View Single Post
05-15-2013, 02:00 PM
Registered User
Beerfish's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,814
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by worraps View Post
This really isn't as complicated as you think it is. For example:

I am willing to pay $250 to go to an Oilers' game in a new arena. I don't really care whose pockets that $250 ends up in: Katz's or the City's. I just want to exchange no more than $250 for a ticket to an Oilers' game in a new arena. For the sake of argument let's assume everyone else has the same demand curve as me.

If a new ticket tax is suddenly introduced (let's say 5%), I'm still only willing to pay $250 for my ticket so either Katz reduces the price to $238.10 or I and everyone else stop going to Oilers games. This represents a very real decline in Katz's wealth.

If you want to introduce the supply side of the argument, here it is: Katz needs more revenue (bigger arena, other event revenue, even higher prices) to continue supplying the City of Edmonton with NHL hockey.
So the moment Katz raises ticket prices after a year by 5% you will instantly hand in your tickets? Nothing will eart into the Katz pie because if he finds out he is losing $5 a ticket from his projections he'll simply raise ticket prices that amount and if you don't want to pay it one of the 5 or 10 thousand people waiting in line or whatever that number is will step up quite easily.

Beerfish is offline