Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by crazedcanuck, Nov 25, 2006.
I know it's early, but anyone have any thoughts on this, I've found nothing in my searches so far.
Don't hold me to it, but I believe the meeting where the preliminary estimates are released is happening in a couple of weeks.
I'm not sure which (I was going back and forth between games during commercials of the Sabres game) but during the intermission of one of the HNIC games they were talking about that part of the reason of the lower attendence is in increase in ticket prices which will result in a higher gate total then last year meaning a slightly higher cap... They said it was to early for actual number estimates though.
Sorry I can't be more helpful but they didn't exactly delve into details
If current revenues hold - about another $1-2 million per team based on first quarter estimates.
I don't believe that at all. They are saying this because that's the company (NHL) line and they are sticking with it. Ratings are down in the US and Canada, attendance is way down pretty much accross the board, etc...
Last season it ws 39-mil, and I believe it's going to end up pretty much back at that point, maybe more like 41-42, but it definetaly won't go up.
Current ratings only affect future TV contracts, except in the case of NBC where they split any profits - and NBC has yet to broadcast a game. And as was mentioned, attendance is down but ticket prices went up more than the change in attendance - so revenues are up.
Example: suppose last year a team averaged 15000 tickets sold per game at $40 per ticket - that's $600,000 per game in ticket revenue. Now suppose attendance goes down 5% but ticket prices go up 7%. Now the average attendance is only 14,250 but the average ticket price is $42.80 - meaning a total ticket revenue per game of $609,900 (an increase of 1.65%).
The Satellite Hot Stove on HNIC said the same as TSN. Revenues up in the first quarter. If it holds then a small increase in the cap next year.
Attendance is down marginally (1%?) but revenues are up due to ticket price increases in many markets including differential pricng for certain games becoming more widespread.
Cap to increase next season?
So much for the lockout being for lower ticket prices, they will have to keep raising tickets each year to make up for even or lost attendance.
Welcome to reality. Prices for *everything* go up year after year.
I'm surprised how many people don't realize this.
Also of note is that revenues are only $22 million shy of triggering an increase of the players % (to 55% from 54%). Even a 1% increase in revenues will trigger this, and that extra % of revenue translates to an extra 700k to the midpoint.
i wont dig up the quotes again, but Bettman most definatly sold the sheep that the lock out would make tickets affordable for everyone.
i guess its just lawyer double talk, but all us educated business of hockey people already knew this. its just that the majority of hockey fans fell for it hook line and sinker.
i still know people who refer to the owners lockout as a strike. when they are corrected, they simpy say "whatever". like its the players fault, no matter what.
Absolutely. The level of lemminglike behaviour around here during the lockout was absolutely disgraceful. It's like nobody could think for themselves.
Actually, gscarpenter and I simply cut and pasted each others' posts, changing the odd word here and there.
This is what happens when you have uneducated simpletons like ourselves trying to engage in a debate with intellectual heavyweights.
It was pretty sad to watch...
btw, I'd like to see some of my old posts where I said ticket prices would be lower, just for old time's sake.
The idea that ticket prices would stay down was always more then a little naive. The owners aren't out there spending their money on a charitable cause, they want to make money. The Players aren't the only one's worried about the bottom line, the owners wan't that extra dollar every bit as much.
The lockout wasn't about improving the equality of tha game, it was about ensuring profit, any benefits the fans may have seen were merely offshots from that. The fans concerns were never a real factor. Anyone thinking logically should have been well aware of that fact.
The NHL is now and will always be a business first and foremost.
Ticket prices will push to the limits of what the individual markets can possibly bare.
If that means less people can afford to see the game then it ultimately means nothing at al, just so long as those people that do pay for the tickets yield enough income to overcome whatever cheaper tickets might gain in extra fans.
It was about ensuring cost certainty.
Individual teams, as well as the league as a whole, were never guaranteed profits.
There were never meant to be any safeguards against bankrupt parent owners or corporations, individual owners charging amounts deemed excessive by fans or scribes, or anything of that ilk.
It was simply to ensure that players' salaries never constituted more than 54 to 55% of the revenues generated by a league that is a niche sport and local-market (read, gate receipts) driven.
Everything else is simply a trickle-down effect.
eh, my ticket prices are still lower than they were before
i have no problem with these statements ... i agree completly.
however thats not how Bettman painted the picture when he need the public support to win the PR battleground.
i have no idea if you posted ticket prices would be lower or not, but if you want to use the search feature, you will find many who claimed this would occur.
having said that, the posters in this forum for the most part are quite educated on the subject, both sides of the fence. however, we are not a snapshot of the general public and most people felt this was a battle for "the fans". the thought process being that athletes make too much money and we cant afford tickets so the lockout would be a good thing. in fact, like i said above, i still hear many call it a strike, when we know it was in fact an owners lockout.
The NHL market of choice is not the average fan but rather the corporate ticket holder. They have been quite successful in that strategy which has been the foundation of Bettman's marketing campaigns.
In a study a couple of years back it was shown that the in-arena advertising for games generated more revenue for the NHL teams than the NBA teams where they were co-located due to this perceived up market fan base.
The NHL when it put out its expansion packages in the past noted that the NHL attracts more corporate fans per capita than any other sport and that its fan base was in comparison to the other major sports, was better educated and more affluent.
The result is a fan base that is much less price sensitive.
god damn it, Timmy, you are NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT!!!!
Frigging confidentiality agreements ... aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
Read the fine print, my friend - that was a non-competition agreement.
I just couldn't stand the guilt any longer, and had to let people know what we were doing back in the dark days.
Separate names with a comma.