Ference speaks out his frustration

Status
Not open for further replies.

YellHockey*

Guest
Digger12 said:
Attendance? Really?

From ESPN.com's NHL attendance figures:

00/01: 20,346,372
01/02: 20,613,591
02/03: 20,390,908
03/04: 19,012,074

Consider that the 03/04 # was artificially inflated by an extra 35-40 thousand due to the one shot deal of the Heritage Classic in Edmonton, and that number becomes even worse...over 1.4 million fewer fans than in previous years.

Never been higher? Hardly.


Why would you exclude the Heritage Classic? Did fans not attend those games?

Do ESPN's numbers reflect preseason or postseason games?

Besides, those are the number the owners report themselves with no accountability. I can state with absolute certainty that there is at least one franchise that does not accurately report its attendance figures.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
BlackRedGold said:
Why would you exclude the Heritage Classic? Did fans not attend those games?

Do ESPN's numbers reflect preseason or postseason games?

Besides, those are the number the owners report themselves with no accountability. I can state with absolute certainty that there is at least one franchise that does not accurately report its attendance figures.

Uh, that 03/04 number was with the Heritage classic INCLUDED.

Preseason or postseason games aren't included I believe, but that doesn't matter...what matters is the rise and drop between years, they don't include those games for one year and exclude them for another.

As for you being 'absolutely certain' that at least one franchise doesn't accurately report its attendance figures, is this with the same certainty that you brought with your flawed assertion that attendance has never been better?

If you're going to accuse other posters of making up numbers to back up a claim, please bring your own numbers to the table for comparison, I'd quite like to see them. Thanks in advance.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
Lower attendance and tv revenue?

Since when?

The NHL revenues are at the highest they've ever been.

Attendance and tv revenues have never been higher then they were last season.

But I guess if you're looking to back the owners, you've got to make things up.
You are a person that knows a thing or two about making things up.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
SwisshockeyAcademy said:
You are a person that knows a thing or two about making things up.

Care to elaborate with points or are you just talking out of your behind again?
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Digger12 said:
Uh, that 03/04 number was with the Heritage classic INCLUDED.

Preseason or postseason games aren't included I believe, but that doesn't matter...what matters is the rise and drop between years, they don't include those games for one year and exclude them for another.

The Stanley Cup final drew at least 20,000 more fans then the previous year. Why would they not be included?


As for you being 'absolutely certain' that at least one franchise doesn't accurately report its attendance figures, is this with the same certainty that you brought with your flawed assertion that attendance has never been better?

Well, when a building has a seating capacity of 18,500, sells completely out and has sold additional tickets for suites and standing room, it is a certainty that their attendance is over that capacity.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
Digger12 said:
Attendance? Really?

From ESPN.com's NHL attendance figures:

00/01: 20,346,372
01/02: 20,613,591
02/03: 20,390,908
03/04: 19,012,074
.

Are your numbers from:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004 ?

If so, notice the number of games listed for each team. You're missing 31 games. If you extrapolate those games for a full season, you get a total of 20,335,385. Pretty much in line with the other seasons.

But once again those don't cover post season (which we know the attendance of the finals was over 20,000 of the previous season) or preseason.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
Lower attendance and tv revenue?

Since when?

The NHL revenues are at the highest they've ever been.

Attendance and tv revenues have never been higher then they were last season.

But I guess if you're looking to back the owners, you've got to make things up.
Attendance and revenues have never been higher than they were last year you say. I cannot dispute revenues i don't have the numbers, you did not produce anything to support the claim either. Numbers were produced to show attendance is no better and perhaps worse than in other seasons. You manage to tell the poster he is making things up while it looks you are in the same business. *** for tat.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
BlackRedGold said:
Are your numbers from:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004 ?

If so, notice the number of games listed for each team. You're missing 31 games. If you extrapolate those games for a full season, you get a total of 20,335,385. Pretty much in line with the other seasons.

But once again those don't cover post season (which we know the attendance of the finals was over 20,000 of the previous season) or preseason.

You're right, I hadn't noticed that. It's not as bad as I thought, but it's still not 'never been better' either.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/attendance.htm

According to that, total attendance was 20,336,817. Slightly less than the previous year, and almost 300,000 less than the year before that.

I will apologise for getting my numbers wrong, however. I'll endeavour to be more careful in the future.

I still don't understand your fixation with the playoff attendance numbers though. You don't have the same teams making the playoffs every year, and different arena sizes getting more games than others depending on the performance of the teams.

IMO the regular season attendance is a cleaner stat, with less volatility. It gives a truer sense of the popularity of the game among the paying public.
 
Last edited:

YellHockey*

Guest
Digger12 said:
IMO the regular season attendance is a cleaner stat, with less volatility. It gives a truer sense of the popularity of the game among the paying public.

The best indicator of the popularity is revenues. NHL revenues, from what the NHL is claiming, have never been higher then the past season.

The biggest sources of revenue for the NHL are tickets (attendance) and tv broadcast revenues.

Judging by the national tv deals, last season the NHL's television deals earned it more money then any previous season.
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
BlackRedGold said:
The best indicator of the popularity is revenues. NHL revenues, from what the NHL is claiming, have never been higher then the past season.

The biggest sources of revenue for the NHL are tickets (attendance) and tv broadcast revenues.

Judging by the national tv deals, last season the NHL's television deals earned it more money then any previous season.

May 20, 2004. 01:00 AM

Combined with a one-year cable deal with ESPN announced later in the day, the NHL's revenue from U.S. television will drop from $120 million a year to about $65 million (all figures U.S.). (ESPN has the option to pick up two more seasons.)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1085004616247&call_pageid=970599119419
 

Johnnybegood13

Registered User
Jul 11, 2003
8,711
968
Bicycle Repairman said:
The Levitt Report has no bearing on Labor Relations rulings. It's got nothing to do with practices of Bad Faith Bargaining.
Get a grip! it is not bad faith to show the other party what kind of trouble your in :shakehead
Bicycle Repairman said:
The league is covertly threatening to replace the players without engaging in meaningful negotiations. You don't think Belkin's comments won't cause repercussions? The NHL thought so. They fined him!
So what? he may have been "planted" to say that and the fine imposed let them off the hook :lol: ...but fact is they have the right to use replacement players under US law after a year of inpass...again? why wouldn't they use a ploy to get the NHLPA to at least talk and realize theres a problem.
Bicycle Repairman said:
The NHLPA is still the legally-recognized bargaining agent. You just can't ignore them and hope they go away.

Damn right it's collusion.
Again nitwit :) collusion among owners can only exist during a current CBA,the NHLPA right now is no different then any other contractor trying to get a contract with a company,if the company doesn't like the price of doing business they say "nay"...no contract=no collusion.

Get your facts straight about so called collusion...baseball owners did it...but during a CBA...big friggen difference dude!!!
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
T@T said:
Get a grip! it is not bad faith to show the other party what kind of trouble your in :shakehead

Again. The books have nothing to do with public utterances by a member of management. Do you even have an inkling of what Bad Faith Bargaining is?

T@T said:
So what? he may have been "planted" to say that and the fine imposed let them off the hook :lol:
How does it let them off the hook? They have to watch their words which is why you have heard Daly and Bettman hem and haw. But Belkin's comments are public record. The Board looks at that.

T@T said:
...but fact is they have the right to use replacement players under US law after a year of inpass...again?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that. Guess what? It's up to the Board to decide.

T@T said:
why wouldn't they use a ploy to get the NHLPA to at least talk and realize theres a problem.

They can make a phone call.

T@T said:
Again nitwit collusion among owners can only exist during a current CBA,the NHLPA right now is no different then any other contractor trying to get a contract with a company,if the company doesn't like the price of doing business they say "nay"...no contract=no collusion.

Get your facts straight about so called collusion...baseball owners did it...but during a CBA...big friggen difference dude!!!

Major League Baseball has an exemption. The NFL, the NBA and the NHL do not.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Digger12 said:
According to that, total attendance was 20,336,817. Slightly less than the previous year, and almost 300,000 less than the year before that.

Official numbers from the NHL Guidebook are:

2001: 20,373,379
2002: 20,614,613
2003: 20,408,704
2004: 20,356,199

That's 3 straight years of declining.
 

Johnnybegood13

Registered User
Jul 11, 2003
8,711
968
Bicycle Repairman said:
Major League Baseball has an exemption. The NFL, the NBA and the NHL do not.
What exemption? i don't think you even have a clue what "collusion" even means :dunno:

Here:
collusion

\Col*lu"sion\, n. [L. collusio: cf. F. collusion. See Collude.] 1. A secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose; a playing into each other's hands; deceit; fraud; cunning.

What the law says:

An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights, by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.

Show me where the owners are breaking any laws while having no agreement!

If you insist on churping about collusion at least show some facts...if not just clam up...because your flat out wrong! :teach:
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
T@T said:
Show me where the owners are breaking any laws while having no agreement!

If you insist on churping about collusion at least show some facts...if not just clam up...because your flat out wrong! :teach:

*sigh*

It doesn't matter whether there's a Collective Bargaining Agreement in place or not (...well, at least we've moved away from your Levitt Report fixation).

You can't publicly threaten to permanently lock out a group of employees before a Labor Board rules on a legal impasse.. It's against the LAW.

If it can be determined that more than one NHL official made such a threat, it's collusion.

There. Now do you understand?

Anything else? Can we move on now?
:teach:
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Bicycle Repairman said:
*sigh*

It doesn't matter whether there's a Collective Bargaining Agreement in place or not (...well, at least we've moved away from your Levitt Report fixation).

You can't publicly threaten to permanently lock out a group of employees before a Labor Board rules on a legal impasse.. It's against the LAW.

If it can be determined that more than one NHL official made such a threat, it's collusion.

There. Now do you understand?

Anything else? Can we move on now?
:teach:

My suggestion; both of you consult a lawyer trained in these matters before you determine what is and what isn't concerning this, and what can be said and what cannot be said in relation to this subject.

There's an insult in there somewhere. I'll let you two debate that.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
cw7 said:
My suggestion; both of you consult a lawyer trained in these matters before you determine what is and what isn't concerning this, and what can be said and what cannot be said in relation to this subject.

Well, I'm still correct.
 

codswallop

yes, i am an alcoholic
Aug 20, 2002
1,768
100
GA
Bicycle Repairman said:
Well, I'm still correct.

A lawyer or student of the law would have presented specific points in light of my, admittedly (and what I thought was at least partially obvious), spurious comment.

Not the answer I was looking for, but it gives an insight.
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
cw7 said:
A lawyer or student of the law would have presented specific points in light of my, admittedly (and what I thought was at least partially obvious), spurious comment.

Not the answer I was looking for, but it gives an insight.

Case studies? I'm not the one who brought up case studies. You're the one who brought up case studies.
:shakehead
 

YellHockey*

Guest
PecaFan said:
Fine, two years. (See how easy it is to admit a mistake?)

Doesn't change the fact that BlackRedGold was wrong yet again.


How was I wrong. I said that attendance AND tv revenues have never been higher.

Have you proven that the combination has been higher in the past? No.

All you have proven is that the owners have reported declining regular season attendance over the past two season.
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
BlackRedGold said:
How was I wrong. I said that attendance AND tv revenues have never been higher.

Have you proven that the combination has been higher in the past? No.

All you have proven is that the owners have reported declining regular season attendance over the past two season.

your case would hold water if you had evidence that blew everything out of the water, meaning if there was evidence that the attendance HAS been higher than ever, but so far they're right and you're wrong. If you can find evidence to prove otherwise then it might be a different story.
 

Digger12

Gold Fever
Feb 27, 2002
18,313
990
Back o' beyond
BlackRedGold said:
How was I wrong. I said that attendance AND tv revenues have never been higher.

Have you proven that the combination has been higher in the past? No.

All you have proven is that the owners have reported declining regular season attendance over the past two season.

And what have you proven, exactly? Have you brought out one single statistic that collaborates anything you've said?

If you're going to throw around accusations, let's see you prove YOUR worth.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
BlackRedGold said:
How was I wrong. I said that attendance AND tv revenues have never been higher.

Have you proven that the combination has been higher in the past? No.

All you have proven is that the owners have reported declining regular season attendance over the past two season.

Being the sound logical mind you are, surely you're aware that for a logical AND to be true, both sides have to be true. The attendance numbers alone prove your entire statement false.

And djhn579 proved in message #60 that the other side of your argument was false too, revenues have fallen massively with the new tv deals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->