Red Deer gives players the finger

[Phanuthier*]

That makes no sense what so ever. I'm not sure whether you are not explaining what you are thinking properly. The tickets (box seats) are alreay accounted for in the sales, so how can they be counted a second time to achieve more than capacity? The only way you achieve more than capacity is if more seats are openned up, if standing room is allowed or a special event where additional seats allow for an over-flow. Examples of such would be the Flames opening up the nose-bleeds, the Red Wings allowing standing room (allowable under their fire bylaws I guess) and the Oilers with the Heritage Classic. The Heritage Classic is what put the Oilers over the 100% as that extra 50,000 tickets is added to their ticket total. The other ways don't make much sense because of the fire safety bylaws that the Flames and Oilers both have to live with (you of all people should know the rules governing occupancy of the suites as well as standing room). Can you clarify the point you're trying to make because it seems rather confusing?

Its because box tickets don't have a date, event or seat specified. Its just an admittance ticket. A box of 10 people can hold 20 if they like, the other 10 just have to find other seats or stand.

As well, you may be confusing sales with attendence figures. Sales are the number of seats sold. Attendence figures are how many people actually enter the building. What I'm talking about is attendence figures - in that more people can enter the building then the specified seating capacity, because of box tickets.

 

[guymez]

Its because box tickets don't have a date, event or seat specified. Its just an admittance ticket. A box of 10 people can hold 20 if they like, the other 10 just have to find other seats or stand.

As well, you may be confusing sales with attendence figures. Sales are the number of seats sold. Attendence figures are how many people actually enter the building. What I'm talking about is attendence figures - in that more people can enter the building then the specified seating capacity, because of box tickets.

Unfortunatley I can't remember where I read this (trust me I am trying to find the link) but I believe the NHL does include box seats in their attendance figures. The NBA does include courtside, preferred and suite seating in its average paid attendance figures.
I believe this goes for all sports leagues.

 

[bcrt2000]

ticket prices will always be driven by demand

competitive teams/traiditional hockey markets will have high ticket prices

noncompetitive teams/shaky hockey markets will have low ticket prices

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Its because box tickets don't have a date, event or seat specified. Its just an admittance ticket. A box of 10 people can hold 20 if they like, the other 10 just have to find other seats or stand.

As well, you may be confusing sales with attendence figures. Sales are the number of seats sold. Attendence figures are how many people actually enter the building. What I'm talking about is attendence figures - in that more people can enter the building then the specified seating capacity, because of box tickets.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[labatt50]

Its because box tickets don't have a date, event or seat specified. Its just an admittance ticket. A box of 10 people can hold 20 if they like, the other 10 just have to find other seats or stand.

I'm not sure about Calgary, you probably do, but I've been in suites (boxes) in several NHL cities and they always have a date, and most of them have the suite number and a seat number. You are correct that if the suite holds 20, there may be seating for only 12

 

[Vagabond]

Its because box tickets don't have a date, event or seat specified. Its just an admittance ticket. A box of 10 people can hold 20 if they like, the other 10 just have to find other seats or stand.

As well, you may be confusing sales with attendence figures. Sales are the number of seats sold. Attendence figures are how many people actually enter the building. What I'm talking about is attendence figures - in that more people can enter the building then the specified seating capacity, because of box tickets.

^So, you're stating that box seats don't account towards the usual building capacity thus the 103% capacity Toronto has.. Thanks for the info, my argument had nothing to do with 'how' a team can get 103% capacity. My argument was providing proof that 103% represented capacity, and not sell-outs. I wasn't sure how it was possible, I just knew what the facts had stated. Thanks again for explaining to me how teams could have over capacity crowds.

Sorry Icey, I didn't mean to come off as a pr^ck, can you please accept my apology.. so I can sleep better at night.

 

[guymez]

I don't blame Bettman for everything, but for this I do hold him partily responsible. The NHL promised the city of Winnipeg that they would save the Jets and didn't. Whether he had no control over it or not, he made a promise he couldn't keep.

The Jets had a real bad owner. Barry Shendakrow was as bad of an owner that you could get. He was greedy, self-serving and selfish. He had probably the worst arena deal ever made and didn't care. At atime when the Jets badly need the proceeds from concessions and parking there were none, and he had no interest in even going to arena to ask for them. But Bettman should have stepped in. The NHL should have stepped in. Maybe its not Bettman's fault, but when your the man at the top as they say "the buck stops here" and with the NHL the buck stops with Bettman and anything and everything to do with the NHL is Bettman. That might not be fair, but its just the way it is.

But the big market teams had nothing to do with the Jets being sold, but had everything to do with Shendakrow being greedy. A group together with the City of Winnipeg has raised the money to buy a portion of the Jets (I believe it was 42%) for $32M which would leave Shendakrow with 22% of the team. They even agreed to let him keep a seat on the Board of Directors, the governorship of the franchise and two year consultant fees to help a new person to run the day to day operations. But Shendakrow was greedy and wanted more. He not only wanted a seat on the board of directors, he wanted the presidency.

But the Jets could have sold out most nights if the manangement had even resembled compentency in mangement. But still 12-13,000 filled that arena every night. This team was no different from Buffalo and Ottawa, yet Bettman saved those team.

The Jets were very different from Buffalo and Ottawa.
Buffalo and Ottawa are very poor comparisons. Both of these teams were over 90% capacity in their old run down arenas, which were replaced by the time Winnipeg left the NHL in 1996. These cities wanted their team bad enough to procure the funding for a new arena, or they would have been gone as well.
As for Barry Shenkarow I agree he was far from a model owner. There are some media people in Winnipeg and a website (Curtis Walker) who vilanize Shenkarow for most if not all of the problems the Jets had. IMO Shenkarow was only part of the problem. Lets face it when the crunch is on, 70% - 75% of capacity is just not good enough. Also, there was no group or individual in the city of Winnipeg who was prepared to pay market value for the team. In addition to that there was no initiative to do anything about building a new arena, right from local business to the mayor (how can I ever forget Susan Thompson) through to the Provincial Govt.
Plain and simply the league was out growing the situation in Winnipeg and the best that commmunity could do was dither around about the solutions. A big part of the reason the NHL was out growing Winnipeg was the sky rocketing player salaries, due exclusively to the spending decisions of the big market clubs. No amount of denial excludes Dallas from that group.

Nobody is asking you or anyone else to feel sorry for Dallas fan or any other large market team, but to take it out on the fans of team is just....well childish. You can hate Tom Hicks or Doug Armstrong for signing those players, but as a fan I had nothing to do with the signings. And as a fan I don't consider myself selfish or shortsighted, but passionate. I was unaware that I need to be a fan of a small market team in trouble to be considered passionate.

I cheer for whomever they put on the ice whether they pay them $9M or $900,000, that what fans do. I haven't supported all those signings. I hated when they signed Guerin. I thought it was a waste of money and I still belive that. Nothing would make me happier than have Tom Hicks ship Guerin out of town, gee maybe Edmonton will take him back. Nothing made me happier then when the Stars refused to ante up to Derian Hatcher last summer. Perhaps that was the beginning of their smarter ways. Although they do still have some big names signed, I think they planned for the new CBA better than Detroit, Toronto and Philadelphia who just seem to sign and sign not caring about the new financial landscape of the league.

I admire players like Jere Lehtinen who last summer signed a contract extension and when the Stars asked him what he wanted he said all he wanted was a no trade clause. They gave it to him, along with a slight raise, afterall he is a 3 time selke winner, nominated 5 times, I think he deserved the no trade clause.

I admire players like Don Sweeney, Stu Barnes and Rob DiMaio who take pay cuts to play for the team, yet play their heart and soul out every night. I think you would be hard pressed to find a night that any of those players did not earn their paycheck. I hate players like Marty Turco who think they are better then they are and hold out for more money when they are not worth it.

So if it was my choice I would take a team made up of Jere Lehtinens, Rob DiMaio's, Don Sweeneys over a team of Bill Guerin, Jason Arnott and Marty Turco any day of the week.

I don't blame the fans in Edmonton for the team they put on the ice, so why do you blame the fans in Dallas for the team they put on the ice? Do you think Tom Hicks cares what I think about his Guerin signing or any of the signings? And I truly believe that if Hicks has won by spending all that money he wouldn't be singing the salary cap tune, but he lost and wasted his money. There is no easier way for him to stop spending the money than to jump on the salary cap bandwagon.

And if you back and read some of my posts you will see that I have always said that this league needs a salary cap. I think the players should have taken Bettmans $42.5M offer and I think they should take the $37.5M because it may not be a great thing for the players, but its the best thing for the health of this league. I want this league around today, but I also want it around in 10 years. I want all the teams to compete. But I think there are things in the prosposals that are too pro-owner that I don't like. I think the owners want to make their proposal risk free on their part and yet reap all the benefits. The owners not only don't trust the players, they don't trust each other. They may all be on the same page right now, but just wait until the CBA is signed and FA signings start and you will see the backstabbing start up once again. You have owners like Bill Wirtz who won't spend a dime and doesn't care if he wins or loses, he only cares about how much money he makes. An owner who could give a crap about his fans. An owner who won't even televise the home games . he's not alone there are a lot more like him and I think the NHL should force owners to spend a certain amount on players, TV, etc so this game grows. As long as there are owners like this, this game will never move forward and grow.

I think they are just bullying the players and that is why I a more pro-player than pro-owner.

Your missing my point. I am not blaming the Dallas fans for player signings or anything about the team the Stars put on the ice. I am just highlighting their self centered reaction to the lockout. If anything is childish, it's getting mad about not getting your way, despite the reality of the situation. Thats exactly what (from your description) the Dallas fans were doing. Those players you mentioned (as admirable as some of their decisions were) have nothing to do with how you represented the Dallas fans, and don't even factor into this.
As for the owners bullying the players, thats more a question of interpretation. Its late in the game now and the players still want to play hardball and fight for something that isn't there anymore. Its unfortunate, but the owners have no choice (at this late point in the game) but to push back hard. Ask yourself this.... why did Bob Goodenow do absolutley nothing to respond to requests by the NHL to start negotiations on a new CBA until virtually the last minute? One of many miscalculations which is going to end up costing the players a lot more than it could have. I can't see any valid reason to side with the players at this point in time. They had their 10 year run of using the big market clubs to squeeze the rest of the league and the fans for as much money as possible. Lets get a salary floor and ceiling which is fair for all 30 teams and move on. If the players don't like it....go play somewhere else .....for a lot less money.
As for me being interpreted as being pro owner... I think it's more a case of me being pro common sense.