NY Post Larry Brooks: NHL Selling Out Fans - Not Games
- Thread starter FlyerFan
- Start date
Well most of that money went towards the hunting/capture of octopi. Ever since Bettman banned Wings fans from throwing them on the ice it's upset the natural predator/prey balance. After the great octopus uprising of '99 in San Diego, Detroit has been charged with thinning the cephalopod herd.
bling
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2004
- 2,934
- 0
No, CHF, I was not directing this towards you or anyone in particular. My statement was more a general one.
I assumed, wrongly of course, that most fans would prefer a system that helps the team they support. Maybe you are one of those fans that believe in order to be a "true fan" you have to prove yourself by sticking with your team in the bad times as well as good. Then of course you embrace losing and revel in the upcoming mediocrity.
Me, I prefer to support a team made up of skilled players who play an exciting brand of offensive hockey and entertain me with a winning attitude and record. I may be in for a few lean years...LOL
ColoradoHockeyFan
Registered User
I don't embrace losing or revel in mediocrity. I look forward to following my team as they try to excel in whatever system they are faced with.
Who doesn't?
I look forward to my team trying to achieve that.We may be, but sports are cyclical, especially in a cap world. Things can change quickly... just think of our team with a stud #1-type d-man added to it.
According to some people, in the new NHL it's more like
that will probably get you a lifetime suspension the way calls are being made today
Timmy
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2005
- 10,691
- 26
that will probably get you a lifetime suspension the way calls are being made today
The way suspensions are being handed out, I'd say more like $100 fine.
Or third star of the week!The way suspensions are being handed out, I'd say more like $100 fine.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=188076&hubname=nhl
Forget about who wrote the article and just look at the facts yourself. The fact is ticket prices haven't gone down since the lockout. And one of the league's main reasons for the lockout was to make prices more affordable.
Bettman said that's what the fans wanted and that the league owed it to the fans to get an economic system that would allow them to make prices more affordable. He said if the league got a system that gave them economic stability more than a majority of the teams would use that opportunity to lower ticket prices.
What's ridiculous is that the media and some fans at the time believed it. Ticket prices don't depend on player salaries. There are many other variables that have way more of an impact on prices. What's even more ridiculous is that some people are on here denying the owners/Bettman ever said before/during the lockout that being able to lower prices was one of their main motivations for wanting lower player salaries. Come on, if you were remotely paying you'd know it was said many times.
The bottom line is the league told us the right economic system would allow them to have more affordable ticket prices. But today, not even 2 years later, ticker prices aren't lower. So either what they told us was a lie or they didn't get the right economic system. I have a feeling it's the first option and I don't need Larry Brooks to tell me.
Now I can't blame the owners for that. The media shouldn't have allowed Bettman to tell them the ridiculous idea that prices would go down with player salaries. The owners wanted a system that would lower costs and increase franchise values. They got it, good for them. But the benefit of the lockout for the fans was supposed to be lower prices. I didn't believe it would happen then and obviously it hasn't happened since. So what was the benefit for fans? I can't find one.
Bettman said that's what the fans wanted and that the league owed it to the fans to get an economic system that would allow them to make prices more affordable. He said if the league got a system that gave them economic stability more than a majority of the teams would use that opportunity to lower ticket prices.
What's ridiculous is that the media and some fans at the time believed it. Ticket prices don't depend on player salaries. There are many other variables that have way more of an impact on prices. What's even more ridiculous is that some people are on here denying the owners/Bettman ever said before/during the lockout that being able to lower prices was one of their main motivations for wanting lower player salaries. Come on, if you were remotely paying you'd know it was said many times.
The bottom line is the league told us the right economic system would allow them to have more affordable ticket prices. But today, not even 2 years later, ticker prices aren't lower. So either what they told us was a lie or they didn't get the right economic system. I have a feeling it's the first option and I don't need Larry Brooks to tell me.
Now I can't blame the owners for that. The media shouldn't have allowed Bettman to tell them the ridiculous idea that prices would go down with player salaries. The owners wanted a system that would lower costs and increase franchise values. They got it, good for them. But the benefit of the lockout for the fans was supposed to be lower prices. I didn't believe it would happen then and obviously it hasn't happened since. So what was the benefit for fans? I can't find one.
What proof do you have that the "right economic system" he was refering to is the one we have today? The system we have today is probably more of a compromise between the "right economic system" he was refering to and the economic system the players were willing to tolerate...
I personally don't remember anyone from the NHL stating with absolute certainty that ticket prices would go down, though they did hope prices might come down. The prices in my market (Buffalo) did go down considerably, as did prices in a number of other markets. Nobody with half a brain would expect those prices to stay down forever though...
One thing to consider re ticket prices being "lower" is inflation. If ticket prices are the exact same as they were pre-lockout, then they are "lower" in 2003-04 dollars. When a team does not raise prices in a given year, assuming we're not in some sort of major recession (which we are not), then the tickets have become more affordable by staying at the same price.
joshjull
Registered User
So if I understand this thread correctly. A large market sports writer, who is a shill for the PA, doesn't like the CBA or Bettman. So he writes an article critical of the situation. If that isn't shocking enough. A fan of a team that benefited from the old system and wasn't prepared for the new one, doesn't like the CBA or Bettman either. 
Well the proof is that 99% of the people who followed the lockout would say the league "won" and got the system they wanted. I don't think the PA got one major part of the CBA in their favor based on where the two sides started negotiations.What proof do you have that the "right economic system" he was refering to is the one we have today? The system we have today is probably more of a compromise between the "right economic system" he was refering to and the economic system the players were willing to tolerate...
I personally don't remember anyone from the NHL stating with absolute certainty that ticket prices would go down, though they did hope prices might come down. The prices in my market (Buffalo) did go down considerably, as did prices in a number of other markets. Nobody with half a brain would expect those prices to stay down forever though...
The league said if they got the right system, the system they wanted, than fans would be benefited in most markets. Well they got their system, but we haven't got the benefit.
As far as not remembering weather or not the NHL said ticket prices would be more affordable if they got the CBA they wanted, like I said before that's ridiculous. It was one of Bettman's favorite lines all year. There's no denying it's something the league used to sell it's lockout to the media and fans.
This lockout was less than 2 years ago. We've only gone through one fiscal year. Inflation etc. need a lot more time than that to have an effect on prices.
I'm not saying prices should stay down forever. But if lower prices in only some markets for only one season was the NHL's idea of making itself more affordable that's a joke.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=246765
The $1.1 million loss (if it was in fact that much) could be explained by the Avs going for the cup and bowwing out in the 2nd round. $1 mill is almost the gate from a playoff game.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
When will you people understand that "more affordable" is not the same as "lower ticket prices"??
Sheesh, it shouldn't be that hard.
He said "IN THE RIGHT ECONOMIC SYSTEM...." before the lock-out. We still don't know what that system is.
Again you people fail to understand a very simple concept.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
How do you know what that system is?
You're just as bitter and just as unaware of the facts as a PA shill like Brooks.
Learn the facts.
Timmy
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2005
- 10,691
- 26
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
The ticket prices were never going down, but it was a good sized piece of the PR battle that the owners used and too many dumb people ate it up.
That being said, "more affordable" pretty much has to mean lower ticket prices, or status quo long enough for inflation to take over. If prices stayed the same or went up, they're not going to be more affordable.
Timmy
Registered User
- Feb 2, 2005
- 10,691
- 26
But hey we still have 2 more than the Canucks will ever have.
Hey, the century's young...
That's one way to look at it, but I don't buy that. The league started out asking for a $29M cap with less arbitration rights and little change in free agency. That is probably closer to the system they wanted, but even that could have been a compromise between the individual owners.
Could you show me the article where that quote came from? That "if they got the right system, the system they wanted, than fans would be benefited in most markets..."
Sotnos
Registered User
How about UFA age starting at 25? I'd say that's very much in the players' favor.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 186,862
- 38,948
With good reason - it's the only thing he's ever been right about.
There's a lot of people who ate up everything Bettman said - I'm just glad I never bought it.
Last edited:
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Game 2 Tampa Bay Lightning @ Florida Panthers - Panthers lead series 1-0Wagers: 10Staked: $5,693.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-