HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Bettmans plan isnt for strikebreakers - its another year of no hockey.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2004, 09:15 PM
  #101
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
It is a pretty stupid point. The top level AHL player is virtually indistinguishable from the players in NHL pressboxes. The players in NHL pressboxes is virtually indistinguishable from the last few guys who get to dress. So what?

The difference between the top NHL players and the top AHL players is vast. The difference between the average NHL and average AHL player is vast. The difference between NHL hockey and the hockey presented by replacement players - failed AHL players and ECHL stars - is vast.

Tom
You widely overestimate both the difference and fans abitlity to tell the difference.

What is the difference between today's NHLer and 10 years ago?

20 years?

30 years?

Without a common refernece point, most can't tell the difference, but if you had a time machine and could put all the era's on the ice together the improvements in strength, conditioning, year round training and coaching would make the difference obvious.

The same factor would take place with replacement players who would likely be a mixture of AHLers, europeans and 3th/4th liners who had crossed.

Quote:
You're also not realizing that the average guy on the street doesn't have such a militant attitude toward either side in this. He's the one that they need to make money, and he won't pay full pop to see 2nd rate talent.
Try reading what the average fan thinks by reading TSN feedback on any lockout articles. I think you'll find that the vast majority would like to see the PA take a big fall and would willingly support replacement hockey. BTW, the NHL will not be asking anyone to pay anywhere near "full pop" to see whatever hockey they put on the ice next, especially if it features replacement players.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-27-2004, 09:36 PM
  #102
Jack Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hawaii
Country: Canada
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
I don't think that the NHL would need to charge full price for games that have replacement players. The owners may lose a bit more money, but they would apparently be losing money anyway with regular players. Plus replacements wouldn't be paid near as much. Besides the point is not to make it a viable solution but to demonstrate to the regular players that the show can go on with or without them.

As soon as fans start knowing the new names and finding favorites I think the regular players (especially the lower paid) would begin crossing over before they are completely forgotten.

Jack Canuck is offline  
Old
11-27-2004, 10:21 PM
  #103
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 13,895
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKarateMonkey
while i agree that the SKILL LEVEL difference between nhl players and minor leaguers are great, im not sure the ENTERTAINMENT LEVEL difference is as great. i've watched a couple of ahl games, a couple of echl games, and about 5 or 6 junior games, and honestly i thought they are just as entertaining as the nhl. especially the junior games between chl and the russians, i would definitly pay to watch it. maybe not $100, but surely anywhere from $25-$50.
Judging by last seasons attendance figures, many teams are having trouble getting fans to pay that much money with real NHLers on the ice. I still think that if replacement players are used, to entice people to the rink, you're gonna need ticket prices in the $10-15 range, max. After all, if the players are going to be roughly the same between Grand Rapids (GR) and Detroit (just for reference, pick any NHL team and a lower level team), why not pay less and just go see the lower level team? You'll be getting the same quality of play either way.

And Thunderstruck mentioned the TSN boards as proof a good number of fans would pay to watch replacements. My problem with that is that it's likely a largely canadian sample posting feedback while the majority of hockey teams are in American cities. Americans seemed largely indifferent to the league when it was up and running and are nearly entirely indifferent to its not running. I have a hard time seeing them going to see replacement players for any reason.

Winger98 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 01:10 AM
  #104
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98
Judging by last seasons attendance figures, many teams are having trouble getting fans to pay that much money with real NHLers on the ice. I still think that if replacement players are used, to entice people to the rink, you're gonna need ticket prices in the $10-15 range, max. After all, if the players are going to be roughly the same between Grand Rapids (GR) and Detroit (just for reference, pick any NHL team and a lower level team), why not pay less and just go see the lower level team? You'll be getting the same quality of play either way.

And Thunderstruck mentioned the TSN boards as proof a good number of fans would pay to watch replacements. My problem with that is that it's likely a largely canadian sample posting feedback while the majority of hockey teams are in American cities. Americans seemed largely indifferent to the league when it was up and running and are nearly entirely indifferent to its not running. I have a hard time seeing them going to see replacement players for any reason.
For what it's worth, I've got an isolated sample. Early into this ECHL season, the Gwinnett Gladiators have averaged nearly 7100 people per game. I don't have the numbers from last year but (being a hockey fan in Atlanta) I know that this is a big spike in attendance from last season. Will this last, who knows? And I won't presume anything about it, attendance habits of hockey fans are quite difficult to predict right now.

But for the moment at least, it's interesting. In a city that isn't considered a real hockey market by many, we have fans really wanting to see an ECHL team. Granted, the Glads likely have a larger population base to draw from than the other ECHL franchises . But they get attention in this NHL-deprived time, which is the point. The validity of the NHL in the south is another debate, one not specifically germane to the point you were trying to assert (at least from the example I pointed out).

Replacement players may or may not work out, that's something that none of us can really know right now (and for a variety of reasons). One big reason that confronts us fans is that we have limited knowledge of how different markets in the US and Canada may react to that. I don't assume to know how the fans of any particular city would take to replacement players if it came to that, probably best not to even try.

cws is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 08:37 AM
  #105
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
You widely overestimate both the difference and fans abitlity to tell the difference.

What is the difference between today's NHLer and 10 years ago?

20 years?

30 years?

Without a common refernece point, most can't tell the difference, but if you had a time machine and could put all the era's on the ice together the improvements in strength, conditioning, year round training and coaching would make the difference obvious.

The same factor would take place with replacement players who would likely be a mixture of AHLers, europeans and 3th/4th liners who had crossed.



Try reading what the average fan thinks by reading TSN feedback on any lockout articles. I think you'll find that the vast majority would like to see the PA take a big fall and would willingly support replacement hockey. BTW, the NHL will not be asking anyone to pay anywhere near "full pop" to see whatever hockey they put on the ice next, especially if it features replacement players.

But the problem is the feedback on TSN comes from people like you. They're not a representitive sample of the poulation. Its like if I asked 100 democrats if they were going to vote for John Kerry. The results I would have gotten would not have matched what actually happened.

And once again you are arguing that fans will pay to see minor leaguers because they can't tell the difference. I can't argue this any mroe becuase you are detached from reality.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 09:33 AM
  #106
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
And once again you are arguing that fans will pay to see minor leaguers because they can't tell the difference. I can't argue this any mroe becuase you are detached from reality.
The people who talk about the entertainment value of the product have it, I think. the difference between minor leaguers and NHLers is irrelevant. It all depends on how well they market it. That includes how they price it. And it depends a bit (at first) on the names who come out to support it. (Some NHL-familiar players would be lacing up as replacements).

If the NHL decided to just run business as usual with high ticket prices, they'd fail. But if they can take more of a grassroots marketing approach, jazz the entertainment up, keep the prices down, they'll do fine in any solid hockey market. It's like minor league or junior teams... you see some fantastic success stories around because those teams have really integrated themselves into the community and sold themselves as quality entertainment at a good value.

Of course too, the NHL doesn't need the walk-up Joe Public crowd in some cities. The corporate ticket holders and those who want to maintain possession of the precious seasons tickets in Montreal and Toronto would pony up regardless. And the NHL also has the advantage that they probably don't have to keep it up for long, or make any profit while doing it.

But of course, there's no way they could talk about it publically now, as it would impact on their labour negotiations, and on any rulings they might hope to get from labour boards. They have to pretend it's not on the table right up until they get their impasse ruling. So it's kind of pointless to take any of the rhetoric from the front office into consideration in this discussion.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 09:59 AM
  #107
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
But the problem is the feedback on TSN comes from people like you.
That's right, it comes from Canadian and American hockey fans. Just because they don't agree with your opinion, doesn't make it a problem. (except for your stance) I'm not sitting beside the individuals with a gun to their head forcing them to voice their dipleasure with the NHLPA.

Quote:
They're not a representitive sample of the poulation.
They are a far more representative of the "average fan" than this board, with the NHLPA propoganda machine running full tilt.
Quote:
Its like if I asked 100 democrats if they were going to vote for John Kerry. The results I would have gotten would not have matched what actually happened.
Complete garbage. The TSN webpage is available to anyone with internet access. The distribution of opinions is an accurate reflection of the general public. Simply because it doesn't reflect your stance and sends a clear message you'd prefer to ignore, you pretend they are selectively sampling.

Quote:
And once again you are arguing that fans will pay to see minor leaguers because they can't tell the difference.
They'll pay to see replacements because it will be the best hockey available and it provides them with a chance to support their favourite team. As long as the hockey has speed, physicality and is played with competitive spirit, the vast majority of hockey fans will be entertained. New stars will develop as they display their ability to rise above their peers.

You like to pretend that NHLPA members are irreplaceable. Continue with that delusion all you want, but their was NHL hockey before this pariticular group of players came alone and their will be NHL hockey once they are all long gone. The level of skill will certainly drop, but the level of entertainment doesn't need to drop.

Kyle Wellwood scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a while in last night's AHL game. To pretend that only the current members of the NHLPA are capable of dazzling fans with their skill is rubbish.
Quote:
I can't argue this any mroe becuase you are detached from reality.
No one is forcing you to respond. As long as you continue to ignore the reality of the situation, I'll continue to set the record straight. I'm not sure that replacement hockey is legally possible, but if NHL teams were able to use their arenas and marketing machines, I'm sure that they could provide a cheap and constantly improving product that would make crystal clear the fact that the current NHLPA members are NOT essential to the long term health of the NHL.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 10:21 AM
  #108
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
That's right, it comes from Canadian and American hockey fans. Just because they don't agree with your opinion, doesn't make it a problem. (except for your stance) I'm not sitting beside the individuals with a gun to their head forcing them to voice their dipleasure with the NHLPA.


They are a far more representative of the "average fan" than this board, with the NHLPA propoganda machine running full tilt.

Complete garbage. The TSN webpage is available to anyone with internet access. The distribution of opinions is an accurate reflection of the general public. Simply because it doesn't reflect your stance and sends a clear message you'd prefer to ignore, you pretend they are selectively sampling.


They'll pay to see replacements because it will be the best hockey available and it provides them with a chance to support their favourite team. As long as the hockey has speed, physicality and is played with competitive spirit, the vast majority of hockey fans will be entertained. New stars will develop as they display their ability to rise above their peers.

You like to pretend that NHLPA members are irreplaceable. Continue with that delusion all you want, but their was NHL hockey before this pariticular group of players came alone and their will be NHL hockey once they are all long gone. The level of skill will certainly drop, but the level of entertainment doesn't need to drop.

Kyle Wellwood scored one of the prettiest goals I've seen in a while in last night's AHL game. To pretend that only the current members of the NHLPA are capable of dazzling fans with their skill is rubbish.


No one is forcing you to respond. As long as you continue to ignore the reality of the situation, I'll continue to set the record straight. I'm not sure that replacement hockey is legally possible, but if NHL teams were able to use their arenas and marketing machines, I'm sure that they could provide a cheap and constantly improving product that would make crystal clear the fact that the current NHLPA members are NOT essential to the long term health of the NHL.

No they are not representitive. The average fan does not post on message borads or respond to articles, more so on TSN. Most peole in the US have never heard of TSN. People who post here or anywhere else are the ones with the strongest opnions. I live in Detroit. I ask many people thier thoughts on the lockout. None of them are as extreme in thier hatred of either side as you. None of them as as dumb either.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 10:30 AM
  #109
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck


No one is forcing you to respond. As long as you continue to ignore the reality of the situation, I'll continue to set the record straight. I'm not sure that replacement hockey is legally possible, but if NHL teams were able to use their arenas and marketing machines, I'm sure that they could provide a cheap and constantly improving product that would make crystal clear the fact that the current NHLPA members are NOT essential to the long term health of the NHL.
If the best available players were not essential to making the NHL a major league product, why didn't the owners say the hell with it 10 years ago and not sign anybody? No lockout, no strike needed. Just don't sign guys and replace them with minor leaguers. Why didn't they do that?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:16 AM
  #110
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
If the best available players were not essential to making the NHL a major league product, why didn't the owners say the hell with it 10 years ago and not sign anybody? No lockout, no strike needed. Just don't sign guys and replace them with minor leaguers. Why didn't they do that?

Can you say "collusion"?

djhn579 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:29 AM
  #111
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Can you say "collusion"?
They wouldn't have needed collusion. If the lack of dropoff is so apparent, then they all could have easily come to the conclusion on their own.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:30 AM
  #112
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
No they are not representitive. The average fan does not post on message borads or respond to articles, more so on TSN.
The average fan is far more likely to read an article on TSN and give a one-liner feedback than, like you and I, spend their time posting of message boards. The messages on TSN are far more reflective of the average fan, especially in Canada, than the posters on HFboards.

Quote:
Most peole in the US have never heard of TSN. People who post here or anywhere else are the ones with the strongest opnions. I live in Detroit.
Most people who live in Detroit and are hockey fans have heard of TSN.

Quote:
I ask many people thier thoughts on the lockout.
Now that's a scientific sample group and reporting method if I've ever seen one. I'll be sure to give it all the weight it deserves.

Quote:
None of them are as extreme in thier hatred of either side as you.
I don't "hate" either side. I see the players as having a basic misconception of their place in the business and the damage they are doing to the sport. As such, I'd like to see the NHL score a clear win and the union's power greatly diminished. It is no coincidence that the sports with the weakest unions are in the best shape.

Individual NHLPA members are fairly reflective of the general population. Some worthy of respect, some worthy of ridicule and most capable of moving into either of those categories at any time. On a whole, I'd have to say that NHLers handle themselves pretty well. I cheer passionately for these same players at every opportunity when they are representing my team.

For me, the bottom line is that the players are just getting poor advice and the sooner they are brought back to reality, the better.

Quote:
None of them as as dumb either.
Getting a little desperate?

Why is it that so few on the NHLPA side can present their arguements without resorting to insults and are guilty of assuming that anyone who disagrees with them mustn't have the intelligence to see this situation accurately?

Quite telling on the weakness of their position actually.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:44 AM
  #113
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The average fan is far more likely to read an article on TSN and give a one-liner feedback than, like you and I, spend their time posting of message boards. The messages on TSN are far more reflective of the average fan, especially in Canada, than the posters on HFboards.



Most people who live in Detroit and are hockey fans have heard of TSN.


Now that's a scientific sample group and reporting method if I've ever seen one. I'll be sure to give it all the weight it deserves.



I don't "hate" either side. I see the players as having a basic misconception of their place in the business and the damage they are doing to the sport. As such, I'd like to see the NHL score a clear win and the union's power greatly diminished. It is no coincidence that the sports with the weakest unions are in the best shape.

Individual NHLPA members are fairly reflective of the general population. Some worthy of respect, some worthy of ridicule and most capable of moving into either of those categories at any time. On a whole, I'd have to say that NHLers handle themselves pretty well. I cheer passionately for these same players at every opportunity when they are representing my team.

For me, the bottom line is that the players are just getting poor advice and the sooner they are brought back to reality, the better.


Getting a little desperate?

Why is it that so few on the NHLPA side can present their arguements without resorting to insults and are guilty of assuming that anyone who disagrees with them mustn't have the intelligence to see this situation accurately?

Quite telling on the weakness of their position actually.

Nice job on the cut and paste there.

Talking to people may not be a representitve sample but if its not then neither is an internet message board or TSN's feedback.

I assume you don't have the intelligence to see the situation realistically because the arguments you have made have no basis in reality. You ignore the past, you assume everyone has the same view(and same intensity) as you and you assume people in the US are the same as in Canada. You do not understand the apathy for hockey in the US. If it cannot generate enough revenue to survive now, how can it after the lockout and with replacement players? You're deluding yourself if you think it can.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:59 AM
  #114
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Nice job on the cut and paste there.

Talking to people may not be a representitve sample but if its not then neither is an internet message board or TSN's feedback.

I assume you don't have the intelligence to see the situation realistically because the arguments you have made have no basis in reality. You ignore the past, you assume everyone has the same view(and same intensity) as you and you assume people in the US are the same as in Canada. You do not understand the apathy for hockey in the US. If it cannot generate enough revenue to survive now, how can it after the lockout and with replacement players? You're deluding yourself if you think it can.
$2.1B in revenue, yet hockey in the US can't generate enough revenue to survive? Most of that reveune is generated in the US.

There is plenty of revenue. The problem is the salary disparity. But that doesn't matter. If teams can't afford to spend as much as the Rangers or Toronto, your not an NHL market and don't deserve to be in the NHL. There's a certain logic to that if your an NHLPA lawyer and trying to justify salary inflation, but then, if that salary inflation eliminates jobs, is the NHLPA doing it's job?

djhn579 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 12:05 PM
  #115
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579

There is plenty of revenue.
If there were plenty of revenue we wouldn't have the problems we do. No matter what happnes, revenue will be down a lot just becuase of Betman's masterful NBC deal.

just want to also add that while most of the revenue may be generated in the US, its generated by only a handful of teams. Everybody is qucik to point out the gap between the Red wings and Predators payroll. They're not so quick to point out the gap in revenue between the two clubs is even bigger.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 01:18 PM
  #116
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Nice job on the cut and paste there.
Glad you liked it.

Quote:
Talking to people may not be a representitve sample but if its not then neither is an internet message board or TSN's feedback.
One of these methods is far superior based on the ability of both parties to verify the veracity of the claims made about the content. TSN's feedback also allows for a far wider sample group than "people you've talked to about the lockout".

I assume you are smart enough to see that the evidence presented is far superior in my example, but also stubborn enough to fail to admit this fact due to the conclusions one must draw from the evidence.

Quote:
I assume you don't have the intelligence to see the situation realistically because the arguments you have made have no basis in reality.
Perhaps you should re-examine the criteria by which you measure reality then.

Quote:
You ignore the past
No, I simply feel that the examples you have presented from the past have limited applicability to this situation and that the conculsions you have drawn from the past are faulty.
Quote:
you assume everyone has the same view(and same intensity) as you
No, I am well aware that I take this far more seriously than most. I also know that you are ignoring the fact that public opinion is solidly behind the owners in every single poll conducted.

Quote:
and you assume people in the US are the same as in Canada. You do not understand the apathy for hockey in the US.
No, I'm painfully aware of the difference

Quote:
If it cannot generate enough revenue to survive now, how can it after the lockout and with replacement players? You're deluding yourself if you think it can.
Revenue generation isn't the problem.

Short term losses are immaterial to the owners.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 01:24 PM
  #117
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,286
vCash: 500
Just imagine the marketing possibilities as the NHL ventures forward in its brave new plan to make the NHL more popular and profitable. "We have fixed the problem" the ads will say. Come back, come one come all, see the exciting new product we have for you. We will be giving free programs so you can learn all the new players you will love to watch. Last years rejects are your new stars. Corporate suite dollars will still be well spent. We see great things ahead for our new exciting league. Come spend lots of money to spite the players. Think of the fun we'll have taunting them while watching our replacements. And there will be a cap. Every team will be able to afford any one of them. There will be financial parity. How can it get more exciting?

Oh yes, what divine inspiration, marketing genious.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 02:24 PM
  #118
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck

No, I am well aware that I take this far more seriously than most. I also know that you are ignoring the fact that public opinion is solidly behind the owners in every single poll conducted.
Kinda like this poll, where the first questions asks "The NHL players union, to date, has opposed a salary cap or any type of restraint on players' salaries. They do not believe the current economic system in hockey needs to be fixed. They believe that the system should continue, allowing players to make as much money as they can in a free market system."

Is it still a valid poll even though its a factually inaccurate question? Ever hear of a push poll?

http://nhlcbanews.com/reaction/fansurvey0304.html

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 06:01 PM
  #119
myrocketsgotcracked
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I won't pay $100 to watch NHL players but that's another story. I've really enjoyed all the games against the Russian Juniors. As always I'm really looking forward to the World Juniors next month. I regularly go watch the local Tier II Junior team.

I do see a difference in tempo between a televised AHL or Junior game and a televised NHL game, but it isn't that noticeable because television slows it down so much. But live? Every time I go to an NHL game, the speed and violence stuns me. It is a huge step from Junior to the AHL and the final step is the biggest one of all.
Everything happens so fast in an NHL game. There is no comparison.

The fans will at the rink will notice for sure.

Tom
i think this is why IF the nhl employ replacement players they will surely charge MUCH cheaper ticket prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98
Judging by last seasons attendance figures, many teams are having trouble getting fans to pay that much money with real NHLers on the ice. I still think that if replacement players are used, to entice people to the rink, you're gonna need ticket prices in the $10-15 range, max. After all, if the players are going to be roughly the same between Grand Rapids (GR) and Detroit (just for reference, pick any NHL team and a lower level team), why not pay less and just go see the lower level team? You'll be getting the same quality of play either way.

And Thunderstruck mentioned the TSN boards as proof a good number of fans would pay to watch replacements. My problem with that is that it's likely a largely canadian sample posting feedback while the majority of hockey teams are in American cities. Americans seemed largely indifferent to the league when it was up and running and are nearly entirely indifferent to its not running. I have a hard time seeing them going to see replacement players for any reason.
well the $25-50 figure is just my own willingness to pay, it does not reflect the overall willingness to pay of the public.
but i think a reason why some teams dont generate enough interest even at those price is because they arent entertaining enough. sure the carolina hurricanes (for example) employ nhl players (some really good ones too, like oneill, williams) but if they trap every game just to stay competitive, who'll pay $50 per ticket to see them? i think the TALENT LEVEL matters, but not as much as the ENTERTAINMENT LEVEL.

 
Old
11-28-2004, 06:36 PM
  #120
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKarateMonkey
i think this is why IF the nhl employ replacement players they will surely charge MUCH cheaper ticket prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Daly
Finally, we believe that in a more certain cost environment, Clubs will be less dependent on ticket price increases to finance competitive payrolls, leading to a more consistently affordable product in many markets.
http://nhlcbanews.com/dalymail/daly_mailbag100504.html

Where does he say prices will be reduced?



Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperKarateMonkey
well the $25-50 figure is just my own willingness to pay, it does not reflect the overall willingness to pay of the public.
but i think a reason why some teams dont generate enough interest even at those price is because they arent entertaining enough. sure the carolina hurricanes (for example) employ nhl players (some really good ones too, like oneill, williams) but if they trap every game just to stay competitive, who'll pay $50 per ticket to see them? i think the TALENT LEVEL matters, but not as much as the ENTERTAINMENT LEVEL.
Finally someone with enough balls to say what they'd pay. Lets go with you high of $50 and assume that since you've taken the time to post on a hockey message board, you'd be willing to pay more than the average fan. So lets cut it by a consevative 33% to $34. Average attendance for the NHL is roughly 16,000. Even the most clueless NHL supports have to figure attendance will drop. the season the NFL used replacement players for 3 weeks, the season average dropped 10%, much more than that for the game replacments were used. My guess is the NHL will drop by over half on average, but lets be conservative again and say 15%. At 13,500 fans per game, you're looking at less than a $500,000 gross per game, a little over $20 million per team for a season assuming there are 41 home games. Total league gross on attendance around $600 million. The ESPN deal is worth about $60 million. Who knows how much local TV deals and licensing brings. NBC deal is for nothing, but I'll give them a million per team(half of the ABC deal) I don't know what CBC or TSN or Sportsnet pay. Can't be more than $100 million US total. All told, and being extremely generous, I can't envision a scernario where the league grosses over $900 million compared to $2.2 billion last year. Frankly the only differences I'm assuming for this are the ABC deal and a couple thousand less per game with slightly reduced ticket prices. Even the most deluded would have to agree a $10 million reduction per team is very plausible.

Now take the 2003-2004 average payroll of $44 million ($1.3 billion league wide total) and compare that with a $20 million payroll average($600 million league wide total) Last year, 60% of revenue went to salaries. Under the new scernario, its 66%, and thats with being extremely consevative with the dropoff in attendance and extremely liberal with league revenue.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 06:38 PM
  #121
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Militant unions aren't good but strong unions are. You don't want to see NHL players getting exploited like they have been in the past. But strong unions also need to use their stength in a responsible manner and look after everyone's interests.

A slaughterhouse near where I lived had financial problems. They told the union they needed to restructure wages, cut overtime penalties and such or they would have to close. The union laughed in their face, it had fought long and hard for those increases and it wasn't giving them up. Again the company asked for concessions to remain viable. The union refused to look at the books or believe them. The company closed. The union still held out to call their bluff despite workers concerns. To make its point the company stripped the building and sold it for scrap, scorched earth style, then walked away never to return. 1/3 of the towns jobs disappeared, also never to return. I guess it was a win to the union because it held strong throughout.

This is exaclty what is happening right now. Its not about cutting the players salaries back. This is about fixing the leagues problems and allowing it to be around for years to come. To me, it seems like the union cares nothing about this. They made offers that provide no real solution to the problems facing the league. A one-time roll-back of players salaries by 5%, yeah that helps in the present but we're right back where we started once these guys get new contracts. Revenue sharing is a good idea, but without a cap it will not help either. Unless there is a cap, all revenue sharing will do is spread the losses over the teams, because the losses are far greater than the profits.

Bottom line is that the players have heard so much propoganda from the NHLPA that they are not thinking clearly. Right now its looked at by the league trying to take away their earnings rather than fixing the problems. Its not about who's fault it is, personally I believe both sides are to blame, but its about who's trying to elp this league to survive and be healthy long-term and thats what the owners are doing by trying to implement a cap. A cap will insure all teams will not have the chance to make bad decisions regarding contracts, and if they do, the contracts will shortly be rectifed by other teams not willing to fork over the very important salary room to overpaid players who aren't performing.

kerrly is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 06:44 PM
  #122
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
It all depends on how well they market it.
This is true. Since we're talking about the NHL history tells us that it will be marketed extremely poorly. Remember the little fella is the one who though the glowing puck was a good idea.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 09:25 PM
  #123
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
A slaughterhouse near where I lived had financial problems. They told the union they needed to restructure wages, cut overtime penalties and such or they would have to close. The union laughed in their face, it had fought long and hard for those increases and it wasn't giving them up. Again the company asked for concessions to remain viable. The union refused to look at the books or believe them. The company closed. The union still held out to call their bluff despite workers concerns. To make its point the company stripped the building and sold it for scrap, scorched earth style, then walked away never to return. 1/3 of the towns jobs disappeared, also never to return. I guess it was a win to the union because it held strong throughout.
The difference here is that the slaughterhouse market has been going through a stage of consolidation. Small to medium sized slaughterhouses have been run out of business by much larger and more efficient slaughterhouses. The union didn't see this trend and got burned because of it. Of course it is possible that the slaughterhouse would have went out of business even if the union had given in to management's demands.

The NHL is in no such position. There is little chance of it being displaced in the marketplace. Does anyone really think that the NHL will fold completely if they don't get cost certainty?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:04 PM
  #124
myrocketsgotcracked
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
http://nhlcbanews.com/dalymail/daly_mailbag100504.html

Where does he say prices will be reduced?





Finally someone with enough balls to say what they'd pay. Lets go with you high of $50 and assume that since you've taken the time to post on a hockey message board, you'd be willing to pay more than the average fan. So lets cut it by a consevative 33% to $34. Average attendance for the NHL is roughly 16,000. Even the most clueless NHL supports have to figure attendance will drop. the season the NFL used replacement players for 3 weeks, the season average dropped 10%, much more than that for the game replacments were used. My guess is the NHL will drop by over half on average, but lets be conservative again and say 15%. At 13,500 fans per game, you're looking at less than a $500,000 gross per game, a little over $20 million per team for a season assuming there are 41 home games. Total league gross on attendance around $600 million. The ESPN deal is worth about $60 million. Who knows how much local TV deals and licensing brings. NBC deal is for nothing, but I'll give them a million per team(half of the ABC deal) I don't know what CBC or TSN or Sportsnet pay. Can't be more than $100 million US total. All told, and being extremely generous, I can't envision a scernario where the league grosses over $900 million compared to $2.2 billion last year. Frankly the only differences I'm assuming for this are the ABC deal and a couple thousand less per game with slightly reduced ticket prices. Even the most deluded would have to agree a $10 million reduction per team is very plausible.

Now take the 2003-2004 average payroll of $44 million ($1.3 billion league wide total) and compare that with a $20 million payroll average($600 million league wide total) Last year, 60% of revenue went to salaries. Under the new scernario, its 66%, and thats with being extremely consevative with the dropoff in attendance and extremely liberal with league revenue.
my post was refering to the use of replacement players. so IF the nhl does employ replacement players the talent level WILL be lower then before, thus the price SHOULD decrease. your link show what bill daly expect the new cba will bring, which have nothing to do with what i said.
the $25-50 range is again refer to the price i'll pay for replacement players (assuming they provide the same level of entertainment the ahl/echl/junior games i've seen this year), not the range that i'll pay to actual nhl players.

 
Old
11-28-2004, 11:30 PM
  #125
Sp5618
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country:
Posts: 7,191
vCash: 500
Before the lockout....

...the last NHL action we saw was Lightning vs. Flames Cup final. It was one of the lowest, if not the lowest ever, TV viewing audience for a Cup final. So if Bettman gets his cap, not even at $31 million, but let's say for the sake of argument, it is between $40-45 million, would a repeat between the Lightning and the Flames double or triple in TV viewership? Would the networks be beating down Bettman's door to work out a new deal to get rights to all NHL games? Yeah, I can see how the cap will help the NHL with its real problems....lack of interest in the US. We'll get a cap, Carolina will prosper, and the highest ever viewing ratings will be in 5 years in the showdown between Carolina and Columbus. The NHL's future is in these second tier cities, cities whose combined market size is 1/6th the size of one NYC, LA or Chicago.

Sp5618 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.