This tweet from BizNasty is pretty telling. The owners and players can talk about the "fans" all they want, but in reality, it's just lip service.
Quote:
Fans. The players understand your frustration. But at the end of the day we are fighting for our futures, not yours. That's the reality.
The only way the fans matter is if they stop spending because of all this which impacts owner revenue and players earnings (both salary and endorsements). Based on how the fans reacted after the last lockout, I don't see that happening.
And I would take a pay cut if owners would lower ticket prices for all the loyal fans like you @amazingjr87. But they won't.
Meh..he's just saying that because he knows it's something that will never come to fruition so it's the sleeves off his vest. Easy to say it when it's not a possibility.
Ticket prices aren't tied to player salaries or league revenue. Ticket prices completely depend on supply and demand. If the Canes could increase ticket prices and still fill the building, they would do it in a heartbeat. They price them at the most they can to make the most revenue and still get a significant fan base at the game.
Hockey tickets are RIDICULOUSLY cheap in the majority of markets. In no way do ticket prices bother me. Now $4 bottles of Diet Pepsi, sure, I'll howl about that.
I think it all depends on your frame of reference.
I've been an Arsenal supporter for years. For years I've been seeing Arsenal fans complain at length about how escalating ticket prices have priced out the common fan and that Arsenal has the highest ticket prices in Europe. I am traveling to London this weekend to go to a game, and I was surprised to find that my ticket was not nearly as expensive as I had anticipated.
Looking at SEASON TICKETS for all English Premier League clubs, the cheapest is 300 GBP ($483) and the most expensive is 1,955 pounds ($3,149). Hell, the most expensive season ticket at Manchester United, allegedly the most valuable sports team in the world (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...-sports-teams/) is 950 GBP ($1,530).
I realize that there are different number of games played, different stadium sizes, etc, but nonetheless, compare that to the NHL where a lot of places season tickets can run over $15,000. Even the Canes range from $731 to $6,235. Sure, it's supply and demand, and the teams clearly can successfully charge exorbitantly high prices. But, that doesn't mean fans shouldn't complain about it being expensive.
__________________
-Jonathan
Last edited by Gotta Catch Em Staal: 09-13-2012 at 11:18 AM.
"The owners got what they wanted 7 years ago, and now they want more!!!!! outrage!!!!" is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. They signed a seven year contract, now it's up and they want more, what's the problem? Isn't that what players do pretty much every. single. time their contract is up?
Same with ticket prices. I'm fairly certain that my $37 seat in 2005-06 now costs me $60.
And that's the single biggest reason that I've stuck with my nosebleeds for so long. And even then the supposed game-day ticket price for those seats has (more then?) doubled in that timeframe, even if my season tickets there have stayed relatively the same.
Same with ticket prices. I'm fairly certain that my $37 seat in 2005-06 now costs me $60.
While certain sections have changed, have they gone on that much "on average" though?
According to what I could dig up on the web, based on the team marketing report (which can be misleading), the Hurricanes avg. ticket price in 05-06 was 38.81. It jumped up to $44.91 the next year following the cup win. But then it dropped back down to the $38-39 range up until last year where it jumped to $41.58.
Now this can be misleading based on more low end tickets bringing the average down, but I do know there was a 3 year price freeze in place for STH in 09 (I think) if you ordered at a certain time as well so I'll have to go back and see if I can dig up what I paid in 05/06 vs. now and compare. I realize it won't be apples to apples since now there are the vouchers included as well as the 10% F+B credit.
Last edited by Boom Boom Anton: 09-13-2012 at 11:49 AM.
Yeah it depends on how that average is calculated.
For my experience, sitting in the exact same seat in Section 123, I'm fairly certain that I paid $37/seat back then, and this coming year it will be $60 per. I'm not extrapolating past that, myself...
Yeah it depends on how that average is calculated.
For my experience, sitting in the exact same seat in Section 123, I'm fairly certain that I paid $37/seat back then, and this coming year it will be $60 per. I'm not extrapolating past that, myself...
Yeah, I suspect it's a case of the avg. being tilted with some add'l low end tickets in attempts to fill the arena. Since I also sit in LL south, my prices will likely match what you see, although I don't recall offhand what I paid in 05/06.
And you don't have to be around the redneck brigade at PNC, which is worth some money
So basically I get paid to watch hockey games
Oh my gracious so true. That's another plus of being at GT, I know I won't ever see the grumpy old redneck in my section that blames Pitkanen for every mistake made by a Cane, even if Joni isn't actually playing in the game. So many times I wanted to punch that guy in the face last year for blaming Pitkanen for goals while Joni was actually recovering from knee surgery...
Just when I thought things couldn't be any worse, Bettman gives his presser.
Is there a more delusional person on the planet?
Claims the league did not make a "take it or leave it" proposal - Follows that up by describing a "take it or leave it" proposal.
Claims that a 57/43 split is unfair - Ignores the fact they started this negotiation with a 57/43 split.
Claims that the league made a "fair deal" in 2005..."perhaps too fair" (which, you know, is completely contradictory to the above) - Guess that means he wants to change it to an unfair deal?
Still insists the NHLPA hasn't changed their proposal much - Ignores the fact the media knows what the NHLPA proposal was and realizes it was changed quite a bit.
Ok, so allow me to look like a complete idiot. I haven't been following the financial part of hockey closely at any point in my experience as a fan.
The argument, from what I can glean, revolves around player and owner percentages of revenue. I know what revenue is and I understand the concept of percentages (and if I didn't would you expect that I would be punctuating so well)
What I don't understand is that players have a stake in revenue at all. The players sign a contract. From what I understand they are paid X amount of dollars to play X amount of seasons. A contract is binding by law no matter how you slice it. The players are owed that amount of money if they play for the team (barring injuries and in that case insurance comes in).
Do players get a cut of the revenue that I am not aware of? Please, someone knowledgeable, set a helpless mind at ease.
Ok, so allow me to look like a complete idiot. I haven't been following the financial part of hockey closely at any point in my experience as a fan.
The argument, from what I can glean, revolves around player and owner percentages of revenue. I know what revenue is and I understand the concept of percentages (and if I didn't would you expect that I would be punctuating so well)
What I don't understand is that players have a stake in revenue at all. The players sign a contract. From what I understand they are paid X amount of dollars to play X amount of seasons. A contract is binding by law no matter how you slice it. The players are owed that amount of money if they play for the team (barring injuries and in that case insurance comes in).
Do players get a cut of the revenue that I am not aware of? Please, someone knowledgeable, set a helpless mind at ease.
I'm not knowledgeable, but I like typing, so I'm gonna throw out a guess that it would have to do with where they set the cap.
Ok, so allow me to look like a complete idiot. I haven't been following the financial part of hockey closely at any point in my experience as a fan.
The argument, from what I can glean, revolves around player and owner percentages of revenue. I know what revenue is and I understand the concept of percentages (and if I didn't would you expect that I would be punctuating so well)
What I don't understand is that players have a stake in revenue at all. The players sign a contract. From what I understand they are paid X amount of dollars to play X amount of seasons. A contract is binding by law no matter how you slice it. The players are owed that amount of money if they play for the team (barring injuries and in that case insurance comes in).
Do players get a cut of the revenue that I am not aware of? Please, someone knowledgeable, set a helpless mind at ease.
The Salary Cap is directly tied to League revenues. Either the lower or upper limit is based on ~57% of hockey related revenue.
As revenue's have increased, so has the upper limit of the cap.
The problem is that the majority of that increase has been in ~10 teams. The other 20 are treading water or losing money. Ostensibly (<= correct usage of word?), they need to help the teams that are losing money and have no hope to consistently spend even to the lower limit.
The owners want to redo the percentage of HRR that is granted to the players to make this work. That basically means that they want to lower the cap. They also want rollbacks so that player salaries will be in percentage with the new cap.
The players obviously don't want this, and instead have offered a proposal that increases revenue sharing to help the bleeding while maintaining the status quo.
The Salary Cap is directly tied to League revenues. Either the lower or upper limit is based on ~57% of hockey related revenue.
As revenue's have increased, so has the upper limit of the cap.
The problem is that the majority of that increase has been in ~10 teams. The other 20 are treading water or losing money. Ostensibly (<= correct usage of word?), they need to help the teams that are losing money and have no hope to consistently spend even to the lower limit.
The owners want to redo the percentage of HRR that is granted to the players to make this work. That basically means that they want to lower the cap. They also want rollbacks so that player salaries will be in percentage with the new cap.
The players obviously don't want this, and instead have offered a proposal that increases revenue sharing to help the bleeding while maintaining the status quo.
I hope that helps.
That helped tremendously. Thank you.
If that is the situation I don't see how anyone in their right mind would take the players' side. Although I've heard talks of salary reductions which in my mind sound like a breach of contract. That is disturbing
The fact that the owners (through their GMs) knew they were signing players to these outrageous contracts without ever intending to pay them in full come next CBA negotiations is also disturbing. However, the fact remains that the players were signed to outrageous contracts and the league as a whole will suffer if that trend continues as smaller market teams will not be able to compete.
Who loses? The fans, the owners, and the players. Perhaps the owners were right to push for so much in 04. We are seeing the repercussions all these years later.
While I want hockey, I'll easily find other ways to spend my money and keep entertained if/when there is a lockout. The thing that might suck is that the Canes gave up Sutter, Dumoulin, and the #8 pick for Jordan Staal. If there's no season this year (and the rules for UFA don't change), it would end up meaning we gave them up for nothing as Jordan would have likely signed here after a lockout anyhow.
I know it's crying over spilled milk, but it would really suck if it plays out that way.
Does it seem like most Canes players have been eerily quiet on the CBA goings on? If yes, any theories? Small market team hoping the NHLPA can get the big-market teams to increase revenue share? CAR 'family' feeling among players, GM, owners? Some NHLPA 'hierarchy' that marginalizes the Canes top players?
I think it all depends on your frame of reference.
I've been an Arsenal supporter for years. For years I've been seeing Arsenal fans complain at length about how escalating ticket prices have priced out the common fan and that Arsenal has the highest ticket prices in Europe. I am traveling to London this weekend to go to a game, and I was surprised to find that my ticket was not nearly as expensive as I had anticipated.
Looking at SEASON TICKETS for all English Premier League clubs, the cheapest is 300 GBP ($483) and the most expensive is 1,955 pounds ($3,149). Hell, the most expensive season ticket at Manchester United, allegedly the most valuable sports team in the world (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbade...-sports-teams/) is 950 GBP ($1,530).
I realize that there are different number of games played, different stadium sizes, etc, but nonetheless, compare that to the NHL where a lot of places season tickets can run over $15,000. Even the Canes range from $731 to $6,235. Sure, it's supply and demand, and the teams clearly can successfully charge exorbitantly high prices. But, that doesn't mean fans shouldn't complain about it being expensive.
If you spot a guy with a massive beard and a Canes hat while in London, do say hi. Dare say I am the only one here.
Also: Season tickets for PL-sides do not include any cup games, they come extra, and like you said, there is a massive difference in games played. Not trying to say tickets aren't overpriced though, just that there's a reason they come cheaper in the UK. Prices are rising here too, my season ticket for Fulham was 529 pounds this year, a few years ago they were going for 329.
