RIGHT ECONOMIC SYSTEM...." before the lock-out. We still don't know what that system is.

Again you people fail to understand a very simple concept.

But the league got the system they wanted... wouldn't they have wanted the "right" system. Are you telling me the league wanted a system they thought was right but when they got the new CBA they said ooops, nevermind this is wrong.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

How about UFA age starting at 25? I'd say that's very much in the players' favor.

Yea I was going to say that but if I remember correctly the NHL originally offered a low UFA age as well. Plus with the cap and everything else, early UFA isn't as big a money maker for the PA as it would have been under the last CBA.

 

[Drewr15]

??????? What exactly does more affordable mean then? I'd love to hear this one


But the league got the system they wanted... wouldn't they have wanted the "right" system. Are you telling me the league wanted a system they thought was right but when they got the new CBA they said ooops, nevermind this is wrong.

He is saying that they didn't get the system they would have wanted to put in if basically they were starting a league today. Instead they got a compromised system they negotiated with the players, not that hard to follow.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

That's one way to look at it, but I don't buy that. The league started out asking for a $29M cap with less arbitration rights and little change in free agency. That is probably closer to the system they wanted, but even that could have been a compromise between the individual owners.

Could you show me the article where that quote came from? That "if they got the right system, the system they wanted, than fans would be benefited in most markets..."

I don't know how you can deny that the NHL didn't get the system they wanted. They had a lockout to get a certain system and they won. Everyone who paid attention to the lockout, no matter who they supported, should be able to admit that.

As far as quotes all you have to do is a simple search on google or yahoo. Obviously most of the articles are obviously down, especially the ones on either the PA or NHL site. But you should still be able to find enough stuff out there. The quote I was referring to was from Toronto Star News Services on 9/16/04

Ticket prices: Bettman said the league's ticket prices -- now $44 on average -- will go down with a new CBA.

"It varies from market to market," he acknowledged, but said, "More than a majority of our teams would use the opportunity of economic stability to lower their ticket prices."

If I'm allowed to link a blog than go to this page and read the June 28th article. http://spectorshockey.tripod.com/June2005_soapbox_archives.html
It focuses on what we're talking about in this thread.

Other than that I don't see the point in doing the work to find a bunch of individual quotes. The point is the league sold their lockout to the media and fans by talking about how the right deal would allow the league to be more affordable for fans. It really can't be denied.

Now if you want to say "okay, Bettman said it but the problem is the league didn't get the right system" than that's your opinion. But personally I just don't believe that. The league made it clear they needed linkage, etc, etc and by the time the CBA was signed they basically got everything they said they needed. This was the CBA they wanted and they got.

 

[Butch 19]

- ticket prices need to at least level off if not drop in order to attract casual fans.

... and broadcast games on a nation-wide BASIC cable channel.

Like it or not, ESPN still dictates American sports.

VS. is not going to attract ANY new casual fans.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Yea I was going to say that but if I remember correctly the NHL originally offered a low UFA age as well. Plus with the cap and everything else, early UFA isn't as big a money maker for the PA as it would have been under the last CBA.

Actually, NYR, they did not. In February, they moved to a UFA age of 30 (or 28 if arbitration went away).

That being said, your point about its impact being blunted by the system is true. However, this is all beside the point, which is that the basic linchpin of this discussion - that tickets are not cheaper - is false. All of the blather about what Bettman did or did not say (and I believe that in all the many pronouncements he made, he was meticulous about pointing out that it was a club-by-club decision and avoiding a promise of lower ticket prices) is similarly irrelevant.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

He is saying that they didn't get the system they would have wanted to put in if basically they were starting a league today. Instead they got a compromised system they negotiated with the players, not that hard to follow.

First of all that's not what he said in response to my post, don't know where you got that from.

But anyway, let me get this straight... you're telling me Pepper is saying the "right" economic system Bettman was talking about, the one where the league could become more affordable for fans, was a system that could only be put into place if the league didn't have to negotiate with a union???

You mean all the talk of being more affordable was only if the league could turn the players into slave labor? They could only have gotten the "right" system if the players allowed them to draft their own CBA? Were they not expecting to have to "settle" for a compromised system that was negotiated with the players?

Bettman told us the league could become more affordable for fans if they got a system that they couldn't have possibly gotten because of the existence of unions in America? And people actually believed that they could get that system and that they'd lower prices???

That's ridiculous. The league couldn't have reasonably expected to get a much better deal than what they got. They wanted this deal, they cancelled a season to get it. They said if they got what they wanted they could become more affordable. It hasn't happened

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Actually, NYR, they did not. In February, they moved to a UFA age of 30 (or 28 if arbitration went away).

That being said, your point about its impact being blunted by the system is true. However, this is all beside the point, which is that the basic linchpin of this discussion - that tickets are not cheaper - is false. All of the blather about what Bettman did or did not say (and I believe that in all the many pronouncements he made, he was meticulous about pointing out that it was a club-by-club decision and avoiding a promise of lower ticket prices) is similarly irrelevant.

Alright so the PA got a nice UFA age. Bottom line is the league got the deal they wanted.

As for prices not being lower that's not the case in any arena I've been to. Going to a game where I live costs more than it did pre-lockout. Concessions and such are still just as expensive.

Some want to point out that prices should rise with inflation. Yea, then prices should go up equal to the rate of inflation each year, not more... and if the league wants to become more affordable they'd raise prices less than the inflation rate or hey, maybe not at all. But I don't see that happening in a majority of the markets, especially as we move farther and farther away from the lockout.

Not that I expect to see it anyway. The league will price itself according to how much consumers will pay, not to how much they have to pay the players. That's why I didn't believe it when Bettman used it to sell the lockout to fans/media. It was BS then and we're seeing it now.

 

[Drewr15]

... and broadcast games on a nation-wide BASIC cable channel.

Like it or not, ESPN still dictates American sports.

VS. is not going to attract ANY new casual fans.

That I agree with 100%. What killed the NHL in the US was disappearing off the TV airwaves to frigging sportschannel in the 80s. The NHL has been a tier II sport ever since.

 

[burstgreen]

As for prices not being lower that's not the case in any arena I've been to. Going to a game where I live costs more than it did pre-lockout. Concessions and such are still just as expensive.

League average in 03-04 was US$43.57. This year it is 43.13. When you account for inflation, tickets are 11% more affordable this season as compared to 03-04.

 

[Drewr15]

First of all that's not what he said in response to my post, don't know where you got that from.

But anyway, let me get this straight... you're telling me Pepper is saying the "right" economic system Bettman was talking about, the one where the league could become more affordable for fans, was a system that could only be put into place if the league didn't have to negotiate with a union???

You mean all the talk of being more affordable was only if the league could turn the players into slave labor? They could only have gotten the "right" system if the players allowed them to draft their own CBA? Were they not expecting to have to "settle" for a compromised system that was negotiated with the players?

Bettman told us the league could become more affordable for fans if they got a system that they couldn't have possibly gotten because of the existence of unions in America? And people actually believed that they could get that system and that they'd lower prices???

That's ridiculous. The league couldn't have reasonably expected to get a much better deal than what they got. They wanted this deal, they cancelled a season to get it. They said if they got what they wanted they could become more affordable. It hasn't happened

Let me try again - he said the right economic system - that implies that there are certain things he wants in it that yes probably aren't what the players want - so yes what he got was a negotiated one and not necessarily the right one. I used a simple example saying if the league started today this is how he would want it to be. If you can't follow that I can't help you.

To call it slave labor is losing total grasp of reality. What I'm saying is if the league started today and said these are the rules - your only getting 1 million a year and your salary goes up based on years of service like a real union and certain incentives - it would hardly be called slave labor but because players are making money like its a top 4 sport - any thought of cutting salaries a significant amount is considered slave labor. whatever.

Ticket prices should not be at top 4 sport prices and neither should player salaries. Treat hockey as blue collar fan's alternative to the expensive sports - which is what it was in the US for years - and attendance will go back up. To just shove it into the cost bracket of baseball, football and basketball without any justification is the problem the NHL has right now and Bettman, the owners and the players are fine with it because they are all making money - so why is everyone else complaining?

 

[Mr BLUEandWHITE]

I liked his suplly and demand thing

seems to me if the seats were cheaper down south more people would go

How much cheaper can you get? there giving them away for free for christ sakes..I can't even buy a ticket in Toronto for $20

 

[GKJ]

There are a lot more people who fail to understand the very basics of micro economics and the business environtment of pro sports franchises. Those are the same people who keep thinking Brooks was right.

What was there to understand? Owners are spending just as much money as they were before. The difference is that more of them are spending it and it's not 5 teams doing it. A few prominent owners where crying they couldn't spend money unless they had a cap and then they did spend money that came from no revenue stream from the previous year and some of those teams are still crap.

 

[burstgreen]

What was there to understand? Owners are spending just as much money as they were before.

I don't think that's quite true. The average actual salary paid per team in 2003-04 was US$44m. Factoring in inflation, you claim that the current average actual salary paid per team is $48m. That's incorrect. It's well under that. The average cap hit is approx $39.3m, and actual salary paid is below that. So we're talking about salaries being at least 20% lower league-wide than before the lockout.

 

[Timmy]

I don't think that's quite true. The average actual salary paid per team in 2003-04 was US$44m. Factoring in inflation, you claim that the current average actual salary paid per team is $48m. That's incorrect. It's well under that. The average cap hit is approx $39.3m, and actual salary paid is below that. So we're talking about salaries being at least 20% lower league-wide than before the lockout.

That sounds about right. My memory's fuzzy, but I think payroll made up about 74% of revenues by the time of the lockout, whereas now it's limited to 54% (55 after revenue threshold increases).

The league as a whole are saving in payroll costs, but the largest spenders are taking the lion's share of the savings (ie, 80m reduced to 44m).

 

[weezman]

... and broadcast games on a nation-wide BASIC cable channel.

Like it or not, ESPN still dictates American sports.

VS. is not going to attract ANY new casual fans.

You underestimate the power of the beast.

 

[Sotnos]

Yea I was going to say that but if I remember correctly the NHL originally offered a low UFA age as well. Plus with the cap and everything else, early UFA isn't as big a money maker for the PA as it would have been under the last CBA.

Incorrect. While some UFA deals have been cheaper than they might have been previously, that's because teams have to pay more money to younger guys to "buy out" years of their UFA status. The expense isn't disappearing, it's being transferred from 31+ year olds to guys in their mid-20s.

It was definitely a concession to the players, and a major one.