Red Deer gives players the finger

[handtrick]

I don't know if this has already been posted or not yet, but Ryan Smith's and friends charity tour was supposed to have its finale in Winnepeg tonight, but was canceled due to lack of ticket sales [less than 1000 including freebies].

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/03/25/972220-sun.html

I wonder if the players get it yet?

 

[Phanuthier*]

I don't know if this has already been posted or not yet, but Ryan Smith's and friends charity tour was supposed to have its finale in Winnepeg tonight, but was canceled due to lack of ticket sales [less than 1000 including freebies].

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/03/25/972220-sun.html

I wonder if the players get it yet?

I guess it must be due to lack of marketing!

 

[reckoning]

I gotta ask...how do people know they won't lower ticket prices?

Simple. If they were going to do that, then they would have nothing to lose by installing an across-the-board price slash or starting a league-wide ticket price cap. The owners refuse to do either. There will likely be a token small decrease when they first come back, but within a year it will be back to normal. Plus, Ottawa
owner Eugene Melnyk has stated that prices will be frozen at current levels for 2006-07- translation: no decrease

 

[mr gib]

and revenue sharing wouldn't remedy this how ?

the player's will finally believe the owner's are serious about saving the game instead of screwing them outta spite

 

[Icey]

Do you really? See, I don't sense that as the reason for being pro-owner. I sense more that people just understand that the current economics are so horrible that a massive change was a necessity. (Even with ticket prices remaining where they are, this change was necessary.) And the overriding feeling has been that the players, for far too long, have been unwilling to go along with that necessary massive change. That's the most common sentiment I hear expressed around here.

The reason I say that is when I talk to any person who is pro-owner and I ask why 8 out of 10 times the first reason they say is that a new CBA will lower ticket prices. Not for the health of the game or the league, not because the system is broken and needs fixing, not even because the players are overpaid, but rather because it will lower there ticket prices. Look up a few posts and you see someone asking how people know they won't lower ticket prices.

And your right a massive change is necessary, but those same people say they are entitled to a reduced ticket prices, where even as a person leaning more to the players side than the owners I can see that lowering ticket prices will not help the league dig itself out of the mess its in. Those millions of dollards they have lost, just don't disappear because there is a new CBA. They need to get the league healthy FIRST and then consider lowering ticket prices.

I guess you could say its the "what's in it for me" attitude.

No. Actually what I hear here is "we don't want replacement players.

Replacement players won't be attractive anywhere. There are so many factors that will play into what reactions we'll see... are the ticket prices low enough, how desperate for NHL-brand hockey are people, how resentful toward the owners are some people, how spiteful toward the PA are other people, how entertaining is the product, etc., etc.

I agree with all of the that, but I still question how the league gets healthy by lowering ticket prices. You don't get yourself out of financia problems by buying yourself a smaller house, but making larger mortgage payments and that is what lowering ticket prices will do. Lower ticket prices means less revenue. In cities like Denver and Dallas that sell out, how does lower ticket prices help the financial picture.

 

[Steve L*]

Lower ticket prices means less revenue. In cities like Denver and Dallas that sell out, how does lower ticket prices help the financial picture.

If the team sells out, they arent in financial problems so they wont have to do a thing. Its the teams that arent selling out that will have to lower prices to get fans back.

If youre not selling out, lower prices can mean more revenue.

10,000 seats at $50 each = $500,000
18,000 seats at $35 each = $630,000 plus the beer, food etc

 

[Icey]

If the team sells out, they arent in financial problems so they wont have to do a thing. Its the teams that arent selling out that will have to lower prices to get fans back.

If youre not selling out, lower prices can mean more revenue.

10,000 seats at $50 each = $500,000
18,000 seats at $35 each = $630,000 plus the beer, food etc

Edmonton sells out practically every game. Are you telling me that Edmonton does need a new CBA to survive -- translation.. financial problems.

Are you saying there are teams that aren't in financial trouble? Why I thought this league was in a financial mess that needed to be fixed.

 

[Coelah]

By not supporting Fake players you might even get your Real ones back faster ..

How so? If the owners cave and give in to what the players want, the Flames are gone. Folded or moved. No doubt about it.

How are Flames fans served then?

 

[ResidentAlien*]

How so? If the owners cave and give in to what the players want, the Flames are gone. Folded or moved. No doubt about it.

How are Flames fans served then?

source?

 

[Coelah]

Calgary is a great hockey town, but once the novelty wears off and the Flames' fans see replacements for what they are ( you can't dress up a turd in fancy packaging, and sell it for premium chocolate prices without people catching on), i think the average fan would much rather spend $ 15 to see a Hitmen game than $ 50 to see a bunch of has-beens and never-will-be's.

this is nothing against Flames fans, as i love the city, i just can't see even 10,000 fans paying to watch garbage players game in and game out, in any city.

Yeah, we'll be forced to watch players with the caliber of a Rocky Thompson or Fred Brathwaite. How will Flames fans sit through that?

Believe me, Flames fans will support their team. They've gone through seven years of near replacements and supported the team. They'll do it again until the spoiled babies come to their senses.

 

[Coelah]

source?

Do a search of any Calgary paper with a quote from Harley Hotchkiss or Ken King. The Flames, as well as the Oilers, have stated over and over publicly that without a workable deal, they won't continue.

 

[Steve L*]

Edmonton sells out practically every game. Are you telling me that Edmonton does need a new CBA to survive -- translation.. financial problems.

Are you saying there are teams that aren't in financial trouble? Why I thought this league was in a financial mess that needed to be fixed.

Of course there are teams that arent in finincial trouble, the Flyers, Avs, Wings, Leafs etc.

However it is these teams that are spending what they can afford that is pushing the other teams into trouble, they have to either spend more to compete or lose fans. Either way they lose money. To fix it they need to contract the teams or get a new CBA.

 

[Icey]

Of course there are teams that arent in finincial trouble, the Flyers, Avs, Wings, Leafs etc.

However it is these teams that are spending what they can afford that is pushing the other teams into trouble, they have to either spend more to compete or lose fans. Either way they lose money. To fix it they need to contract the teams or get a new CBA.

But that has nothing to do with reduced ticket prices, which is what this discussion is about. I say cutting ticket prices will not help this league out of the finaancial mess it is in by reducing ticket revenue, you say it will.

A team that only sells 10,000 seats now is not suddenly going to be selling 18,000 tickets with reduced ticket prices. It's just not going to happen. A team is not going to see a 80% attendance increase with a ticket price drop.

If the team sells out, they arent in financial problems so they wont have to do a thing.

You don't really believe that do you???

 

[mr gib]

But that has nothing to do with reduced ticket prices, which is what this discussion is about. I say cutting ticket prices will not help this league out of the finaancial mess it is in by reducing ticket revenue, you say it will.

A team that only sells 10,000 seats now is not suddenly going to be selling 18,000 tickets with reduced ticket prices. It's just not going to happen. A team is not going to see a 80% attendance increase with a ticket price drop.




You don't really believe that do you???

and you wonder why i get a little caustic

 

[Steve L*]

A team that only sells 10,000 seats now is not suddenly going to be selling 18,000 tickets with reduced ticket prices. It's just not going to happen. A team is not going to see a 80% attendance increase with a ticket price drop.

Youd be amazed how many people cant afford to watch hockey.

You don't really believe that do you???

yes, are the Flyers, Avs, Wings etc in financial trouble?
Quite the opposite, these are the guys that can afford to spend so much that the NHL wants to limit their spending.

 

[guymez]

Edmonton sells out practically every game. Are you telling me that Edmonton does need a new CBA to survive -- translation.. financial problems.

Are you saying there are teams that aren't in financial trouble? Why I thought this league was in a financial mess that needed to be fixed.

You know...I gotta tell you ....you really crack me up sometimes. You gotta love it when a fan of a big market team and NHLPA supporter ( hmmm...these 2 things do seem to go hand in hand most of the time) rolls out Edmonton as the poster boy for what was right about the last CBA. Edmonton sells out, in spite of the last CBA, because it is a great hockey town. They have endlessly supported a team of pluggers, which year after year, is always on the cusp of even making the playoffs. They are not in financial trouble because they continually have to ship their 1st tier star players to teams like Dallas, because they can't afford them. Ah yes....teams like Dallas and the other big market teams which, by virtue of their desire to throw money around, raise the contracts to a level where they only have to compete with about 6 teams for 1st tier star players. No wonder you are so pro player...why would you want things to change all that much. You like the fact (and why wouldn't you?) the Stars are one of a few teams who can afford a 1st tier star player. No wonder you support all the NHLPA proposals with their inflationary componants.
It would be interesting to see if the that big hotbed of hockey 'Dallas' would support a team of pluggers which may or may not make the playoffs, as opposed to a team which is a perennial contender for the Stanley Cup.

 

[Icey]

You know...I gotta tell you ....you really crack me up sometimes. You gotta love it when a fan of a big market team and NHLPA supporter ( hmmm...these 2 things do seem to go hand in hand most of the time) rolls out Edmonton as the poster boy for what was right about the last CBA. Edmonton sells out, in spite of the last CBA, because it is a great hockey town. They have endlessly supported a team of pluggers, which year after year, is always on the cusp of even making the playoffs. They are not in financial trouble because they continually have to ship their 1st tier star players to teams like Dallas, because they can't afford them. Ah yes....teams like Dallas and the other big market teams which, by virtue of their desire to throw money around, raise the contracts to a level where they only have to compete with about 6 teams for 1st tier star players. No wonder you are so pro player...why would you want things to change all that much. You like the fact (and why wouldn't you?) the Stars are one of a few teams who can afford a 1st tier star player. No wonder you support all the NHLPA proposals with their inflationary componants.
It would be interesting to see if the that big hotbed of hockey 'Dallas' would support a team of pluggers which may or may not make the playoffs, as opposed to a team which is a perennial contender for the Stanley Cup.

Did you even read what that comment about Edmonton related to because it had nothing to do with any of the GARBAGE you just spewed out. It was a conversation about raising/lowering ticket prices. I think if the NHL is in such a bad financial state as they claim, then lowering ticket prices is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

My example of Edmonton had NOTHING to do with player salaries, but everything to do with revenue and you actually re-inforced what I said. If Edmonton sells out every game and struggles to be financially competitive (regardless of the reason), how is lowering ticket prices going to help Edmonton? How does lower revenues help Edmonton? It doesn't matter that their will be a cap and teams like Dallas, Detroit, Colorado will no longer be able to spend whatever they want, Edmontons revenue $$$ will drop with lower ticket prices. Lower revenues still mean less money to spend on players.

I think this league should worry about getting healthy first and then lower ticket prices.

And just for your reference, I have not always lived in Dallas. I grew up in a city that I watched a NHL team get ripped out of . I watched Gary Bettman and the NHL devastate a city without even caring or thinking about it. I know whats it like to support a small market team with litttle to no chance of winning. I know what its like to cheer for a losing team. I know its very easy to cheer winning team and its much harder to cheer for a team you know has no chance to win. I've done that a lot longer than I have supported Dallas. Gary Bettman sealed the Jets fate because he was greedy. Instead of helping them to survive he saw $$$$ and the money took over. Why wasn't he fighting for the small market teams then? But don't worry he's still not on your side. He may get you your cap and you might think that will solve all the problems this league, but don't worry he'll screw you over with revenue sharing and the small market teams will be no better off 5 years from now then they are today.

 

[reckoning]

You know...I gotta tell you ....you really crack me up sometimes. You gotta love it when a fan of a big market team and NHLPA supporter ( hmmm...these 2 things do seem to go hand in hand most of the time) rolls out Edmonton as the poster boy for what was right about the last CBA. Edmonton sells out, in spite of the last CBA, because it is a great hockey town. They have endlessly supported a team of pluggers, which year after year, is always on the cusp of even making the playoffs. They are not in financial trouble because they continually have to ship their 1st tier star players to teams like Dallas, because they can't afford them. Ah yes....teams like Dallas and the other big market teams which, by virtue of their desire to throw money around, raise the contracts to a level where they only have to compete with about 6 teams for 1st tier star players. No wonder you are so pro player...why would you want things to change all that much. You like the fact (and why wouldn't you?) the Stars are one of a few teams who can afford a 1st tier star player. No wonder you support all the NHLPA proposals with their inflationary componants.
It would be interesting to see if the that big hotbed of hockey 'Dallas' would support a team of pluggers which may or may not make the playoffs, as opposed to a team which is a perennial contender for the Stanley Cup.

In 2001-02 Dallas missed the playoffs and actually finished two pts behind Edmonton in the standings yet finished ahead of Edmonton in attendance (11th to 15th); but i`m sure you`ll probably dismiss that as some aberration.

 

[Vagabond]

In 2001-02 Dallas missed the playoffs and actually finished two pts behind Edmonton in the standings yet finished ahead of Edmonton in attendance (11th to 15th); but i`m sure you`ll probably dismiss that as some aberration.

^I'll dissmiss it. The rectal center in Edmonton only seats what.. 17,100.. in comparison to how many in Dallas? If you go by capacity, Edmonton I think stands higher.. % wise.

 

[se7en*]

It actually 16,839, but whos counting?

Completely laughable and futile to imply Dallas is a better hockeytown than here based on corporate tickets sold but many not used in a significantly bigger arena.

 

[Vagabond]

Did you even read what that comment about Edmonton related to because it had nothing to do with any of the GARBAGE you just spewed out. It was a conversation about raising/lowering ticket prices. I think if the NHL is in such a bad financial state as they claim, then lowering ticket prices is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

My example of Edmonton had NOTHING to do with player salaries, but everything to do with revenue and you actually re-inforced what I said. If Edmonton sells out every game and struggles to be financially competitive (regardless of the reason), how is lowering ticket prices going to help Edmonton? How does lower revenues help Edmonton? It doesn't matter that their will be a cap and teams like Dallas, Detroit, Colorado will no longer be able to spend whatever they want, Edmontons revenue $$$ will drop with lower ticket prices. Lower revenues still mean less money to spend on players.

I think this league should worry about getting healthy first and then lower ticket prices.

And just for your reference, I have not always lived in Dallas. I grew up in a city that I watched a NHL team get ripped out of . I watched Gary Bettman and the NHL devastate a city without even caring or thinking about it. I know whats it like to support a small market team with litttle to no chance of winning. I know what its like to cheer for a losing team. I know its very easy to cheer winning team and its much harder to cheer for a team you know has no chance to win. I've done that a lot longer than I have supported Dallas. Gary Bettman sealed the Jets fate because he was greedy. Instead of helping them to survive he saw $$$$ and the money took over. Why wasn't he fighting for the small market teams then? But don't worry he's still not on your side. He may get you your cap and you might think that will solve all the problems this league, but don't worry he'll screw you over with revenue sharing and the small market teams will be no better off 5 years from now then they are today.

^ You must be a tarot card reader or something.. Although I agree with what you've said concerning lower revenues with lower ticket prices.. I don't agree with the rest of what you've stated.

(This aint directed towards you so.. please don't scorn me, its rather opinionatededed..ed)I'm niether, pro owner or pro PA. I just see a situation that really needs work that can benifit all three parties, the owners, the players, and the fans(yes, I consider us fans as a party). If a deal can be made where teams can lower prices at least a small percentage, then I think it will have nil effect on revenue. The fact is, players are being paid far too much.. and I'm not saying its their fault, I'm stating fact. There must be some limit as to what a player can earn while having it structured towards the success of the NHL as a whole. The more the NHL makes revenue wise, the more money the players make. Call it what you want, it only makes sense to structure players salaries and have it linked to revenues. I'm not soley for a cap, I'd like to see teams get major penalties for spending over $45mil though. Teams should lose draft picks as well as being slapped with a luxury tax. ..Then have the money equally distributed amongst the faithful teams. Fix the arbitration. Accept the rollback the players have offered and see how it goes from there. This is not a cap, teams can spend foolishly all they want, they just get penalized for it.. eventually, it'll 'learn' them. ..One other thing, I think owners should be restricted in flashing money towards players in luring them as well as having a player test the market. This could be just me, but I think all players should be re-evaluated every summer concerning their contract for the up-coming season. If a player wants to make more, they should earn it. If a player had a breakout season and then signs a $5.0mil three year contract, pending on how well that player lives up to his deal, he'll be paid accordingly. The player signs that big contract because he puts points on the board.. for example; should honor that contract by.. ..well, continue to put points on the board. If he has an off-season, that'll reflect on his salary. A two way seasonal arbitrational system. With this type of system, I see the NHL stabalizing. ..And one more one other thing; Instead of having a revenue system completely shared, each team should at least beable to pocket say.. 20% and have the rest distributed amongst the players and the other teams.

Just a thought, I don't know, I could be a crack-head for all you people know.

 

[Icey]

It actually 16,839, but whos counting?

Completely laughable and futile to imply Dallas is a better hockeytown than here based on corporate tickets sold but many not used in a significantly bigger arena.

Nobody was implying or even suggesting Dallas is a better hockey town so don't get your panties in a wad. This discussion was in regards to revenues and sell outs. Perhaps if Edmonton had the corporate sponsorships that Dallas does and the local TV revenue that Dallas does, Edmonton along with a few other teams wouldn't be in the situation they are. Dallas is one of the few markets that generates local TV revenue. Dallas sells out most games. Last year they broke their sell-out streak that had been going for over 5 years. Not too many teams can claim that. They then went on and sold out 98% of last years games. I believe a sell out in Dallas is 17,400 so not too far ahead of Edmonton, so to suggest that Edmonton is way ahead of Dallas is wrong.

What I was saying is that since Edmonton sells out almost every game, how is lowering ticket prices and hence lowering revenue going to help a team like Edmonton? I realize player costs will also be lower, but shouldn't the NHL dig themselves out of the hole first before they jump back into it. Wouldn't it benefit Edmonton more to create more $$$ then to give revenue up?

 

[Vagabond]

Nobody was implying or even suggesting Dallas is a better hockey town so don't get your panties in a wad. This discussion was in regards to revenues and sell outs. Perhaps if Edmonton had the corporate sponsorships that Dallas does and the local TV revenue that Dallas does, Edmonton along with a few other teams wouldn't be in the situation they are. Dallas is one of the few markets that generates local TV revenue. Dallas sells out most games. Last year they broke their sell-out streak that had been going for over 5 years. Not too many teams can claim that. They then went on and sold out 98% of last years games. I believe a sell out in Dallas is 17,400 so not too far ahead of Edmonton, so to suggest that Edmonton is way ahead of Dallas is wrong.

What I was saying is that since Edmonton sells out almost every game, how is lowering ticket prices and hence lowering revenue going to help a team like Edmonton? I realize player costs will also be lower, but shouldn't the NHL dig themselves out of the hole first before they jump back into it. Wouldn't it benefit Edmonton more to create more $$$ then to give revenue up?

^I would have to say.. yes. Just for my own personal satisfaction, Edmonton was 101% capacity... last season.

 

[Icey]

^I would have to say.. yes. Just for my own personal satisfaction, Edmonton was 101% capacity... last season.

Don't tell the fire marshall that. 101% of capacity could get a building shut down. I doubt the Oilers would risk that. You sure it wasn't just a sell-out, which is not capacity.

 

[Vagabond]

Don't tell the fire marshall that. 101% of capacity could get a building shut down. I doubt the Oilers would risk that. You sure it wasn't just a sell-out, which is not capacity.

^I **** you not.. Then Toronto would be in trouble for they were 104% capacity. Vancouver was around the same number.. So, chief, it appears you've not done your job properly, look at all the buildings that are violating code.. 101 of section 303 verse 32, on page 74 and line 22.