Bob Goodenow on CBC

[chriss_co]

I was quite disappointed in the questions that were asked. There were a total of 3 strong business related CBA questions.. the rest was were dealing with when/how are you going to negotiate and what about the fans... kind of a waste of time in my opinion

Goodenow is wrong on the ticket prices... if ticket prices were based on supply and demand, you wouldn't have outrageous ticket prices in markets where people don't care about hockey and there are empty seats throughout the building every game

the other thing is there have been steady ticket price increases during the last CBA.. the last time I checked, the attendances did not go up.. in many cases (especially teams that performed poorly) ticket prices went up instead of down (which would be the case according to goodenow's supply/demand theory)

its a fact.. teams are under financial pressures to maintain a high star-player level on their team so they have to increase ticket prices (since salaries rocketed up) regardless of fans actually wanting to attend the games

if you want a good example of supply/demand not being the case in hockey tickets look at the OSHL... $65-70 tickets to watch a poor 'hockey' game?? thats ridiculous.. i dont buy the charity crap either

 

[Epsilon]

I was quite disappointed in the questions that were asked. There were a total of 3 strong business related CBA questions.. the rest was were dealing with when/how are you going to negotiate and what about the fans... kind of a waste of time in my opinion

Goodenow is wrong on the ticket prices... if ticket prices were based on supply and demand, you wouldn't have outrageous ticket prices in markets where people don't care about hockey and there are empty seats throughout the building every game

the other thing is there have been steady ticket price increases during the last CBA.. the last time I checked, the attendances did not go up.. in many cases (especially teams that performed poorly) ticket prices went up instead of down (which would be the case according to goodenow's supply/demand theory)

its a fact.. teams are under financial pressures to maintain a high star-player level on their team so they have to increase ticket prices (since salaries rocketed up) regardless of fans actually wanting to attend the games

if you want a good example of supply/demand not being the case in hockey tickets look at the OSHL... $65-70 tickets to watch a poor 'hockey' game?? thats ridiculous.. i dont buy the charity crap either

If ticket prices were totally based on supply and demand then there would be even more financial disparity between the teams, because teams like the Leafs could continue to hike the prices knowing that people will still buy, whereas other teams would have to start cutting prices to fill their buildings.

 

[djhn579]

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.

I really hate those those fans that can't be bothered to put on their best tux's for the game, and then those owners are so bad, they don't serve champaigne and cavier!

Only the elite that can afford to pay the ticket prices required to support the multi-million dollar player salaries, should be allowed in the lower bowl. The almost elite can sit in the upper deck, but they should learn to be quiet and not spill their beer so that the elite can truly enjoy the games!

As for the middle class, who cares? Let them sit home, watch the games on their 13" black and white tv's and let them eat cake!

 

[Jack Canuck]

I really hate those those fans that can't be bothered to put on their best tux's for the game, and then those owners are so bad, they don't serve champaigne and cavier!

Only the elite that can afford to pay the ticket prices required to support the multi-million dollar player salaries, should be allowed in the lower bowl. The almost elite can sit in the upper deck, but they should learn to be quiet and not spill their beer so that the elite can truly enjoy the games!

As for the middle class, who cares? Let them sit home, watch the games on their 13" black and white tv's and let them eat cake!

I must have missed something. When did the NHL become a charity devoted to fullfilling your hockey needs? They are a business, and a business tries to make money! The owners did not invest their money in these teams because they have good hearts and want to make NHL hockey available for all classes of people.

Wake up!

 

[thinkwild]

Take the Maple Leafs for example. What would happen if they dropped their ticket prices? Scalpers would have a field day. Because the scalpers, being true capitalists, know the market value of thise tickets and can negotiate it. They dont charge more for tickets because they have to cover their salary costs. They charge what the market can bear.

If owners were charging to cover salary costs, why would hot dogs be $5? Because Jacobs made his fortunes as the ultimate gouger. Why would anyone believe they dont do it for ticket prices too.

Toronto must charge those prices. So now how do we solve the revenue disparity that creates? By capping the players salaries? Did I miss logic class?

 

[djhn579]

I must have missed something. When did the NHL become a charity devoted to fullfilling your hockey needs? They are a business, and a business tries to make money! The owners did not invest their money in these teams because they have good hearts and want to make NHL hockey available for all classes of people.

Wake up!

Take your own advice.

In cities like NY and Toronto, the NHL is more of a luxury. There is a large enough fan base that you can have high ticket prices and still get enough fans to attend the games. In most other cities however, tickets have to be affordable for the average fans. As a gate driven business, you have to price tickets according to the market. Of course NHL hockey is not a right, but it is also not so much of a luxury that average fans should not be able to afford tickets.

As for when the NHL became a charity devoted to my hockey needs, when did hockey become a charity devoted to fullfilling the players needs (and egos) to be paid so well?

If the owners are in business to make money, they are not doing such a good job at that right now. With ~20 teams losing money, the owners definitely have to make the game more affordable for the average fans and a big part of that is decreasing their largest expense, player salaries.

 

[thinkwild]

So if every player took a 20% cut and brought the avg salary down to $1.3Mil, reset the market and tweaked some arbitration etc rules to where the owner want it, and knowing everything we know now, if owners went $300mil into debt again, would you sympathize with them?

 

[djhn579]

So if every player took a 20% cut and brought the avg salary down to $1.3Mil, reset the market and tweaked some arbitration etc rules to where the owner want it, and knowing everything we know now, if owners went $300mil into debt again, would you sympathize with them?

When that actually happens, I'll re-evaluate my position. But right now I'm very comfortable with agreeing with the owners that "cost certainty" is needed for the good of the game. That's my opinion, anyway...

 

[thinkwild]

I understand your opinion. I think at heart I share your goals. I think there are some very clever ways to address it though.

When have you ever come to the conclusion that the solution to something was Cost Certainty?

The owners dont need cost certainty. They need to have a market that gives them enough options to build a team into a great team and make a profit. To give them the choices. The options. They pay their GMs millions of dollars in salaries to do this because it is very difficult.

The players are still a labour market.

The problem is that fans perceive a problem. Change the perception.

 

[djhn579]

When have you ever come to the conclusion that the solution to something was Cost Certainty?

The owners dont need cost certainty. They need to have a market that gives them enough options to build a team into a great team and make a profit. To give them the choices. The options. They pay their GMs millions of dollars in salaries to do this because it is very difficult.

The players are still a labour market.

The problem is that fans perceive a problem. Change the perception.

Actually, it would be more acurate to say that when I constantly hear of teams having to trade good productive players because of escelating salary demands, and those players always going to the same teams, teams that generally are at the top of the league standings (i.e. the rich getting richer, except for the Rangers, of course...), that there is a problem.

The owners and GM's are in a tough position. If they take a hardline stance on player salaries, they are viewed by the players and fans as being cheapskates and not commited to winning. If they give in to players demands and pay a higher salary than they would like, they are viewed as making poor hockey decisions, even if the player does not play to his potential (they should have known the player wouldn't play that well, I guess...). That is why I feel that the owners need cost certainty. They are under pressure by the players and fans to do whatever it takes to win. If that means paying too much and going into debt, that is better than paying too little and losing fans. If there is no league wide restriction on what teams can spend, the poorer teams will always be at the mercy of the richer markets.

I also don't buy that teams that have been NHL markets for the nearly the past 30 years are no longer NHL markets just because some teams are driving up salaries. I don't see how players demands for more and more money, mainly to assuage their egos, is the determining factor in what cities should be deserving of NHL teams.

There are many solutions to solve these problems. I have few problems with a salary cap, though I do understand some peoples concerns about holding on to some players and owners making "excessive" profit, but a smart lawyer would be able to negotiate solutions to those concerns. I have few problems with a luxury tax either, provided it was strict enough to do what it was intended (reduce the ability of teams to exploit the lower earning potential of other teams).

I've got no problem with players making lots of money, but I do have problems with players floating after they sign their contract. The owners have to have some way to reduce salaries if players don't perform. Maybe arbitration awards should be open to arbitration again if the player is more than 10% below the level of production his award was based on? I don't know, I'll leave that to the lawyers...

I'm not looking for every team to be on 100% equal footing. I'm looking for every team to be able to win based on how well they make hockey decisions within the same relative budgetary constraints.

Everybody here has their own perception on what the problem is, and very little anyone else says will change that perception. I don't think in any of these debates that I have seen anybody decide to switch sides.

 

[thinkwild]

Actually, it would be more acurate to say that when I constantly hear of teams having to trade good productive players because of escelating salary demands, and those players always going to the same teams, teams that generally are at the top of the league standings (i.e. the rich getting richer, except for the Rangers, of course...), that there is a problem.

That teams have to make budget decisions cant be pointed to as a reason why the system is unfair. THat is the whole point of management - to make thse decisions. What they should do more is explain better why they do it.

There is no point in Washington keeping all their UFAs last year. The problem isnt that they couldnt keep them and go on signing even more players. The problem was they hadnt developed a team. The proper decision is to rebuild. I think, like Ranger fans, they see it.

There is a period when the rich get richer, but at the same time, the developing teams are getting better. ITs a tortoise and hare race.

The owners and GM's are in a tough position. If they take a hardline stance on player salaries, they are viewed by the players and fans as being cheapskates and not commited to winning. If they give in to players demands and pay a higher salary than they would like, they are viewed as making poor hockey decisions, even if the player does not play to his potential (they should have known the player wouldn't play that well, I guess...). That is why I feel that the owners need cost certainty. They are under pressure by the players and fans to do whatever it takes to win. If that means paying too much and going into debt, that is better than paying too little and losing fans. If there is no league wide restriction on what teams can spend, the poorer teams will always be at the mercy of the richer markets.

And the pressure is wrong, because they havent explained their team building decisions to fans, or explained how hard it is and the sacrifices and long term plans needed to make it. If they do, fans will be onside.

I also don't buy that teams that have been NHL markets for the nearly the past 30 years are no longer NHL markets just because some teams are driving up salaries. I don't see how players demands for more and more money, mainly to assuage their egos, is the determining factor in what cities should be deserving of NHL teams.

Its easy to hate the player swhen you set them up as such as villainous strawman. They arent asking for more money. They are asking for the right to continue to negotiate their value in the marketplace, higher or lower.


The teams that make the playoffs have a lot more money. Contenders with playoff revenue or on a different building path than non-playoff teams with youth. And theres nothing wrong with this. They make great trading partners. And any small market team can become big revenue if they win. If this wasnt the case, then you're right, its not fair.


Salaries are not escalating any more. Until revenues explode again they probably wont either.

 

[djhn579]

That teams have to make budget decisions cant be pointed to as a reason why the system is unfair. THat is the whole point of management - to make thse decisions. What they should do more is explain better why they do it.

There is no point in Washington keeping all their UFAs last year. The problem isnt that they couldnt keep them and go on signing even more players. The problem was they hadnt developed a team. The proper decision is to rebuild. I think, like Ranger fans, they see it.

There is a period when the rich get richer, but at the same time, the developing teams are getting better. ITs a tortoise and hare race.




And the pressure is wrong, because they havent explained their team building decisions to fans, or explained how hard it is and the sacrifices and long term plans needed to make it. If they do, fans will be onside.



Its easy to hate the player swhen you set them up as such as villainous strawman. They arent asking for more money. They are asking for the right to continue to negotiate their value in the marketplace, higher or lower.


The teams that make the playoffs have a lot more money. Contenders with playoff revenue or on a different building path than non-playoff teams with youth. And theres nothing wrong with this. They make great trading partners. And any small market team can become big revenue if they win. If this wasnt the case, then you're right, its not fair.


Salaries are not escalating any more. Until revenues explode again they probably wont either.

Salaries will not explode again if they are tied to revenue...

We obviously have different perceptions on what the problems are and how they can be solved. I don't think you have a realistic view of what it is like to have a small market team. Our GM has already given us lessons on what it means to be a small market team in the NHL, and that was 2 or 3 years ago.

Anyway, I'm not getting into another drawn out debate. Everything really relevent has already been said in the past 30 or so threads on this matter.

The players will still have the right to negotiate their value on the market. That value will just be required to be within the realms of what can be justified by league revenues. The only thing they will lose is the ability to play owners that don't mind going into debt against the owners that can't afford to go into debt, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Gary]

Goodenow emphasized that teams of various salary levels have achieved at a high level in the NHL, particularly Tampa and Calgary last season. Hey keyed on the fact that the root of success in the NHL is the development of skilled hockey players, and recognizing a club's needs and effectively and efficiently addressing them.

Bob is 100% correct. With good management, and development of players you can achieve success on a fixed budget. What Bob failed to mention is that if everything were to stay status quo as he would like...What would it cost to field Tampa and Calgary the next time everyone is up for a new contract?? Every player proved they're worthy of a huge raise. Hell-The teams would #$$ing DOUBLE in cost. Try keeping a cup team together with salaries the way they are...

 

[thinkwild]

Its ironic complaining about the inability to keep teams together after they have won a cup and then propose a system that enforces it.

Detroit Colorado NJ kept their teams together after the cup. Tampa Bay brought back Prospal who they couldnt afford before they won cup, but now can.

 

[Gary]

In cities like NY and Toronto, the NHL is more of a luxury. There is a large enough fan base that you can have high ticket prices and still get enough fans to attend the games. In most other cities however, tickets have to be affordable for the average fans. As a gate driven business, you have to price tickets according to the market. Of course NHL hockey is not a right, but it is also not so much of a luxury that average fans should not be able to afford tickets.

WELL SAID! Especially in some markets in the U.S. where fan interest is alot lower then in Canada. I don't imagine many people think "Hey, I don't know too much about this hockey thing. It seems okay and all and I don't know that much about it because it's the most poorly marketing sporting event of all time, but hell-If it only costs $400 to take my family there for a couple hours, maybe I'll go check it out afterall"

 

[YellHockey*]

Our GM has already given us lessons on what it means to be a small market team in the NHL, and that was 2 or 3 years ago.

You do realize that you are discussing this with an Ottawa fan. Ottawa being one of the smallest metropolitan markets in the NHL and squeezed between two of the most historic markets in the NHL.

 

[YellHockey*]

In most other cities however, tickets have to be affordable for the average fans. As a gate driven business, you have to price tickets according to the market. Of course NHL hockey is not a right, but it is also not so much of a luxury that average fans should not be able to afford tickets.

What do you consider an affordable price for tickets? Name your price and then lets see how many teams have affordable tickets available.

Is the NHL really priced out of the reach of the average fan?

 

[djhn579]

What do you consider an affordable price for tickets? Name your price and then lets see how many teams have affordable tickets available.

Is the NHL really priced out of the reach of the average fan?

Considering Buffalo has just decreased it's prices to pre-1996 levels, I would think that at least one owner feels that fans have been priced out of attending games. But, I could be wrong...

 

[Gary]

Its ironic complaining about the inability to keep teams together after they have won a cup and then propose a system that enforces it.

Detroit Colorado NJ kept their teams together after the cup. Tampa Bay brought back Prospal who they couldnt afford before they won cup, but now can.

I'm not insinuating that you can't keep a cup winning team together-I'm just saying it's getting harder and harder and if the CBA remained intact as Bob wants-I'd venture to say that in another 5-10 years it would be VIRTUALLY impossible.

 

[djhn579]

You do realize that you are discussing this with an Ottawa fan. Ottawa being one of the smallest metropolitan markets in the NHL and squeezed between two of the most historic markets in the NHL.

That was in responce to what thinkwild said...

Originally Posted by thinkwild
That teams have to make budget decisions cant be pointed to as a reason why the system is unfair. THat is the whole point of management - to make thse decisions. What they should do more is explain better why they do it.[/I]

 

[Jack Canuck]

Take your own advice.

In cities like NY and Toronto, the NHL is more of a luxury. There is a large enough fan base that you can have high ticket prices and still get enough fans to attend the games. In most other cities however, tickets have to be affordable for the average fans. As a gate driven business, you have to price tickets according to the market. Of course NHL hockey is not a right, but it is also not so much of a luxury that average fans should not be able to afford tickets.

As for when the NHL became a charity devoted to my hockey needs, when did hockey become a charity devoted to fullfilling the players needs (and egos) to be paid so well?

If the owners are in business to make money, they are not doing such a good job at that right now. With ~20 teams losing money, the owners definitely have to make the game more affordable for the average fans and a big part of that is decreasing their largest expense, player salaries.

I never said I agree with the players being paid so well. And that has no bearing on the affordability of tickets. Nevertheless, if you have a hard time making ends meet and you can't afford to go to a game that is not the fault of the players or the owners.

Thats like me wanting to go on a cruise and blaming the cruise company for not making the trip more affordable for me.

Furthermore, with 20 teams losing money the owners have to make the game more affordable for themselves not for the average fan. That may or may not include adjusting the ticket prices, but more likely it will only be through a more favorable CBA.

Don't get your hopes up for cheaper tickets

 

[Cawz]

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.

Do they? Is that why there are no money problems in the NHL and the season is starting as usual?

 

[Cawz]

Salaries are not escalating any more. Until revenues explode again they probably wont either.

What are you basing this on? Blind faith in all 30 owners? A hope that the players will never put an owner between a rock and a hard place?

 

[Jack Canuck]

Do they? Is that why there are no money problems in the NHL and the season is starting as usual?

The reason there is no hockey is not because of tickets is it! It is because of a dispute with the players so yes they do.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

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.

This is one point that I agree with 100%!! The players have made some concessions in their mind. Why doesn't the NHL tweak the NHLPA's proposal to it's liking? Why not ackowledge the NHLPA making an offer?

But then flip that to the players? Sure we'll accept a cap. But not at 30 million, but at 60 million?

Until these parties find some middle ground, there will be no deal.

I honestly believe the players will cave though. They are losing and if they hold out a year they will be percieved as the bad guys by 90% of the hockey fans. Whether they are or aren't is irrelevent. IF they make an agreement and this starts over, then the tables will be turned.