Today's Meeting: Any News???

[sabresfan65]

People who think the owners are the sole reason for salaries getting out of hand need to pick up a dictionary and look up a little word known as "collusion".

But anyways, nhl.com has put up a comparison of the offers, and one thing stands out for me that seems really screwed up.



Says the same thing in the full write up to. With the 1/30 share thing, do they mean that all cities have an equal share in the league, ala communism, or is it capitalist and your share is what you bring in. Because if it is, it does not set a cap at like $35-40 mill or whatever, like people are saying. Let's make up some numbers here, and say the Avalanche brings in $100mil for the season, while the small market Oilers only rake in $50mil US. According to the "their 1/30 share", the Avalanche will have a payroll in the 51-57 million range, whereas the Oilers are limited to 25.5-28.5 million salary range. Ok, this would guarantees the financial well being of the league... but it completely $%&*%#@ over the fans! Just when the Colorado's and Detroit's were starting to decline too, you're gonna lower the UFA age to 30 and let them continue to spend more than other teams. God help us if the Rangers ever get it together.
Unless they're going 1/30th the Commie way, then I'm all for it.

What it is saying is that the league will take all revenues and add them up then divide by 30 and multiply by .51 and .57. Each team must spend between that range. No less, no more. It might end up being 65% of some teams "income" but only 45% of another teams income. In the example they used each team would have a payroll between 34.6 and 38.6 million dollars. There will be some sort of revenue sharing but they have not discussed that.

 

[SopelFan*]

Sigh...

 

[p.l.f.]

Goodenow is scum
He's giving every effort to destroy the league as we know it.
Teams are on the verge of folding for god sakes

 

[mikeg]

Well, I'm from Montreal too and ticket prices are not exactly cheap. Maybe for crappy seats but if you want something decent in the reds you're looking at $100+ a ticket.

Forget about food and beer. $15 for a hotdog and beer. Rediculous.

the point is... nowhere in any hockey town will you find 15$ tickets. here you can get nosebleeds for 25$ before tax and service charges, which is freaking low. and if you work it, you can end up in good seats by the second period by scouting empty seats and being nice to the usher's. something i have done many, many times.

something decent will always be expensive, but here in montreal, 100$ is freaking cheap for the kind of seat you can get if you compare it to another hockey town like toronto, where the same thing can go about 300$. you can get center ice tickets in the grays here for around 30 to 40$, my mind if foggy on the price. the view however, is probably better than any 125$ ticket in the burgundy's.

what bettman was saying was that the market dictates the price, supply and demand, etc. basic economics. if you can sell out every game and know you can raise the price to still sell out, you are going to go ahead and raise the price.

mike

 

[waffledave]

what bettman was saying was that the market dictates the price, supply and demand, etc. basic economics. if you can sell out every game and know you can raise the price to still sell out, you are going to go ahead and raise the price.

No, he said that in his opinion, a cap would reduce ticket prices. He then said a bunch of crap that basically meant "well, they might go down but maybe not, depends on the team."

He also said ticket prices would definately not go up, but this is not necessarily true. If a team like Tampa started selling out arenas you'd bet they'd raise ticket prices.

Speaking of Tampa, unsold tickets a few hours before game time go for $10. Someone from Tampa told me this so I don't know firsthand, but I trust him.

 

[Donnie D]

1I would also expect that Bob will do an equally good job when his chance comes up in a half hour. Doesn't mean that either of them is stupid.

I admit it, I was wrong.

Even with the advantage of going last and being able to respond to Bettman, he still didn't look good. Of course it didn't help that the press didn't give him one tough question to answer. It's hard to give quality answers when you aren't given the opportunity.

 

[Donnie D]

Speaking of Tampa, unsold tickets a few hours before game time go for $10. Someone from Tampa told me this so I don't know firsthand, but I trust him.

You shouldn't have trusted him.

Boys and girls, this is how bad rumors get started.

 

[dw2927]

Wothout competition, entities are not able to realize certain efficiencies such as infrastructure, etc. Oil companies share refineries, etc....Also too, monopolistic agencies become complacent and sloppy in their dealings since there is no outside pressure to become better. Please see basic Supply and Demand models for an understanding of why monopolistic structures don't work well. Firm tend to stray from basic overall valuation concepts such as those put forth by Modigliani and Miller (Nobel laureates) that allow for a firm to maximize its size and value.

Slats was right in my opinion, because the "entity" you speak of is not really the individual teams but the league as a whole. The league itself must be efficient.

the health of teams like Colorado, T.O. or NYR depends upon the health of the Edmontons and the Buffalos of the League.

I am a big free-market believer in many areas, but not in this area. The NHL is a business, but it is also entertainment. for a league to be entertaining, there must be a competitive fiscal environment for top players between clubs, to allow for contention by all clubs which will help to maximize its revenues.

The free-market idea is very attractive, but it is only useful if it is tailored to a specific market and meshed with its goals. Broad statements about the positive values of the free market ring hollow if they are not applied to the specific situation of the NHL.

The league rises and falls on the health of all the teams. All of the teams are bound together and rely on each other in a way that is not present in most markets. IF Edmonton or Calgary were to fold, that is that many lost home dates for the richer teams. fewer tickets sold, etc.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Just a word about the "ticket price" issue.

If players and owners become partners and share revenues, then it's in the interest of both to keep those revenues high. As such, players like owners are likely to try and set ticket prices as high as could to maximize revenue (and popularity of the game, to increase the market size). This is not to say that they won't decrease ticket prices, but it might depend on the markets.

 

[Leafer4Life]

This really SUCKS man! Bettman is STUCK on a Salary Cap, and won't accept anything more, anything less! How utterly bleak and depressing

 

[Chileiceman]

There's got to be something in between a luxury tax and a salary cap. But no one can seem to figure it out

 

[SuperUnknown]

Slats was right in my opinion, because the "entity" you speak of is not really the individual teams but the league as a whole. The league itself must be efficient.

the health of teams like Colorado, T.O. or NYR depends upon the health of the Edmontons and the Buffalos of the League.

I am a big free-market believer in many areas, but not in this area. The NHL is a business, but it is also entertainment. for a league to be entertaining, there must be a competitive fiscal environment for top players between clubs, to allow for contention by all clubs which will help to maximize its revenues.

The free-market idea is very attractive, but it is only useful if it is tailored to a specific market and meshed with its goals. Broad statements about the positive values of the free market ring hollow if they are not applied to the specific situation of the NHL.

The league rises and falls on the health of all the teams. All of the teams are bound together and rely on each other in a way that is not present in most markets. IF Edmonton or Calgary were to fold, that is that many lost home dates for the richer teams. fewer tickets sold, etc.

Anyway, the NHL isn't a free market from the way it's made up. Edmonton's owner can't move the team to NY to compete properly with the NYR. He has to compete but in a different market, which already takes apart the "free market" thing.

On the other hand, the NHL entity (meaning all teams) is in competition for the entertainment dollars of the mass with other sports, as well as movies and so on.

If the players really want a true "free market", then they should ask for free agency for the start, as well as regular free market conditions (no salary divulgation), guaranteed contracts negociation for each contract, etc. Which is not going to happen.

 

[Leafer4Life]

There's got to be something in between a luxury tax and a salary cap. But no one can seem to figure it out

Yep, exactly........ They need to find some kind of middle ground.

 

[RandV]

I don't think there is a middle ground. Players are willing to give up the $$$ now to bring the market down to where the owners want it, which is a start. Once it's there though the owners want to maintain that level, while the players want no restriction on it, allowing their share to grow again. It's about as black and white as you can get. I think the compromise will come down to how big a piece of the pie they get. If they were content with 53% the players offered to set contracts to with the rollback then there'd be no problem with a cost certainty cap. Their salaries would still grow depending on league success. Whether its right or wrong, they just want to take back a bigger piece of the pie.
Perhaps a decent compromise would be to put a cap on the actual owners insteadl? Not just the other 47%, as there's a gray area of costs in there, GM's & coaches, scouts, arenas, etc, but how much $$$ the actual owners themselves take home to the bank.

 

[Chileiceman]

Perhaps a decent compromise would be to put a cap on the actual owners insteadl? Not just the other 47%, as there's a gray area of costs in there, GM's & coaches, scouts, arenas, etc, but how much $$$ the actual owners themselves take home to the bank.

It would be hard to put a cap on them if they aren't making any money through hockey in the first place. unless you want to take away money from their external investments

 

[craig1]

Slats was right in my opinion, because the "entity" you speak of is not really the individual teams but the league as a whole. The league itself must be efficient.

the health of teams like Colorado, T.O. or NYR depends upon the health of the Edmontons and the Buffalos of the League.

I am a big free-market believer in many areas, but not in this area. The NHL is a business, but it is also entertainment. for a league to be entertaining, there must be a competitive fiscal environment for top players between clubs, to allow for contention by all clubs which will help to maximize its revenues.

The free-market idea is very attractive, but it is only useful if it is tailored to a specific market and meshed with its goals. Broad statements about the positive values of the free market ring hollow if they are not applied to the specific situation of the NHL.

The league rises and falls on the health of all the teams. All of the teams are bound together and rely on each other in a way that is not present in most markets. IF Edmonton or Calgary were to fold, that is that many lost home dates for the richer teams. fewer tickets sold, etc.

You start your post by agreeing with slats, then go on to to support my position....Most of what you stated was part of my point.

 

[ArtG]

Yep, exactly........ They need to find some kind of middle ground.

well I think the middle ground was a variable hard cap.. which is what the NHL proposed.. it's a hard cap within a certain range.. I guess the PA won't accept any linkage at all..

Although, the NHL's proposal was a total grabbing act, the PA's proposal was just as useless. Nothing would be fixed. Why can't they negotiate instead of going their separate ways?