yerfatma, no one read those parts. And, sweet merciful crap, they're willing to admit it! Sorry, but that is still baffling me. It's unbelievable. They clearly saw that the new agreement guaranteed that what they pay the players would be determined by how much money they made and figured that was fool-proof enough. Silly fools.
Hold on there yerfatma. It is the Toronto's and New York's (the powerful minority) that pay out revenue sharing dollars while not receiving any in return. Not that I'm defending the big teams, I'm just saying they finally agreed to revenue sharing in the first place with this latest CBA, so they are moving in the right direction. But as revenue sharing is based on revenue growth, it has been interesting to watch how teams have generated revenue since the owner lock-out. Some teams reduced ticket prices the first year, then increased them the next. Some held the line, then increased prices in subsequent years. Others increased prices from the drop of the puck. This league wide staggering of price increases seems to relate to this newly discovered CBA clause quite closely. Of course there have been league wide revenue initiatives in conjunction with the strengthening CDN$, that has helped propel league wide revenue higher every year. However, now that the cycle of quick revenue schemes has run its course (I believe most every team has made a play for bucks) growth will slow league wide, so the small market teams won't have to worry too much about huge growth numbers. They just have to worry about achieving above average growth. And if they can't, then the league will correct itself. There's been alot of noise about Canada being able to support more teams, so perhaps the failing clubs will be re-located. Just as soon as Bettman gets the axe. marginally related rant: The thing that makes me puke about pro sport ownership, especially the NHL, is the manner in which losses are claimed for one entity, all the while profits are reaped from 'unrelated' operations. Tax shelters, I think is the term. And here's a little article that made its way to my inbox that I thought spofi might enjoy.
marginally related rant: The thing that makes me puke about pro sport ownership, especially the NHL, is the manner in which losses are claimed for one entity, all the while profits are reaped from 'unrelated' operations. Tax shelters, I think is the term. No doubt. The Carolina Hurricanes cry poor, but if you asked their parent company, Gale Force Holdings, to open it's books, they would pretty much deny owning such books. "Books? What books? In fact, we don't even know of this organization that you speak of. Gale Force what?" Per your article: isn't the NBA in the same kind of condition? Isn't it just all suits at an NBA game as well?
Same overpriced tickets, but they aren't up against it because of TV revenue. The NHL is unique in the major NA sports landscape because of its dependence on the gate. way outside the margins : Going to an NBA game crystallized the realization what freaks NBA players are. 7' and can dribble through zone D in a phone booth. Freaks I say!
Hold on there yerfatma. It is the Toronto's and New York's (the powerful minority) that pay out revenue sharing dollars while not receiving any in return. Oh, no doubt. I've just phrased my question poorly. What I mean is: revenue sharing typically exists where a small minority of teams make a great deal more money than the rest. Otherwise, there's no point. That being the case, how can a small minority of teams get anything voted into a CBA? Shouldn't all the other teams be voting against those kinds of proposals? I will disagree with what I perceive to be the brunt of your ticket price suggestion. Ticket prices are set to maximize revenues and nothing else. You can't set them to account for a change in the price of inputs. It wouldn't make sense.
how can a small minority of teams get anything voted into a CBA? Fantastic question! I'd like to know myself, because as it appears now their votes carry more weight. Ticket prices are set to maximize revenues and nothing else. You can't set them to account for a change in the price of inputs I understand and agree with the first sentence. Can you explain the second further? change in price of inputs?
The idea that ice hockey is going to win over the USA markets from coast to coast is absolutely ridiculous. The small market teams should not exist today. The sooner the NHL realizes it's place in professional, franchise team sports (that being nothing more than an also ran akin to soccer in North America) the better the chance to survive will be. Don't agree. You could have said the same thing about the NBA in the early 80s before Bird and Magic showed up. Things change. Hockey has to become cool again. It can (though not with Team Bettman at the helm). There should be more Canadian Teams. There needs to be a re-shuffling - but I don't agree with the notion that hockey can't work. It's wonderfully structured for the modern fan - quick high tempo action, physical and games don't take 3 hours.
Can you explain the second further? change in price of inputs? I was basing that on this comment: This league wide staggering of price increases seems to relate to this newly discovered CBA clause quite closely Which seemed to suggest ticket prices were being set based on ownership's perception of how the CBA would affect their revenues. Ticket prices are set to maximize dollars coming in, so they always have to be at the place where (tickets sold x price) = max dollars, regardless of any other variables (namely "inputs" like rent, salaries, etc).
Thanks, and understood. While I agree in theory, I don't think that is what happened. I think teams evaluated their individual markets, and either lowered prices, kept status quo, or upped prices when the league resumed play based upon revenue needs and or what they thought the ticket buying market would bear. This was an unusual situation, because teams were afraid of the ill-will the lock out created and wanted to make sure people would come back. I think I'm going to do a little googling and see if I can map out ticket price changes for the 30 teams, maybe get a better idea how these changes relate to revenue sharing.
Chicago doesn't deserve revenue sharing. They were too stupid to put home games on TV until this year. Luckily Bill Wirtz finally died and his son has some common sense.
how can a small minority of teams get anything voted into a CBA? IIRC, Bettman insisted on a supermajority approval of any new labor deal (like 75% or something like that) to insure that the reasonable owners couldn't break ranks during the lockout.
Mirtle has two good posts on what is driving revenue growth and what 'small market' actually means = 'big market, indifferent to hockey.'
I think teams evaluated their individual markets, and either lowered prices, kept status quo, or upped prices when the league resumed play based upon revenue needs and or what they thought the ticket buying market would bear. But that's the same thing as "Ticket prices are set to maximize dollars coming in, so they always have to be at the place where (tickets sold x price) = max dollars, regardless of any other variables (namely "inputs" like rent, salaries, etc)." Guessing what the buying market would bear is how you maximize your ticket revenue. You lower the ticket prices to increase the number of tickets sold because that's the maximum amount of money you can make selling tickets. "Lowering prices for the fans" is strictly a marketing phrase the team's PR squad will feed to the media. If they thought they could less tickets at a higher price for more revenue, they sure as hell would.
Agreed. I was thinking about that over the weekend. My bad. Sorry yerfatma. Though I still think certain teams had more incentitive to drive revenue than others, despite how crazy that sounds, due mostly to need. The more stable the franchise, the longer it played nice with prices. I still need to map ticket prices to half validate my hair brained theory.
