Bob Goodenow on CBC

[Legolas]

I think the only real link between player salaries and ticket prices is that as player salaries went up, and the media and fans became more educated about these price increases, the owners used the increase in salaries as sufficient grounds to increase ticket prices. In effect, the owners took advantage to a certain degree of the fact the public already knew there were higher salaries and therefore accepting higher ticket prices was easier for the public to swallow. If I told you over and over again that my entire payroll went up 30% over one offseason and I said I was raising ticket prices by an extra 15% to compensate, you'd probably believe me, even if in reality, the old ticket prices were perfectly capable of absorbing the cost increase. The one questioner last night who told Goodenow that if player salaries dropped by 50% there would be some drop in ticket prices was being far too idyllic and naive if you ask me.

I didn't think Goodenow presented himself very well last night, but this is what I don't enjoy about these "public" question period shows:

1. Mansbridge asks very basic questions that are mainly designed to make Goodenow either look stupid or keep the issues narrowly defined. I'm not expecting a complicated intricate debate, but questions like "Is there going to be hockey this year?" aren't particularly helpful. They're the equivalent of asking an athlete "How important are these next few games?" Does the answer really matter? Particularly when you can almost predict verbatim what Goodenow will say.

2. The rants. I know we're frustrated and angry and we want to take it out on Bettman and Goodenow, but I can't stand these people who ask a question, get the answer, and then spend the follow-up criticizing the answer or ranting on why the players/owners are stupid. Mansbridge was brilliant when he told one fan "Is there an actual question in there or was that just a statement?"

3. Goodenow's expressions - he's way too calm. I know that he can't just start screaming and getting all emotional, but a different facial expression than the pensive stare would be nice.

I think Mansbridge was right in that the public relations tide and the public opinion is slanted heavily against the players, and I think the NHLPA knows it, and I think they understand that this is going to be much tougher than '94. Rather than attack the owners position, Goodenow tried to simplify everything down to "We want to play, we're just locked out" statements which backfired on him, particularly when there's this kid out West who says he'd play hockey for free. How classic would it be if they had some other kid saying he'd own a hockey team even if he never made money?

The sad part is that you could almost see Goodenow answering these questions and thinking to himself that he honestly doesn't care about what public opinion is because he knows the owners will cave and that's all that matters. It's this kind of arrogance on both sides that will probably keep us without NHL hockey until January at the earliest, and I fear much longer.

 

[Seachd]

Here's an example. If you took 8 million and were able to bring a marquee player into Detroit, ticket prices will increase, as the demand is higher. However, what if they spend the big bucks to get a player like Holik? Would a player like Holik command enough market demand to allow management to raise prices on tickets? That's more doubtful.

So why do prices go up after a Holik-type player comes to town, even though demand doesn't go up?

 

[Russian Fan]

Pierre Boivin President of the Montreal Canadiens said a few times that even with a salary cap, ticket price would not go down.

Pierre Boivin was so happy to say ''we put some ticket price for family bla bla bla''

Why is that Mr.Boivin ? Because there was a section in the arena where you couldn't charge that much to fill the seats & that's you put this section as the ''family'' section. Now your building is a sellout most night.

It wasn't directed to players salary, it was related to the demand.

The rant about players salaries is ridiculous. A salary cap won't change the ticket price & a team who make 20M$US in profit will turn this into 60M$US in profit but I guess it's ok for an owner to make that much money but it's not okay for a player to get that money because after he's just playing hockey

 

[Seachd]

The rant about players salaries is ridiculous. A salary cap won't change the ticket price & a team who make 20M$US in profit will turn this into 60M$US in profit but I guess it's ok for an owner to make that much money but it's not okay for a player to get that money because after he's just playing hockey

And what about a team that loses $5 million a year. Is it the end of the world if they finally manage to turn a profit under a salary cap?

 

[Go Flames Go*]

It is clear now that Bob Goodenow has totally lost it.

Fan: Bob why don't you guys wan't to negotiate a fair deal.

Bob: Salary cap they want a salary cap

Fan: Bob the players are greedy I wish they would all die

Bob: Salary Cap gary says Salary Cap tthats the only way

Fan: Mr.Goodenow, the pee wee kids are crying about why the players are so greedy, why wont they just accept 1.3 million it is more then enough for a nice standard of living.

Bob: Salary cap, salary cap, salary cap, salary cap

Fan: Hey Bill you guys seem stuck on this salary cap issue, it works everywhere else why not in the nhl.

Bob: *looks around in a confused way* Salary cap, he said salary cap,

That is pretty much the entire interview last night he wouldnt answer quetions withouth Salary Cap, or the player don't want more they want what the owners belive there worth. FINE

Jarome Iginla you worth 3 million a season come and play now, oh wait when the Flames offered Thereon Fluery 6 million a season for over 4 years he said no I want more, we made a fair offer isntead we had to trade him. So I don't see how the system works or how the owners have all the power.

Alexi Yashin scores 2 more goals then the previous year, he wants 3 million more a season, this is not a market place bob, if I want a job the owner says 6.50 a hour, and I work for 6.50. I don;t like it but the owner dicates my salary, I cannot sit there and say well its been 2 weeks now I think i need 10.50 an hour, the owner would put his foot up my ass. Same as if I am working and I don't perform I get fired, just like the Owners should do to the players if they dont perform fire them no money for you.

Bob has no idea what a market place system is at all, like I have said he needs to get himself a economics education to better understand the league and how the world works, there is restraints and caps everywhere.

By the way he said the NBA has a cap but team are still loosing money, the NBA has a soft cap, the same thing the NHLPA offered, so he just made the point Betman has done the whole time, they cant gaurntee that the soft cap will work since the NBA teams are still loosing money, way to go Bob in 45 minutes you have ****ed the union completley.

 

[Jovo Cop]

I went to a Canadiens game in 1989 ..the best seat in the house was 30 bucks ...what were players making then ..those same seats today 15 years later are 200 bucks ..what are players salaries now ..nope salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices

Now if every team is capped ..how can Team Blue (Leafs) justify a raise in prices when Team Gold (Oilers) reamins at status quo ..of course they cant ..and if Leaf fans keep buying those high priced tickets well thats great for the Leafs ..if they are stupid enough to keep paying it .

 

[mmbt]

I think Mansbridge was right in that the public relations tide and the public opinion is slanted heavily against the players, and I think the NHLPA knows it, and I think they understand that this is going to be much tougher than '94. Rather than attack the owners position, Goodenow tried to simplify everything down to "We want to play, we're just locked out" statements which backfired on him, particularly when there's this kid out West who says he'd play hockey for free. How classic would it be if they had some other kid saying he'd own a hockey team even if he never made money?

They used the "We want to play, but we're locked out," thing back in '95, too. I remember the NHLPA saying they'd gladly continue to play under the old rules until they hammered out a new deal for the long term. Of course, such talk is ultimately meaningless.

But right now, their PR is about as bad as it was for the NBA players when Patrick Ewing said, "Of course we get paid a lot ... but we spend a lot, too!" But all you need to know is that for many owners they're actually at the point where they're better off NOT playing hockey. That wasn't the case in '95 or at any point prior to this.

 

[Legolas]

It is clear now that Bob Goodenow has totally lost it.
Alexi Yashin scores 2 more goals then the previous year, he wants 3 million more a season, this is not a market place bob, if I want a job the owner says 6.50 a hour, and I work for 6.50. I don;t like it but the owner dicates my salary, I cannot sit there and say well its been 2 weeks now I think i need 10.50 an hour, the owner would put his foot up my ass. Same as if I am working and I don't perform I get fired, just like the Owners should do to the players if they dont perform fire them no money for you.

It's really difficult to compare pro sports to a normal employer-employee relationship. Your owner knows he can replace you. Your owner knows he can go out and find somebody who is just as productive and will accept the $6.50 an hour and shut up about it. The NHL owners should probably have this mentality and then we wouldn't be in this mess. Problem is, the NHL owners think that their star players are indispensible, that they can't replace them, that their role players are way more valuable and that players in general are much more scarce than they actually are, therefore they continue to pay more salaries. The owners have complete control just like a normal employer, but they just don't have the courage or common sense to take a hard line with players and rely on their management teams to dictate their success. Having agents constantly in their faces and competing owners who don't care about fiscal responsibility doesn't help either.

By the way he said the NBA has a cap but team are still loosing money, the NBA has a soft cap, the same thing the NHLPA offered, so he just made the point Betman has done the whole time, they cant gaurntee that the soft cap will work since the NBA teams are still loosing money, way to go Bob in 45 minutes you have ****ed the union completley.

The NHLPA didn't offer a soft cap. The NHLPA offered a system similar to major league baseball...no salary cap, but luxury tax at a certain payroll level. Of course, the NHLPA luxury tax level was a joke but they've said over and over they're willing to negotiate on it. The NHL hasn't actually stated, as far as I know, whether the NHL wants a hard cap or soft cap, I'm sure they'd love an NFL CBA but they'll accept an NBA CBA, as long as they get some kind of cap. Goodenow's point is correct, he just makes a terrible speaker when he's got little kids and upset parents ranting at him about how much his union is greedy. A cap doesn't necessarily guarantee the financial stability the league is calling for. Goodenow can keep on saying the owners control salaries because he already knows the owners are too stupid to keep salaries down.

 

[Legolas]

They used the "We want to play, but we're locked out," thing back in '95, too. I remember the NHLPA saying they'd gladly continue to play under the old rules until they hammered out a new deal for the long term. Of course, such talk is ultimately meaningless.

But right now, their PR is about as bad as it was for the NBA players when Patrick Ewing said, "Of course we get paid a lot ... but we spend a lot, too!" But all you need to know is that for many owners they're actually at the point where they're better off NOT playing hockey. That wasn't the case in '95 or at any point prior to this.

Exactly. The last NBA CBA was a classic example of the league running rough shod over the players. Stern was credited as being brilliant when in reality he basically sat back and waited for all the NBA players to start sweating about not getting paid and for Billy Hunter et al. to keep shooting off their mouths. The NHLPA isn't as bad, and I think the NHL players are slightly more fiscally responsible than the NBA players, either that or the NHL players are just way better at hiding their excesses. I think the NHLPA is going to lose this time, unless Bettman loses control of the owners.

 

[Jovo Cop]

Like Patrick said " we make a lot of money ..but we spend a lot too "
Athletes no sense of reality .

 

[Go Flames Go*]

It's really difficult to compare pro sports to a normal employer-employee relationship. Your owner knows he can replace you. Your owner knows he can go out and find somebody who is just as productive and will accept the $6.50 an hour and shut up about it. The NHL owners should probably have this mentality and then we wouldn't be in this mess. Problem is, the NHL owners think that their star players are indispensible, that they can't replace them, that their role players are way more valuable and that players in general are much more scarce than they actually are, therefore they continue to pay more salaries. The owners have complete control just like a normal employer, but they just don't have the courage or common sense to take a hard line with players and rely on their management teams to dictate their success. Having agents constantly in their faces and competing owners who don't care about fiscal responsibility doesn't help either.



The NHLPA didn't offer a soft cap. The NHLPA offered a system similar to major league baseball...no salary cap, but luxury tax at a certain payroll level. Of course, the NHLPA luxury tax level was a joke but they've said over and over they're willing to negotiate on it. The NHL hasn't actually stated, as far as I know, whether the NHL wants a hard cap or soft cap, I'm sure they'd love an NFL CBA but they'll accept an NBA CBA, as long as they get some kind of cap. Goodenow's point is correct, he just makes a terrible speaker when he's got little kids and upset parents ranting at him about how much his union is greedy. A cap doesn't necessarily guarantee the financial stability the league is calling for. Goodenow can keep on saying the owners control salaries because he already knows the owners are too stupid to keep salaries down.

Luxury Tax at a certian level, the Soft Cap is almsost the same thing u go over and u pay a tax.

The players have dicated the salary, they are the ones holding out, and when owners offer them fair reasonable deals they cry and ***** for more money, like they are gonna starve with 6 million. No compassion from me, I could care less if i see a player starving to death, they don't care about the fans or the game of hockey, like the NBA or NFL player care about there sport and the competitvness of it. These are greedy and selfish spolied brats.

The owners hands are tied when a superstar says I want 10 million and the owners says 6 million, and they say no and say they wont play until they are paid there 10 million or traded to New York to so they can get 10 million. I don't see how owners dicate the salaries, on top of that they don't perform when they sign these deals, and worse off your hands are tied when they don't perform. The Owners have made some mistakes, but its the greed of the players which as ruined this league.

 

[Street Hawk]

Contraction?

Didn't watch the Goodenow thing, but did anyone question him about the possiblity of contraction like they did to Bettman? Bettman said that if the NHL owners don't get the deal they need, then they will lose teams?

Does Bob not think that if the lockout lasts a year that it's going to be damn hard to sell and move a hockey team, even to Houston, Portland, Cleveland given that interest in hockey will be way down and will take many years to improve. No guaranteed TV money, waning interest, and competition from other sports should convice potential owners from going after an NHL team. Houston and Cleveland each support the other big 3 sports, and given that they just regained an NFL team, that's their passion. Cleveland has the supposed next great BBall player in LeBron, and the Indians are expected to have a great shot at the AL Central title next season, so the next few years look bright for them. Even with the Gund's who once owned the Sharks wanting a team in Cleveland, probably not the wisest business move. Same with Houston with the Texans, Astros, and Rockets. Portland, is a smaller market, but fewer competition, but still... maybe not the best business climate to bring in pro hockey.

So, teams won't have any choice but to fold up and the NHL might lose 2 or 4 or 6 teams. And with a 23 man roster per team, that ranges from 46, 92 to 138 union members that will be lost.

 

[BLONG7]

What about the owners taking cap off the table, but not guaranteeing players contracts??? A guy who makes 5M has a bad year, then cut him loose...

 

[Guy Caballero]

So, teams won't have any choice but to fold up and the NHL might lose 2 or 4 or 6 teams. And with a 23 man roster per team, that ranges from 46, 92 to 138 union members that will be lost.

He doesn't care. He's gunning for big bucks for high-level players. He doesn't give a crap about the league's bottom 100 guys, because they don't generate the PA and the agents all that much money with their half-million dollar salaries.

Hey, Bobby. Want a free-market system? Why not agree to non-guaranteed contracts? Wouldn't that be fair? Wouldn't that be in the spirit of "market-driven enterprise."

"What's that, Reichel? Only 10 goals this year and no back-checking? Guess what. You're fired. Go see what the market dictates you're worth now."

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Or how about Jarmoir Jagr whats that you have no heart, you have no penis and you make 11 million a season, well either you take a 7 million pay cut or your gone buddy go find a new team. Now thats what I call fair.

What not fair is checking line centres like Micheal Peca sitting out a season so he could get big money, now tell me how does the owner dicate the salary, he was told what he is worth and he wont accept where is the fairness here?

 

[Jack Canuck]

In today's NHL, ticket sales are not to maximize profits, they are to limit losses. How do you explain the correlation between the inflation of player salaries, and the inflation of ticket prices then? They have both happened within the last 10 - 12 years.

You're saying inflation of ticket prices has to do with the demand, so if ticket prices have only started to rise within the last 10 years, then you're saying the demand is greater now for hockey then 10 years ago? You and I know that isn't true.

Minimizing losses & Maximizing Profits are pretty much the same thing.

And by the way inflation happens over time. Do you expect that as the price of things go up all over the country the only thing to stay constant will be your tickets to the hockey games?

Think a little! All wages across different occupations have gone up over the last ten years, so rather than the owners raising prices because of higher demand they have raised prices because the average person has more money in their pockets than 10 years ago, and they are willing to spend more to see a game.

Again people simple economics

 

[garry1221]

The link is that as revenues grow from increased ticket prices, player salaries grow because owners have more money to pay the players.

But the converse is absolutely false. Player salaries have no impact on ticket prices.

As an example, a statement that all Canadians are hockey fans can be true but the converse, all hockey fans are Canadian, cannot be true.

Arguments about minimizing losses instead of maximizing profits are assinine. By maxmizing revenues you do both at the same time.

the only way you do both at the same time is if you HAVE no loss, therefore you'd just maximize revenues, if you're 60,000 and your total revenues come to 80,000 have you gained 80,000 or have you just covered your losses and had 20,000 left over

 

[Jack Canuck]

average nhl player's salary '93 - '94 season: $572,161
average nhl player's salary '03 - '04 season: 1.79 mil
a difference of: $1,217,839
equals out to an increase of: 310.9% roughly

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/7-20cba.htm ^^^

interesting site i discovered, might try calculating things out later

in '94 costs of going to a game: http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_94-95.cfm

in '04 costs of going to a game: http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_03-04.cfm

definite increases, just thought this was interesting after the carolina debate

Just because the two things both go up does not mean they are dependant on one another. Ticket prices go up due to inflation. If you owned a business would you keep all your prices constant for 10 years? I doubt it!

 

[Legolas]

Luxury Tax at a certian level, the Soft Cap is almsost the same thing u go over and u pay a tax.

The players have dicated the salary, they are the ones holding out, and when owners offer them fair reasonable deals they cry and ***** for more money, like they are gonna starve with 6 million. No compassion from me, I could care less if i see a player starving to death, they don't care about the fans or the game of hockey, like the NBA or NFL player care about there sport and the competitvness of it. These are greedy and selfish spolied brats.

The owners hands are tied when a superstar says I want 10 million and the owners says 6 million, and they say no and say they wont play until they are paid there 10 million or traded to New York to so they can get 10 million. I don't see how owners dicate the salaries, on top of that they don't perform when they sign these deals, and worse off your hands are tied when they don't perform. The Owners have made some mistakes, but its the greed of the players which as ruined this league.

I agree the luxury tax and soft salary cap are similar, but obviously they aren't the same thing otherwise there would actually be some bargaining going on right now instead of rhetoric between the players and owners.

As far as players dictating salaries, I agree that players and agents do all they can to cut the best deal they can and a very small percentage of players end up not honouring those contracts and holding out, but the owner has the final decision and its more due to bad management that teams feel absolutely compelled to sign players who refuse to re-sign or make huge demands, or report to training camp. Hey, I'm not saying it's an easy thing to do to not re-sign Jarome Iginla or something like that, but I also find it very hard to agree with an owner who says "I'm losing money cause you made me pay you too much money."

As for sympathy, I don't have sympathy for either side. I have sympathy for us fans and the workers who depend on hockey for their livelihood. Those are the real victims here. But at the same time, I'm not going to say things like "I could care less if i see a player starving to death" just because they make huge salaries.

And if you think that NFL and NBA players care more about fans and the game than NHL players then you have a funny way of looking at history. The NFL and NBA have had much crazier labour wars than the NHL, although this lockout looks like it could turn into as nasty a battle.

 

[Jack Canuck]

The link is that as revenues grow from increased ticket prices, player salaries grow because owners have more money to pay the players.

If you are maximizing your profits and you increase ticket prices what happens?

less people come, and there are less profits from sales inside the gate beer, pop ect. Once you are maximizing profits you olny change for certain variables (player salaries are not one of them).

Players salaries have been increasing so rapidly due to the fact that some teams have a bunch of money and think it is fun to win buy buying the best at any cost. Which in turn forces others to do the same.

Look at Sakic when NYR went hafter him, and Colorado had to match their insane offer, setting a new prcident for what a star should be worth.

 

[Jack Canuck]

I went to a Canadiens game in 1989 ..the best seat in the house was 30 bucks ...what were players making then ..those same seats today 15 years later are 200 bucks ..what are players salaries now ..nope salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices

Ok, once again think about this a little. Back in 1989 how much money did the average person in your position earn? Now think carefully, today in 2004 how much money does a person in that same position make? Hmmm, are we beginning to see the light? The link is between what the average person is willing to pay, not what the player makes.

[/Quote]
Now if every team is capped ..how can Team Blue (Leafs) justify a raise in prices when Team Gold (Oilers) reamins at status quo ..of course they cant ..and if Leaf fans keep buying those high priced tickets well thats great for the Leafs ..if they are stupid enough to keep paying it .[/QUOTE]

If every team is capped and 5 years go by... Team blue realizes that they are constantly filling their seats because the average person's wages have increased and they have more money to spend. Hmmm, perhaps if we increase the prices we can still fill the seats while making more cash. This may also happen if team blue has developed some good young talent that increase demand. Team gold on the otherhand may not have the same size fan base, or perhaps no players that will draw in the croud. Therefore they will have to keep the status quo.

Taaa Daa!

 

[LadyJet26]

Okay JackCanuck, you are beyond on my nerves.

You don't get that not everyone can f*cking afford to buy NHL games tickets FFS! I for one cannot. The fact of the matter is ticket prices are too damn flipping expensive for the average person, irregardless if they make $50 000 a year or $20 000. That my fellow poster is what you call middle class. The ones that spend their well earned money on the merchadise because they cannot afford tickets for their entire family to go to a single regular season NHL game. You don't seem to get that part. Yes incomes have increased over the years, but so has hydro, water, gas, phone, cable, satelite, internet, oh and some other insignificant things that humans need that is called food

 

[YellHockey*]

You don't get that not everyone can f*cking afford to buy NHL games tickets FFS! I for one cannot. The fact of the matter is ticket prices are too damn flipping expensive for the average person, irregardless if they make $50 000 a year or $20 000.

I didn't know that NHL tickets were a god given right.

If everyone could afford to go there wouldn't be room in the building for everyone.

Fact is NHL tickets are a luxury item, like a BMW or a Rolex.

 

[Jack Canuck]

Okay JackCanuck, you are beyond on my nerves.

You don't get that not everyone can f*cking afford to buy NHL games tickets FFS! I for one cannot. The fact of the matter is ticket prices are too damn flipping expensive for the average person, irregardless if they make $50 000 a year or $20 000. That my fellow poster is what you call middle class. The ones that spend their well earned money on the merchadise because they cannot afford tickets for their entire family to go to a single regular season NHL game. You don't seem to get that part. Yes incomes have increased over the years, but so has hydro, water, gas, phone, cable, satelite, internet, oh and some other insignificant things that humans need that is called food

I'm sorry I don't create the facts they are just there. If people could not afford tickets, then the owners would have no choice but to lower prices to get more people in the door. However, as it stand they obviously have a sufficient number of people paying for tickets at the current price.

If you think that the owners are a charity organization, and that they should be lowering prices just to accomadate you, then you are sadly mistaken. It is not the owners fault that you do not fit in that class of people that is able to afford going to hockey games.

 

[Jack Canuck]

I didn't know that NHL tickets were a god given right.

If everyone could afford to go there wouldn't be room in the building for everyone.

Fact is NHL tickets are a luxury item, like a BMW or a Rolex.

Thanks,