The Question that continually gets danced around

[PecaFan]

Movie are a poor example, because the product is fixed, it's identical no matter where you are.

A better example would be real estate. Does a guy paying $250K for a house in New York have the right to expect a better house than a guy paying $100K in Edmonton?

Of course not. They're two completely unrelated markets, charging whatever the market will bear.

 

[Pepper]

Movie are a poor example, because the product is fixed, it's identical no matter where you are.

A better example would be real estate. Does a guy paying $250K for a house in New York have the right to expect a better house than a guy paying $100K in Edmonton?

Of course not. They're two completely unrelated markets, charging whatever the market will bear.

Yes that's a better example but both go to show just how ridiculous the question is.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

In the real world, no.

Is that necessarily true?

In Philadelphia I can pay $5 to watch a high school hockey game, $15 to watch the AHL, and $50 to watch the NHL.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Icewind Dale essentially brought it up the other day.

Scenario

Exact same seat, say front row of the 2nd level, right at center ice.

Guy in Edmonton pays $40 cdn.

Guy in Detroit pays $50 us.


Does the guy paying $50 us. have the right to expect a better/more expensive product than the guy paying $40 cdn. ???

I dunno. Gallon of gas in Tuscaloosa is $1.68. Gallon of gas in Phoenix is $1.98. Does the guy paying $1.98 have a right to expect a better gallon of gas?

D'oh! End of that argument.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It is important to the league that the majority of the teams can compete, or else the league falls appart. .

ok, understood. but clearly the majority of NHL teams can compete. this lock out is about raising the franchise values, nothing else.

dr

 

[HockeyCritter]

Icewind Dale essentially brought it up the other day.

Scenario

Exact same seat, say front row of the 2nd level, right at center ice.

Guy in Edmonton pays $40 cdn.

Guy in Detroit pays $50 us.


Does the guy paying $50 us. have the right to expect a better/more expensive product than the guy paying $40 cdn. ???

No.

The market in Detroit allows them to charge more for a seat than Edmonton.

Furthermore, paying for a ticket (regardless of price) entitles to purchaser entrance to a game, that's it. There is no guarantee of wins, quality of product, or level of competition - - such is the nature of the sports beast.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

In Philadelphia I can pay $5 to watch a high school hockey game, $15 to watch the AHL, and $50 to watch the NHL.

This statement basically answers your original question. You can compare prices within a market but you can't necessarily compare them between two different markets. If you pay $50 for a Flyers ticket, you have every right to expect a better "product" or experience than someone paying $20 for admission to the exact same game. That most likely will come in the form of better seats but may also include other amenities. If you pay $50 for a Flyers ticket and a Canes fan can get the exact same experience for $20 in Raliegh it doesn't mean you're getting ripped off, it just means there's a lot less demand for NHL hockey in North Carolina.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

No.

The market in Detroit allows them to charge more for a seat than Edmonton.

Furthermore, paying for a ticket (regardless of price) entitles to purchaser entrance to a game, that's it. There is no guarantee of wins, quality of product, or level of competition - - such is the nature of the sports beast.

I didn't say that is does entitle him to a better/more expensive team. Obviously it doesn't.

The question is, should it entitle him to witness a better product.

Let's say that the average owner puts 60% of ticket revenue back into the payroll. Should owners that draw 99% capactiy and charge more money for tickets put the same % of ticket revenue back into the team than the owner that only fills 70% of his building and charges an average priced seat ???

IMO a fan of a team like the Red Wings that fills their building every night should expect the team payroll to be higher than it is in a place like Chicago that has trouble drawing fans.

The other side to that story would be:

I'd be ticked off if I was an owner in Calgary that nearly fills the building, but due to the cdn. $, being in a smaller city and playing in an older building ... that in order to compete with the higher revenue teams I have to spend a much higher % of my ticket revenue than other teams.


IMO both sides are correct in their thinking ...... and that's part of the reason we're not playing hockey.

 

[IWD]

To clarify, my point wasn't so much if Joe pays 10 bucks in Detroit, but Jack pays 5 bucks in Edmonton, so Joe deserves a better product because he paid more for his ticket. Although, that is part of it too. Rather, my point was more that if you have a larger fanbase, then you should be able to put it to good use. They do, however, coincide if you think about it.

People bring up real estate, movies and taxation, but the problem is we're dealing with an entirely differently situations. It's convenient to bring those types of situations up to support an argument. The NHL is a business, so let's stick to businesses since they're the closest analogy to what type of market the NHL falls under. Shouldn't the investors of Volkswagon expect to have a better product than Kia?

As John put it nicely, if you're spending the money, chances are you'd rather see it go to improving your team than going into the pockets of your owner or towards buying players for Calgary or Nashville.

 

[Potatoe1]

I hope you all realize how utterly pointless this thread is.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Should the Guy who paid $20 for a movie ticket in Manhattan expect to see the Lord of the Rings that we all saw while the guy who went to the movie theater in Decatur, GA who went same first day of release to his local house 'o Movies and paid $7 for his ticket, should he instead be stuck with a puppet show with sock puppets?

The NHL has two choices, and only two. Only have teams in perhaps 5 markets (Good luck with that concept btw - ) or realize that the sport has big and small cities and if there is going to be a 'league' all need to be able to see the same product.

I for one would refuse to watch a sock puppet NHL, except when I am 'blessed' to see the Detroits of the world come to town.

 

[waffledave]

I met with the head of marketing for the Habs a few months back. He explained it pretty well.

The people who pay $100+ for tickets in Montreal do get a better show than other places. The Bell Centre is one of the nicest arenas in the league, and the show they put on it fun for everyone there. The focus of the marketing team is to keep the fans of the team comming back, and to get the casual fan to become a fanatical fan. It works, too.

If you go to a hockey game in an arena like the Bell Centre or the ACC, etc...You will have a good time. You will have a good time regardless if the home team loses or wins. They work to make the game enjoyable, even if you don't like hockey.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case for all venues. The fans of the Habs don't continuously fill up the arena because they are simply fans of the game. There is a reason that a 6 year old kid will go to a Habs game and leave as a fan for life.

 

[quat]

ok, understood. but clearly the majority of NHL teams can compete. this lock out is about raising the franchise values, nothing else.

dr

Well, I don't think it's just one and only one thing, althought this statement certainly does cover a great deal of ground... but it comes off as being extremely negative when that doesn't have to be the case. A healthy league benifits players and owners.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

A healthy league benifits players and owners.

fair enough. the health of the league is being jeapordized by the owners refusal to find a pro active solution to their needs.

ramming it down the players throats doesnt seem to be working very well "in the best interest of a healthy league", i think if they really cared about the NHL, they would be more diligent in their search for a solution.

dr

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

fair enough. the health of the league is being jeapordized by the owners refusal to find a pro active solution to their needs.

ramming it down the players throats doesnt seem to be working very well "in the best interest of a healthy league", i think if they really cared about the NHL, they would be more diligent in their search for a solution.

dr

And we know the players care, bending at every turn to do their part for a season.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

And we know the players care, bending at every turn to do their part for a season.

the owners brought on the work stoppage, not the players. if this was a strike, the burden would be on the players.

dr

 

[Hawker14]

if i offered my employer 24% of my salary back, i'd consider this bending, in order to be able to go to work !!!

anyways, should i feel sympathy to an owner of a have-not franchise such as...oh, say.. nashville ... who's players are offering 24% of their salaries back ... when the guy is the world's 36th richest person ?

 

[quat]

fair enough. the health of the league is being jeapordized by the owners refusal to find a pro active solution to their needs.

ramming it down the players throats doesnt seem to be working very well "in the best interest of a healthy league", i think if they really cared about the NHL, they would be more diligent in their search for a solution.

dr

I understood that the players had been approached several years ago, and more than once, with the owners desire to creat a different solution, and were rebuffed. That may part of the reason this negotiation seems quite acrimonious. It does seem that negotiations of this sort are rarely polite, and certainly the scope of this one is rather broad.

I don't really see the players suffering as much as you do in this deal, although they certainly will be sacrificing some concessions they had won in the last agreement.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

if i offered my employer 24% of my salary back, i'd consider this bending, in order to be able to go to work !!!

anyways, should i feel sympathy to an owner of a have-not franchise such as...oh, say.. nashville ... who's players are offering 24% of their salaries back ... when the guy is the world's 36th richest person ?

In the real world a 24% rollback would be bending over backwards and then some. NHL is not real World business. Its a beast of its own.

 

[Hawker14]

In the real world a 24% rollback would be bending over backwards and then some. NHL is not real World business. Its a beast of its own.

considering the wealth of the NHL owners, i don't think it gets any more real.

 

[Hawker14]

the nhl owners are playing a high stakes poker game, with the belief that they have the necessary cards up their sleeves.

however, i believe they've underestimated the players. most players come from middle class upbringings who's parents had to earn everything they've ever made.

the players, for the most part, know exactly how lucky they are to be earning the salaries they do, but they also realize that without them, there is no NHL.

the nhl could re-start next year with scabs, but after a few weeks no one will pay to see AHL/ECHL calibre players at NHL ticket prices. i believe this because i won't even pay to watch the AHL more than a couple times per year myself, even with a new arena.

i'm very interested to see Bettman's actions over the next few weeks as I believe his job will ultimately be decided by it, notwithstanding the support certain owners are publicly providing in the media (of course, league sanctioned...mr. jacobs !!!).

 

[misterjaggers]

Is that necessarily true?

In Philadelphia I can pay $5 to watch a high school hockey game, $15 to watch the AHL, and $50 to watch the NHL.

Is what necessarily true? That ticket prices are function of local supply and demand? That consumers in Manhattan have more discretionary income to spend than consumers in Calgary? That consumers value some event tickets higher than others? That hockey competes with other forms of entertainment? That winning teams generally draw better than losers? Is what necessarily true?

 

[misterjaggers]

the nhl owners are playing a high stakes poker game, with the belief that they have the necessary cards up their sleeves...

They do. They're holding the trump cards.

 

[quat]

the nhl owners are playing a high stakes poker game, with the belief that they have the necessary cards up their sleeves.

however, i believe they've underestimated the players. most players come from middle class upbringings who's parents had to earn everything they've ever made.

the players, for the most part, know exactly how lucky they are to be earning the salaries they do, but they also realize that without them, there is no NHL.

the nhl could re-start next year with scabs, but after a few weeks no one will pay to see AHL/ECHL calibre players at NHL ticket prices. i believe this because i won't even pay to watch the AHL more than a couple times per year myself, even with a new arena.

i'm very interested to see Bettman's actions over the next few weeks as I believe his job will ultimately be decided by it, notwithstanding the support certain owners are publicly providing in the media (of course, league sanctioned...mr. jacobs !!!).

And with no pucks there can be no hockey either.... to say nothing of the sticks and nets !

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I understood that the players had been approached several years ago, and more than once, with the owners desire to creat a different solution, and were rebuffed.

Brian Burke was asked if the situation was reversed and the last CBA was killing the players, not the owners, would the owners have agreed mid deal to change it ?

he said not a chance.

so, whats good for the goose ...

dr