A luxury tax in tandem with revenue sharing solves the problem, imo.
Which problem though? If a major part of the problem now is that the teams that would likely be paying a luxury tax are the ones currently losing the majority of the money, this would seem to exacerbate it. I think thats a word. And if its true, is it a problem or a perfect market check and balance?
From what i've gathered from internet rumours, the players had initially proposed a large amount of revenue sharing. The owners balked at that being too much and wanted less money being redistributed. The players redid their proposal with a smaller amount of revenue sharing which led to Daly saying their proposal was a step backwards. Its all so confusing
Rank Team Avg Tckt Avg Attn Home Total Gate Revenue
1 Detroit 57.11 20,066 41 46,984,739
2 Philidelphia 57.06 19,375 41 45,327,037
3 Toronto 56.9 19,376 41 45,202,270
4 Vancouver 50.03 18,630 41 38,214,414
5 Ottawa 52.36 17,758 41 38,122,164
6 Minnesota 49.72 18,530 41 37,773,775
7 Phoenix 57.06 15,592 41 36,476,860
8 Montreal 40.84 20,555 41 34,418,144
9 Los Angeles 46.63 17,855 41 34,135,724
10 Boston 54.1 15,070 41 33,426,767
11 New Jersey 54.67 14,912 41 33,424,800
12 New York Rags 44.58 18,073 41 33,033,467
13 St. Louis 42.78 18,560 41 32,553,868
14 Colorado 42.18 18,007 41 31,140,945
15 Columbus 41.77 17,339 41 29,654,291
16 Dallas 38.34 18,350 41 28,844,599
17 New York Isles 53.14 13,431 41 28,833,133
18 Chicago 50 13,253 41 27,168,650
19 Edmonton 36.59 17,698 41 26,550,362
20 Tampa Bay 36.25 17,820 41 26,489,875
21 Washington 43.85 14,720 41 26,464,352
22 San Jose 39.15 15,835 41 25,417,550
23 Anaheim 41.25 14,987 41 25,346,763
24 Calgary 36.46 16,600 41 24,814,676
25 Nashville 42.5 13,177 41 22,960,922
26 Buffalo 35.46 15,343 41 22,306,573
27 Atlanta 34.87 15,121 41 21,618,040
28 Pittsburgh 41.65 11,877 41 20,281,759
29 Florida 29.76 15,904 41 19,405,424
30 Carolina 31.77 12,171 41 15,853,579
Average 44.63 16,533 41 30,408,184
Now those are really interesting numbers in a relative way. And it totals less than half what the NHL defines as hockey revenue too. All the other stuff like advertising, suites, and playoff revenue must sure generates a ton of cash.
Raise attendance by a couple of thousand is $10mil, and then get average price over $50 and tens of more millions. Which of the teams on the bottom of this list arent in an NHL market that can potentially generate those revenues if for example the Senators contracted and moved there? I think none. I bet everyone one of them bought their team believing that if they had the success that Colorado or Vancouver did, they could get that attendance at an average price of $50 a ticket and become a big revenue team. And if lucky like Vancouver, sell for a quarter billion dollars. I wonder if the Vancouver buyers are aware of the Levitt report. Levitt wouldnt make that investment
I don't see it quite the same way. I probably would fire the marketing people and use their salary to hire a lobbyist to get the local government to build a new arena, or else call Allied Van Lines and move my team out of town.
In the case you are describing, you probably have a very serious problem with an obsolete arena, or else your team is in a very soft hockey market that can only attract fans by selling hockey tickets as part of some kind of promotion (supermarket ticket sales, free beer, etc... Your product is perceived as "cheap" entertainment). You clearly are not finding an audience for your NHL team from among la creme de la creme in your local market, and without the support of these people, an NHL hockey team in any market is dead in the water. It doesn't matter if you are talking about Dallas or Edmonton, Nashville or New York City...
One thing the NHL does is attract a rather impressive demographic. Some markets do better than others, but I would say the "average" fan going to a game especially in Vancouver, New York City, Toronto, Philadelphia has an above average income, plus has some say in how the company he/she works for spends some of their entertainment, employee rewards, and other similar funds. Teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa - well, they are doing their best to gradually replace "Joe Fan" with "Joe" and "Joanne Businessperson."
Does hockey want to appeal to the "average" fan, the typical family?...Yes, hockey does, but the NHL does not, at least not to the degree that we are lead to believe. Take the kids to see the Mississauga Ice Dogs , the Michigan Spartans, or the Hamilton Bulldogs, but take that out of town business client to a Maple Leafs or Rangers or Thrashers game...maybe once in a while, give your Employee of the Month the company tickets so that he/she can give the kid a huge birthday treat - the kid might walk away from the arena with a new jersey or hat.
Gary Bettman perpetuates that myth about affordable ticket prices, but I'll bet he sings a completely different tune when he goes out and sells the NHL to corporate sponsors. He isn't going to be helping your marketing people turn those $100 tickets into $ 40 tickets, but if you are going to rip out about 5,000 of those $ 10 seats and replace them with about 50 luxury boxes that hold 50 people each and lease for about $ 120,000/year with other fringe benefits, Bettman will fly into your town and buy lunch for you and your marketing people. Bettman will give up those 5,000 $ 10 dollar tickets for 2,500 luxury box "occupants" (fans? maybe, maybe not) any day....
This would definitely seem the smart plan. How can atlanta get its price and attendance to Minnesota levels? Shouldnt every team be eventually able to? Joe and Joanne Businessperson are a great target. The NHL isnt a family night out on a regular basis, but a high end entertainment event, one of those special occasion things, with luxury seats and perks for people able and willing to spend. There's still tv.