Blues to raise ticket prices 10%

[Chileiceman]

Why do you think NBA, MLB and NFL players all make more than NHL players?

If the NHL ever makes the kind of money those leagues make, the players would still receive 54% percent of it. It is impossible for it to be bad for the players if the owners make more money.

 

[nyrmessier011]

I pat myself on the back, and the others who said it also, that again I predicted that all of this making the game affordable business was total Bettman rhetoric ********. Amazing. St. Louis for christs sake. They finished in last place.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Who was arguing against supply and demand setting ticket prices?

Anyone who did got shot down pretty quickly, IIRC, on either side.


The only thing pro-league people were saying was it would cap COSTS, not ensure revenues, and that this higher degree of cost-certainty would help enable franchises to be healthier.

I know I didn't argue that fans would be saving money, except for some one-off "apology" tickets.

I still don't know else would have argued against you on this one...

Most of the arguments occured (obviously) in the fall of 2004 and winter of 2005. Those posts are gone. I did find this one from last July, its indicitve of the agument:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=3034733#post3034733 post #9

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Gary and his minions

The fact that you continue to say things like the above lead me to believe that your biases won't allow for a reasonable debate.

 

[hockeytown9321]

The fact that you continue to say things like the above lead me to believe that your biases won't allow for a reasonable debate.

What exactly is there to debate? If you want to argue about something, I promise not to make fun of Gary's height for the duration.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I promise not to make fun of Gary's height for the duration.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Good night, sir.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I pat myself on the back, and the others who said it also, that again I predicted that all of this making the game affordable business was total Bettman rhetoric ********. Amazing. St. Louis for christs sake. They finished in last place.

And your point here is ... ?

Do you know anything about the financial situation of the Blues over the last few years? Do you know anything about the taxes they have to pay? Or is it "they finished last, why in God's name are they raising ticket prices?"

-- The Blues are debt-free only because Bill Laurie agreed to eat $285M in debt and losses the team has been carrying. This included a $62M payment to the bondholders that financed the Savvis Center when it was built in 1994.
-- The Blues pay a ticket tax of almost 13% to the City of St. Louis. It is by far the highest tax any professional sports team in North America pays.
-- The Blues also are required to pay for all maintenance and upkeep on Savvis Center ... meaning that the renovations being done for the '06-07 season are being paid for exclusively by the team.

Considering that ticket prices (especially those in the upper ends, which have consistently sold out) were kept artificially low over the last few years, and considering that selling the tickets down low (where they were raised) has never been a problem because businesses snap those up, and considering the taxes and maintenance the team still has to pay despite the sale of the team, I'd say a ticket increase was due. Long overdue.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think it's pretty naive of any fans who thought (during the lockout) that somehow the laws of supply and demand wouldn't hold after the lockout ended.

ok, so the laws of supply and demand are in play and completly acceptable for the owners revenues, but not for the players?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

ok, so the laws of supply and demand are in play and completly acceptable for the owners revenues, but not for the players?

No, it's in play here. Just like the fans, if the players think that they're not getting a fair shake, they're free to take their services elsewhere.

The NHL is one league with 30 franchises. You don't get upset when individual McDonald's franchises don't bid up the services of the best assistant managers, do you?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Now could you answer my question from post #11?

Go Kim Johnsson 514, are you going to answer this question? A lot of us are curious.

 

[Dolemite]

35 Posts and not one dedicated to Tka-chunk jokes.

 

[Form and Substance]

It's a shame they had to raise the prices now on top of sucking all of last year.

 

[GKJ]

If the NHL ever makes the kind of money those leagues make, the players would still receive 54% percent of it. It is impossible for it to be bad for the players if the owners make more money.

I'm not saying it would be bad for them, I am saying they would want a bigger piece of the pie. After all the fans come to watch the players play. If the owners continue to make money hand over fist by doing things like raising ticket prices (after saying that the salary cap would make sure prices didn't keep rising), it's only natural for the people who are the product to want more if it. Some people call this a game, I call it a business, and any business that is successful everyone wants a bigger cut.

Go Kim Johnsson 514, are you going to answer this question? A lot of us are curious.

Some people would be curious to know that there are two other significant elements of my life that I just can't avoid in order to keep posting here: work and sleep.

 

[Dr Love]

Why do you think NBA, MLB and NFL players all make more than NHL players?

TV revenue, of which the NHL has next to nothing of.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I'm not saying it would be bad for them, I am saying they would want a bigger piece of the pie. After all the fans come to watch the players play. If the owners continue to make money hand over fist by doing things like raising ticket prices (after saying that the salary cap would make sure prices didn't keep rising), it's only natural for the people who are the product to want more if it. Some people call this a game, I call it a business, and any business that is successful everyone wants a bigger cut.

You do understand that 54% of "hand over fist profits" is going to be a hell of a lot of money, right?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You do understand that 54% of "hand over fist profits" is going to be a hell of a lot of money, right?

the general line of thinking though is that other than player costs, most the owners costs are fixed. once those fixed costs are paid, all new revenue is purely profit for the owners. which is why the thinking goes that as the revenue gets higher, the players should be entiteled to a bigger slice. (which in fairness is recognized by the NHL in the CBA as there is an escalating share for the player as the revenues go up).

i would also like to point out that it is a slight falacy to call the players salaries "employee costs" and then correlate that with the statement that no other business pays this type of % of the revenue to the employee's. the reason is, if you look at say a manufacturing business, they will have gross margins in the 20-30% range, which means that upto 80% of their revenue (before overheads) is taken up in "production costs". considering in pro sports, the owners are manufacturing an entertainment product, their single largest cost of production is capped at 54%, they are doing quite well. so again their "white lie" that no business can sustain such high employee costs was again designed to fool the fans in order to turn them on the players and maintain the very important fan support.

i would have been more on the owners side in their imposed work stoppage, if they werent so blatantly full of beans.

 

[Realm]

the general line of thinking though is that other than player costs, most the owners costs are fixed. once those fixed costs are paid, all new revenue is purely profit for the owners. which is why the thinking goes that as the revenue gets higher, the players should be entiteled to a bigger slice. (which in fairness is recognized by the NHL in the CBA as there is an escalating share for the player as the revenues go up).

i would also like to point out that it is a slight falacy to call the players salaries "employee costs" and then correlate that with the statement that no other business pays this type of % of the revenue to the employee's. the reason is, if you look at say a manufacturing business, they will have gross margins in the 20-30% range, which means that upto 80% of their revenue (before overheads) is taken up in "production costs". considering in pro sports, the owners are manufacturing an entertainment product, their single largest cost of production is capped at 54%, they are doing quite well. so again their "white lie" that no business can sustain such high employee costs was again designed to fool the fans in order to turn them on the players and maintain the very important fan support.

i would have been more on the owners side in their imposed work stoppage, if they werent so blatantly full of beans.

The players money is ALL profit. Its their job. Plus they get all their travel and food payed for, they have people carry their bags etc. They dont pay for anything! They get about $100 a day to eat on top of their paychecks. The players are fine.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The players money is ALL profit. Its their job. Plus they get all their travel and food payed for, they have people carry their bags etc. They dont pay for anything! They get about $100 a day to eat on top of their paychecks. The players are fine.

thats not the point. the owners are able to increase revenues based on the services of the players.

no players, no ticket price increases

edit: let me add, if it was "just their job" they wouldnt have been bullyed into accepting a "partnership" and a cap on their earning power.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Exactly what I'm talking about. Good night, sir.

I like that you called me sir, its a sign of respect.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I like that you called me sir, its a sign of respect.

Don't get too excited - I respect everyone. It's polite.

 

[Fugu]

And your point here is ... ?

Do you know anything about the financial situation of the Blues over the last few years? Do you know anything about the taxes they have to pay? Or is it "they finished last, why in God's name are they raising ticket prices?"

-- The Blues are debt-free only because Bill Laurie agreed to eat $285M in debt and losses the team has been carrying. This included a $62M payment to the bondholders that financed the Savvis Center when it was built in 1994.
-- The Blues pay a ticket tax of almost 13% to the City of St. Louis. It is by far the highest tax any professional sports team in North America pays.
-- The Blues also are required to pay for all maintenance and upkeep on Savvis Center ... meaning that the renovations being done for the '06-07 season are being paid for exclusively by the team.

Considering that ticket prices (especially those in the upper ends, which have consistently sold out) were kept artificially low over the last few years, and considering that selling the tickets down low (where they were raised) has never been a problem because businesses snap those up, and considering the taxes and maintenance the team still has to pay despite the sale of the team, I'd say a ticket increase was due. Long overdue.

Hey, IB, do you remember what the Blues' payroll was the last couple of years prior to the lockout? Just curious as I remember the Lauries dumping salary to prepare the team for a sale.

 

[kdb209]

If the NHL ever makes the kind of money those leagues make, the players would still receive 54% percent of it. It is impossible for it to be bad for the players if the owners make more money.

I'm not saying it would be bad for them, I am saying they would want a bigger piece of the pie. After all the fans come to watch the players play. If the owners continue to make money hand over fist by doing things like raising ticket prices (after saying that the salary cap would make sure prices didn't keep rising), it's only natural for the people who are the product to want more if it. Some people call this a game, I call it a business, and any business that is successful everyone wants a bigger cut.

But the players do get a bigger cut. Their is an escalator on the Players Share percentage based on total league revenues - Hockey Related Reveneus (HRR) - already built into the CBA.

HRR - Players Share
<$2.2B - 54%
$2.2B-$2.4B - 55%-56%
$2.4B-$2.7B - 56%-57%

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Hey, IB, do you remember what the Blues' payroll was the last couple of years prior to the lockout? Just curious as I remember the Lauries dumping salary to prepare the team for a sale.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/salaries/default.aspx

2001-02: $57,405,000
2002-03: $68,710,000
2003-04: $61,675,000

Keep in mind that this is the total salaries of the players on the team's roster at the end of the year, and doesn't just include the 23 players typically on the active roster. For '02-03, the Blues were probably at $62 million, for '03-04 they were somewhere around $60 million.

 

[GKJ]

TV revenue, of which the NHL has next to nothing of.

I'm well aware of that I was hoping some people would have some self-initiative and answer their own questions.

You do understand that 54% of "hand over fist profits" is going to be a hell of a lot of money, right?

If whatever company you work for; big, medium or small; makes an unholy amount of gross profit and your work is a direct result of it, wouldn't you want a bigger cut? In the business world everyone is out for themselves. It's all about how much you can get and whether they get it or not the players are going to want more, just like NFL players just got in their new CBA.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If whatever company you work for; big, medium or small; makes an unholy amount of gross profit and your work is a direct result of it, wouldn't you want a bigger cut?

Ummm...this is a strawman argument. As an employee, I'd want a bigger cut no matter how my company was doing.

The point remains that 54% of a bigger pie is...wait for it....more pie.