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.

Average Ticket Cost vs. Average Player Salary - 1994 to 2012

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-23-2012, 08:38 PM
  #1
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,676
vCash: 500
Average Ticket Cost vs. Average Player Salary - 1994 to 2012

I posted this in the lockout thread, but thought maybe it deserved it's own thread.


I was looking at some comparisons between the "Original Bettman Lockout" (1994-95), and this year's lockout. I came across some interesting numbers:

Average NHL Ticket Price in 1994-95: $33.49
Average NHL Ticket Price in 2011/12: $57.10
Difference: 70% increase in ticket cost over 17 years.

Average NHL Player Salary in 1994/95: $572,000 (this is the FULL-SEASON-prorated figure to reflect actual games played. Players in reality earned less than this, due to the shortened schedule)
Average NHL Player Salary in 2011-12: $2,450,000
Difference: 425% increase in average player salaries over 17 years.

Interesting numbers. This shouldn't paint a full picture of anything, I'm just putting them out there. Feel free to interpret these however you want.

Dissect at your own leisure.

BonkTastic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:42 PM
  #2
Joe T Choker
Roll Wide Roll
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melrose
Country: Italy
Posts: 23,463
vCash: 500
I'm not touching this with a hundred foot pole ... does it take into account "papering arenas" or did you just go by ESPN & how the hell did you find 17 years of teams ticket prices ?

Joe T Choker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 09:39 PM
  #3
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarding Assets View Post
I'm not touching this with a hundred foot pole ... does it take into account "papering arenas" or did you just go by ESPN & how the hell did you find 17 years of teams ticket prices ?
You can find this info pretty easily just by googling it. I did.

These are strictly numbers. I'm not trying to paint a picture. Just was bored and wanted to introduce a new thread.

There's lots of other info that can be introduced: I mean, you can look at the Dallas Stars avg ticket prices... they're lower right now than they were at the turn of the century!

Just thought I'd introduce the topic to the main board: seeing as how the lockout thread got moved here, I figured maybe it might be an interesting supplementary thread.

BonkTastic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 09:53 PM
  #4
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,207
vCash: 500
I know little in this field so take what I say with a grain of salt:

Most franchises now (keyword most) still run a profit even with the massive increase in player salary, which makes me inclined to think that players were underpaid in 94-95. I know salaries shot up in the DPE between the lockouts of course (Joe Sakic Rangers offer sheet for example...).

Fact is that strictly speaking in terms of capitalism, owners would be losing money if players were overpaid, as the revenue the owners gain from ticket sales, advertising, equipment (jerseys, caps, etc.) sales, etc. would be lower than the cost of putting the players on the ice to play.

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 10:47 PM
  #5
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
I posted this in the lockout thread, but thought maybe it deserved it's own thread.


I was looking at some comparisons between the "Original Bettman Lockout" (1994-95), and this year's lockout. I came across some interesting numbers:

Average NHL Ticket Price in 1994-95: $33.49
Average NHL Ticket Price in 2011/12: $57.10
Difference: 70% increase in ticket cost over 17 years.

Average NHL Player Salary in 1994/95: $572,000 (this is the FULL-SEASON-prorated figure to reflect actual games played. Players in reality earned less than this, due to the shortened schedule)
Average NHL Player Salary in 2011-12: $2,450,000
Difference: 425% increase in average player salaries over 17 years.

Interesting numbers. This shouldn't paint a full picture of anything, I'm just putting them out there. Feel free to interpret these however you want.

Dissect at your own leisure.
I don't know if it's really a fair comparison since in 1994-95, salaries had just started to become disclosed to the public a few years earlier (1990) and they were just starting to skyrocket due to the competition between teams.

http://crashingthegoalie.com/2009/12...ies-1987-1990/

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 10:59 PM
  #6
Kane One
Global Moderator
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 28,290
vCash: 1500
Do you have the numbers for TV and merchandising revenues of both seasons?

__________________
Kane One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:51 PM
  #7
tsujimoto74
Registered User
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
I know little in this field so take what I say with a grain of salt:

Most franchises now (keyword most) still run a profit even with the massive increase in player salary, which makes me inclined to think that players were underpaid in 94-95. I know salaries shot up in the DPE between the lockouts of course (Joe Sakic Rangers offer sheet for example...).

Fact is that strictly speaking in terms of capitalism, owners would be losing money if players were overpaid, as the revenue the owners gain from ticket sales, advertising, equipment (jerseys, caps, etc.) sales, etc. would be lower than the cost of putting the players on the ice to play.
The owners are losing money, at least many of them. That's kind of why there's a lockout.

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:56 PM
  #8
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
The owners are losing money, at least many of them. That's kind of why there's a lockout.
There is no proof of that.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:27 AM
  #9
Raym11
Phaneuf sucks
 
Raym11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
There is no proof of that.
ATL ------> Winnipeg

PHX -------> NHL


Teams with internal caps probably because of minimal profit if any

Raym11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 07:20 AM
  #10
barneyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
I was looking at some comparisons between the "Original Bettman Lockout" (1994-95), and this year's lockout. I came across some interesting numbers:

Average NHL Ticket Price in 1994-95: $33.49
Average NHL Ticket Price in 2011/12: $57.10
Difference: 70% increase in ticket cost over 17 years.
I'm kind of expecting kdb to join in with his Team Marketing Report disclaimer at this point. Those average prices have exactly 0 credibility.

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 07:28 AM
  #11
robla
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
I'm kind of expecting kdb to join in with his Team Marketing Report disclaimer at this point. Those average prices have exactly 0 credibility.
and what? even if the ticket prices have been increased by 140% .. it's still a huge way behind the fixed costs increase by players salaries.. and further disturbing: ticket revenues are not fixed per team.. a bad year and they are down.
everyone knows that the NHL is a gate revenue league.. it doesn't have the huge tv contracts like NFL and MLB.. and never will since it's a niche sport in the US.. it has to generate most of its revenues from ticket sales.. these numbers show that the NHL business isn't working with high player salaries or even worse increasing salaries.. but heck, the players keep on dreaming/living in wonder land.. fighting their employer.. till they ruined their employer's business.. they will cry wolf when there's no league left to pay their high salaires :-) looks like this day will come sooner than later...

robla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 08:22 AM
  #12
Goulet17
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
It is hard to judge those numbers in a vacuum without understanding the full financial picture. It represents roughly a twenty year period which can be a night and day period in terms of revenue and salaries in pro sports.

I would be interested to know what the difference is between the league revenue numbers during that period time (although league revenues are subject to a high degree of manipulation on a team by team basis).

Another point on the use of these figures without context, the growing salaries were readily apparent during the last lockout, but the owners focused on a salary cap as an answer to all of the league's ills. Since the implementation of the salary cap, league revenues have grown exponentially.

It may be more enlightening to see the difference in the growth of revenues versus salaries since the implementation of the salary cap. I think that would highlight either a big problem (revenue versus salary growth), or would highlight a lack of good faith on the part of owners (perhaps a degree in incompetence).


Last edited by Goulet17: 11-24-2012 at 08:30 AM.
Goulet17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 10:52 AM
  #13
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
There is no proof of that.
Yeah, because owners of a profitable business often shut it down and lock out their employees, right?

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:18 AM
  #14
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Yeah, because owners of a profitable business often shut it down and lock out their employees, right?
Do you think a restaurant that serves bad food should stay in business. Why should a sorry team like the Blue Jackets stay in business.

Do you think if someone opened up a snowplow business in Phoenix they should stay in business where they get no snow. Why should a sorry team like Florida stay in business.

The logic you're trying to give me is that an NHL owner is REQUIRED to make a profit no matter how sorry his team is on the ice and no matter how sorry his location is (Miami is a fairweather sports town that has minimal interest in hockey).

I still see no proof of all these teams losing money. All I see is the owners wanting more and more and more which is whats going on in society today. All the poor people pay more for health insurance and do twice the work and get no raises because the "job creator" wants to make another $10 mil a year. The owners have you guys hook line and sinker.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:31 AM
  #15
Mr Wu
Registered User
 
Mr Wu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Deadwood
Country: Canada
Posts: 251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Yeah, because owners of a profitable business often shut it down and lock out their employees, right?
Wow, talk about naive.

Mr Wu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:35 AM
  #16
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Yeah, because owners of a profitable business often shut it down and lock out their employees, right?

By all accounts, the NFL is very profitable. They locked out their players. You keep trying this argument, KINGS, but at some point even you must admit that not everyone is doing it to stem losses, but to increase gains.


At the OP, gate receipts tell only about half the story for most teams, while the wildly successful are even less reliant on ticket receipts-- and they of course charge far more than the average price.

Meanwhile, the teams that indeed are hurting, like Phoenix, have avg ticket prices of $25-35 dollars. Buffalo was also in the $35/ticket avg range the last time NHL data was leaked (see the BOHB sticky on data we collect).

What you will discover as this thread plays out is that revenue disparity is quite large, and it begins with ticket prices. The latter is a good market indicator of demand for hockey in many places, and whether or not that demand filters up to corporate season ticket holders. The rest, including TV and sponsorships, follow on from that demand.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:12 PM
  #17
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
I'm kind of expecting kdb to join in with his Team Marketing Report disclaimer at this point. Those average prices have exactly 0 credibility.

The new and now updated TMR disclaimer. Starting last year TMR added a new column for the "Premium Seats" that they had been arbitrarily excluding since 2001.

The Avg Ticket & Avg Premium Ticket numbers for the Sharks show that they were pretty much excluding the entire Lower Bowl when calculating their bogus avg ticket price numbers.

Even with both numbers, you still cannot come up with any real meaningful average - since their is no indication of the relative number of premium vs non premium and their distinctions still seem arbitrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.



Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.
Warning. TMR Alert. Warning.


You know the drill ...

[Standard TMR Disclaimer]
Those numbers are from Team Marketing Report - which has been debunked numerous times here as being wildly inaccurate for many teams due to methodological flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD8 View Post
Wait, you're basing this on the "leaked" Globe & Mail report, right?
Yes - and simple analysis done of actual Colorado (ColoradoHockeyFan) and San Jose (myself) ticket prices.

This post by CHF shows the flaw in TMRs methodology after they changed it in 2001 to arbitrarily exclude "premium" seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoHockeyFan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
No. That is a BAD place to find pricing info.

The bogus numbers on the Team Marketing Report site have been debunked numerous times on the BoH board.

Probably the best (and possibly the only) numbers you are going to find for avg ticket prices were the numbers leaked last year in the Globe & Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/co...pdf/NHLweb.pdf
Thank you. (And thanks to Fugu too.)

Continue to spread the message about the worthlessness of Team Marketing Report, and we will eventually triumph over misinformation! Can I get a hallelujah!

And to further the cause, here is the sorted version of the accurate numbers from that Globe and Mail link:

PHP Code:
Average ticket prices by team
Team                   2006
-07  2005-06
Toronto Maple Leafs    80.33    78.98
Colorado Avalanche     71.04    65.55
New York Rangers       63.53    54.19
Dallas Stars           61.43    58.37
Edmonton Oilers        61.14    50.20
Montreal Canadiens     60.82    58.74
Boston Bruins          59.71    56.61
Vancouver Canucks      58.74    56.24
Detroit Red Wings      56.95    56.72
Columbus Blue Jackets  56.07    53.77
Philadelphia Flyers    54.59    51.94
Minnesota Wild         54.54    51.18
Anaheim Ducks          52.25    49.79
San Jose Sharks        50.95    49.05
Calgary Flames         50.70    46.97
Ottawa Senators        50.38    45.30
New Jersey Devils      49.91    48.97
Los Angeles Kings      46.75    44.17
New York Islanders     45.04    46.30
Carolina Hurricanes    44.91    38.81
Tampa Bay Lightning    44.50    42.38
Phoenix Coyotes        43.60    45.66
Chicago Blackhawks     40.79    39.74
Nashville Predators    40.33    34.74
Florida Panthers       39.75    44.59
Washington Capitals    39.57    36.16
St
Louis Blues        39.50    35.23
Pittsburgh Penguins    38.62    38.05
Atlanta Thrashers      37.27    32.70
Buffalo Sabres         36.67    36.37
League average         52.13    49.31 
Edit: An additional note on one of the reasons that Team Marketing Report's numbers are bogus. Sometime around the 2000-2001 season, they inexplicably decided to stop including anything termed "premium seating" in their average ticket prices. This immediately invalidates their numbers because of the way in which they collect their data--from marketing reps of the respective teams. Each team is allowed to label as "premium seating" any portion of their arena. So a team like Colorado, for example, can simply say that the entire lower bowl is "premium," and exclude it from the average, which is how you wind up with their laughable (made-up) "average" ticket price of under $40!

Edit: For a clear illustration of the effect of the above artificial calculation of average ticket price, observe the historical prices reported by TMR documented here:

http://andrewsstarspage.com/NHL-Busi...ket-prices.htm

Note the average ticket prices reported for Colorado during the 2000-01 season and the 2001-02 season. According to TMR, the average ticket price dropped that year from $63.11 in 2000-01 to $37.36 in 2001-02. In other words, TMR would have you believe that the Avs, coming off of a Stanley Cup winning season, with one of the best single seasons ever put together by an NHL team, not only decided to drop their ticket prices (laughable enough), but decided to drop them by an unheard of 41%! (clearly more laughable). As a season ticket-holder for the past 12 years, I can assure you that no such thing happened (not that I needed to tell you this). There was no drop, obviously. There was an increase (also obviously). The artificial numbers reported by TMR that year (and every year thereafter) are simply the result of the seat classification flaw mentioned above in this post.
Now New & Improved:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
TMR 2011 (kdb's disclaimers still apply, though they have split regular and 'premium' tickets which may provide a more accurate view.

http://www.fancostexperience.com/pag...fci_pdfs/6.pdf
Damn, I'll have to update my disclaimer now.

But looking at the Sharks numbers ($49.73 / $112.68 "premium") it looks like their "avg" ticket price excluded pretty much the entire lower bowl as "premium". I calculated an avg price of ~$115 for the lower bowl and ~$46 for the upper (an ~$80 avg).
[/Standard TMR Disclaimer]

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:13 PM
  #18
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,614
vCash: 500
The NFL missed games? I must be unaware of that unprofitable business.

And how does Fehr or any of his guaranteed raises proposals address disparity in the teams? If anything, his body of work in the MLB has shown the gap in spending from teams and earnings from different players would increase exponentially and I don't think we have a steroids scandal to save this league either.

CerebralGenesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:18 PM
  #19
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
By all accounts, the NFL is very profitable. They locked out their players. You keep trying this argument, KINGS, but at some point even you must admit that not everyone is doing it to stem losses, but to increase gains.


At the OP, gate receipts tell only about half the story for most teams, while the wildly successful are even less reliant on ticket receipts-- and they of course charge far more than the average price.

Meanwhile, the teams that indeed are hurting, like Phoenix, have avg ticket prices of $25-35 dollars. Buffalo was also in the $35/ticket avg range the last time NHL data was leaked (see the BOHB sticky on data we collect).

What you will discover as this thread plays out is that revenue disparity is quite large, and it begins with ticket prices. The latter is a good market indicator of demand for hockey in many places, and whether or not that demand filters up to corporate season ticket holders. The rest, including TV and sponsorships, follow on from that demand.
The NFL did not miss any games. Yes, the revenue disparity is large between franchises. Some may need to re-locate, and the owners have agreed to address some of the disparity through an increase in revenue sharing. The NHL does not have a large national TV contract that will cover the entire amount of increased revenue sharing by itself.

NHL players get a higher percentage of revenue than any other professional sports league, yet they generate the least amount of revenue. MOD The players will have to take significantly less money. At some point even you will have to admit that.

The owners should not be expected to operate their business at a loss.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-24-2012 at 12:24 PM. Reason: generalized flame
KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:22 PM
  #20
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
The NFL missed games? I must be unaware of that unprofitable business.
They locked their players out.

Quote:
And how does Fehr or any of his guaranteed raises proposals address disparity in the teams? If anything, his body of work in the MLB has shown the gap in spending from teams and earnings from different players would increase exponentially and I don't think we have a steroids scandal to save this league either.
Beating a dead horse. It's not up to Fehr to fix the NHL's revenue disparity problem. His body of work in the MLB nevertheless saw RS increase and a lux tax system imposed = very profitable MLB teams.

Steroid scandal has nothing to do with the debate.

Back to revenue disparity. The NHL's proposal is worse. They still want their inflationary cap range system with linkage, which once again will spiral out of control for the bottom teams. The league IGNORES revenue disparity, with the only solution they seem interested in is lowering the players' take to the affordability level of the lowest team. That the wealthiest teams pocket their gains, unfairly and against any market principle that most businesses have to deal with, but that doesn't seem to bother you one bit. There is greed here, but you cannot see the worst case of it.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:31 PM
  #21
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
The NFL did not miss any games.
Hmmm, maybe they're incredibly profitable because they know how to run their business.


Quote:
Yes, the revenue disparity is large between franchises.
Why is that?

Quote:
Some may need to re-locate, and the owners have agreed to address some of the disparity through an increase in revenue sharing.
Are you suggesting that the revenue disparity is the reason teams may need to relocate? How did they get into that mess?

Who is to be held accountable?

They're in the mess solely because players made 54-57% of HRR, right?

Quote:
The NHL does not have a large national TV contract that will cover the entire amount of increased revenue sharing by itself.
Yet the promise of that TV contract (which is 11 yrs away now) is why we justify the antics of the NHL today.
Quote:
NHL players get a higher percentage of revenue than any other professional sports league, yet they generate the least amount of revenue. MOD The players will have to take significantly less money. At some point even you will have to admit that.
I have no problem admitting that, but to draw any conclusion from it on this basis alone could be misleading.

Some teams pay 30% of their revenues to players; and others are approaching 100%. So again-- fix THAT problem.
Quote:
The owners should not be expected to operate their business at a loss.
Any business cannot be guaranteed a profit in spite of everything they do.

The owners who are not operating at a loss would receive a massive windfall gained through extortion via a lockout, sanctioned cartel behavior since the players foolishly continue to remain unionized.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:20 PM
  #22
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Are you suggesting that the revenue disparity is the reason teams may need to relocate? How did they get into that mess?

Who is to be held accountable?

They're in the mess solely because players made 54-57% of HRR, right?
Don't be ridiculous. I have always said that increased revenue sharing would be a necessary part of any agreement, so no the mess that is the median and NHL teams' business is not due solely because the players make 54%-57% of HRR, but it is a very large part of the problem. You allude to that later in your post when you make my point by saying that some teams have payrolls that are only 30% of their revenue. Which teams are those? The ones that make a profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yet the promise of that TV contract (which is 11 yrs away now) is why we justify the antics of the NHL today.
The antics of the NHL? LOL!! The owners are simply using the only tool to gain some leverage that they have at their disposal. Why? The past antics of Donald Fehr.

Regarding the TV contract, it is obvious that the NHL is a niche sport in the U.S., and the players should be paid a percentage of revenue that reflects that fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Some teams pay 30% of their revenues to players; and others are approaching 100%. So again-- fix THAT problem.
The owners have already agreed to increased revenue sharing. They obviously don't believe that will entirely cover the problem. Most businesses will either cut wages or lay employees off in a situation like this. Since the owners can't lay players off their only option is to cut their wages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Any business cannot be guaranteed a profit in spite of everything they do.

The owners who are not operating at a loss would receive a massive windfall gained through extortion via a lockout, sanctioned cartel behavior since the players foolishly continue to remain unionized.
Not if the players insisted on greater revenue sharing, which if they are interested in keeping as many union jobs as possible, should be their main issue. Fehr seems to have bailed on that idea some time ago.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:25 PM
  #23
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,322
vCash: 500
It shouldn't be left to the players to force the NHL to take care of its 30 backyards.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:38 PM
  #24
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It shouldn't be left to the players to force the NHL to take care of its 30 backyards.
If the players are not part of the solution, there won't be 30 backyards in which they can play. A lot of them will lose their jobs. Those are the choices.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:40 PM
  #25
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
If the players are not part of the solution, there won't be 30 backyards in which they can play. A lot of them will lose their jobs. Those are the choices.
They already gave to that charity last time.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:54 AM.

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.