HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Another aspect of the league's proposals not talked about

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-07-2004, 07:36 AM
  #1
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Another aspect of the league's proposals not talked about

Now I could be wrong, however, there is another aspect of Bettman's proposals that is not getting much publicity. In addition to a cap, he also wants revenue sharing. Fine. Bettman wants an NFL type of hard cap. Wonderfull. However, his ideas of revenue sharing is for ONLY the top 10 teams to contribute. So, unlike the NFL, in which ALL teams contribute to the revenue sharing program, Bettman wants the top 10 teams to fund the rest of the league.
Is it me or is that ridiculous (a word I admit I have been throwing around a lot when it comes to the league's proposals)? How can you want an NFL type of cap, WITHOUT an NFL type of revenue sharing? Why should 10 teams basically fund the league? And what would determine who gets money? Does Anaheim? They are in one of the biggest markets in America and are owned by one of the biggest corporations in the world. Yet, becuase their ownership CHOOSES not to spend money, they are looked upon as a small-market team (an utter crock, if you ask me).
How can anyone consider the NHL a "healthy" league if it is funder solely on the money made by 10 teams?

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 08:26 AM
  #2
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
If there's a hard-cap...

and revenue-sharing, I want to be able to purchase on-the-glass seats for the same price as it is in the cheapest arena around!

Fletch is online now  
Old
10-07-2004, 08:26 AM
  #3
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Now I could be wrong, however, there is another aspect of Bettman's proposals that is not getting much publicity. In addition to a cap, he also wants revenue sharing. Fine. Bettman wants an NFL type of hard cap. Wonderfull. However, his ideas of revenue sharing is for ONLY the top 10 teams to contribute. So, unlike the NFL, in which ALL teams contribute to the revenue sharing program, Bettman wants the top 10 teams to fund the rest of the league.
Is it me or is that ridiculous (a word I admit I have been throwing around a lot when it comes to the league's proposals)? How can you want an NFL type of cap, WITHOUT an NFL type of revenue sharing? Why should 10 teams basically fund the league? And what would determine who gets money? Does Anaheim? They are in one of the biggest markets in America and are owned by one of the biggest corporations in the world. Yet, becuase their ownership CHOOSES not to spend money, they are looked upon as a small-market team (an utter crock, if you ask me).
How can anyone consider the NHL a "healthy" league if it is funder solely on the money made by 10 teams?
I would be suprised that the owners of the 10 teams would agree to that proposal. I agree that such a proposal would be ridiculous...

Slewfoot is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 08:40 AM
  #4
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Now I could be wrong, however, there is another aspect of Bettman's proposals that is not getting much publicity. In addition to a cap, he also wants revenue sharing. Fine. Bettman wants an NFL type of hard cap. Wonderfull. However, his ideas of revenue sharing is for ONLY the top 10 teams to contribute. So, unlike the NFL, in which ALL teams contribute to the revenue sharing program, Bettman wants the top 10 teams to fund the rest of the league.
Is it me or is that ridiculous (a word I admit I have been throwing around a lot when it comes to the league's proposals)? How can you want an NFL type of cap, WITHOUT an NFL type of revenue sharing? Why should 10 teams basically fund the league? And what would determine who gets money? Does Anaheim? They are in one of the biggest markets in America and are owned by one of the biggest corporations in the world. Yet, becuase their ownership CHOOSES not to spend money, they are looked upon as a small-market team (an utter crock, if you ask me).
How can anyone consider the NHL a "healthy" league if it is funder solely on the money made by 10 teams?
I agree on all points.

I have seen how they would determine who receives money ... it was determined by TV market size.

This was done becuase the original premise was the 10 lowest revenue teams get the money, but Bettman saw that the Chicago Blackhawks were in the bottom 10 in revenue. Bettman realized the some of the other big market owners would revolt at the thought of giving Wirtz any money.

Due to going by TV Market Size the following teams are excluded even though they are among the lowest revenue generatnig teams (Chicago, NY Isles, NJ Devils, and Anaheim).

All the above info was from a larry brooks article from about 2 weeks ago. I know it was discussed somewhere on "The Business of Hockey" board. I justs did a quick look and couldn't find the link.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 08:51 AM
  #5
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Due to going by TV Market Size the following teams are excluded even though they are among the lowest revenue generatnig teams (Chicago, NY Isles, NJ Devils, and Anaheim).
No matter which way you look at it, the idea is utterly ludicrous. What you would basically have is the Rangers, Philly, Dallas, Colarado, Detroit, etc....essentially supporting other clubs. So not only would they not be allowed to spend more money than the smaller market teams, but these clubs would also have to bear the cost of running the rest of the teams in the league.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 08:52 AM
  #6
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
and revenue-sharing, I want to be able to purchase on-the-glass seats for the same price as it is in the cheapest arena around!
ticket prices have NOTHING to do with player salaries or revenue sharing. gary bettman wants you to think that prices will drop so you support the owners but it is a lie. ticket prices are determined by supply & demand, teams charge what people are willing to pay for a seat.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 09:12 AM
  #7
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,574
vCash: 500
The clock is ticking.The lockout is three weeks old.They better get a deal before the December holidays or they might as well cancel the season.Last time,they lated until the last minute and started the season nine days after reaching an agreement

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 09:25 AM
  #8
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
gary bettman wants you to think that prices will drop so you support the owners but it is a lie. ticket prices are determined by supply & demand, teams charge what people are willing to pay for a seat.
Agreed. I do not see a scenario under which the Rangers will willingly lower tickey prices (unless Lil' Jimmy makes another one of his guarantees). New Yorkers are more willing to spend money than, say those in Nashville. As such, Rangers tickets will ALWAYS be more expensive than Nashville. Prices on tickets will not drop no matter what kind of CBA is in place. Bettman CANNOT govern how much money teams charge for tickets. Any owner can charge whatever they feel like, so long as they think the consumers (us) will pay it. Salaries of players have nothing to do with it.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 09:30 AM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
Ticket prices have nothing...

to do wth player salaries? Well, the year in which the Rangers signed up a lot of talent (Theo, etc.), or maybe it was the year after, I got a note with my subscription that stated basically that beause of all the payroll they've added, my seats were going to be $40, not $35.

Normally I'd agree with supply and demand, and if that's the cases with ticket prices, and that's the way the NHL conducts its business, perhaps it should be the case with players' salaries. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If the Rangers' product on the ice will be represented by a $31 million cap, and most teams would be spending around $31 million becuase it can be afforded, and the revenue that the Rangers take in from me goes to other owners' profits, owners whose teams are not well-supported, then I want to pay less for a ticket. Yeah, sounds silly, but why stop at putting a cap on players' salaries, why not put a cap on ticket prices too? Crazy, I know.

Fletch is online now  
Old
10-07-2004, 10:09 AM
  #10
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
You shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If the Rangers' product on the ice will be represented by a $31 million cap, and most teams would be spending around $31 million becuase it can be afforded, and the revenue that the Rangers take in from me goes to other owners' profits, owners whose teams are not well-supported, then I want to pay less for a ticket. Yeah, sounds silly, but why stop at putting a cap on players' salaries, why not put a cap on ticket prices too? Crazy, I know.
I am not disagreeing with you. If we are forced to have Nashvile's payroll, then we should pay Nasville's ticket prices. However, IMO, that is NEVER going to happen.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 10:30 AM
  #11
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
Oh, it's my opinion too...

don't get me wrong, I ain't stupid on the issue and the original comment was made kind of tongue-in-cheek, but decided to defend it nonetheless. If you can put a cap on players' salaries, why can't you put a cap on what owners make, i.e., cap on ticket prices? What, because owners are taking the risk and should be able to make as much as possible, at the expense of the fans and the players? Yeah, of course there's the other side where players held guns to the heads of GMs and forced them to bid-up prices for their services.

Fletch is online now  
Old
10-07-2004, 11:25 AM
  #12
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
to do wth player salaries? Well, the year in which the Rangers signed up a lot of talent (Theo, etc.), or maybe it was the year after, I got a note with my subscription that stated basically that beause of all the payroll they've added, my seats were going to be $40, not $35.
Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I'd say that's the reason why they thought they could get away with raising ticket prices rather than the actual reason. Making a big splash (it turned out to be a belly flop, but that's not the point) in the free agent market raises fan expectations. Higher fan expectations means more demand for tickets.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 12:28 PM
  #13
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
No doubt, Kodiak...

although the added salaries did necessitate a rise in ticket prices as the ticket prices hadn't been risen in a few years (because of bad teams), and even MSG needs to at times try to make a buck. I don't think the prices have been raised since, only decreased, recently.

Fletch is online now  
Old
10-07-2004, 12:41 PM
  #14
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
to do wth player salaries? Well, the year in which the Rangers signed up a lot of talent (Theo, etc.), or maybe it was the year after, I got a note with my subscription that stated basically that beause of all the payroll they've added, my seats were going to be $40, not $35.
that was just the excuse they gave you to justify the raise, but the reality is they raised them to $40 because they knew people would pay $40...

if it was really related to player salaries then why didn't the rangers have the highest ticket prices in the league to go only with the highest payroll?? and why didn't ticket prices go up when holik was signed?

NYR469 is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 12:43 PM
  #15
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
although the added salaries did necessitate a rise in ticket prices as the ticket prices hadn't been risen in a few years (because of bad teams), and even MSG needs to at times try to make a buck. I don't think the prices have been raised since, only decreased, recently.
You would know better than me, Fletch, as you're the season ticket holder, but had it really been that long since MSG raised prices at that point? The Rangers had only missed the playoffs for 2 years. The 1997 run was still fresh and 1994 was not a distant memory.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 01:54 PM
  #16
LondonFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Harlow, UK
Posts: 535
vCash: 500
Communism. That's what a hard cap tells me. Ironic that this is sports in America, supposedly the land of the free and free enterprise. Fletch, you are right on! If there is a hard salary cap then there should be hard caps all round, ticket prices and how about chairman salaries? How about setting a fixed limit on profits and giving the rest to charity?

There is no doubting that salaries are too high. Look at the average salaries now - crazy! But why this has to be dealt with by means of a hard cap is beyond me. I'm more in favour of each team being fiscally responsible. If the team loses money and the ownership is unwilling to take that loss, well then the team should just fold. That's life ain't it.

LondonFan is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 02:32 PM
  #17
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,110
vCash: 500
Yeah, it has been...

going back to my antiquated records, I'm having trouble putting things together. 97-98 seats were $35, which I believe they had been for a couple seasons (I can find out for sure when I get home and remember to check how far that goes back. In the 1999-2000 season, it was raised to $40. [I'm talking 300 section for a reference point - VIP went from $675 to $700]. I dug up Checkett's letter that season - thanking 'us' for the understanding we've shown during the rebuilding process, and showed that commitment by reminding us that Leetch had been resigned. And while he was 'excited about what the future holds...' the financial realties of today's competitive sports and entertainment marketplace must be addressed...'As a result...' I should notice the increase... And I love the letter thaat followed, welcoming me back for another season... 'With the off-season re-signing of Brian Leetch and the acquisitoins of Theo Fleury, Valeri Kamenxky, Stephane Quintal and Sylvain Lefebvre, we are looking forward to an exciting season of hockey...'. Funny, Funny, Funny.

Point is, and this is to NYR, yeah, I know about supply and demand and ticket prices and etc., etc., etc., and as I mentioned, my original post was a bit tongue-in-cheek as I know there's no way in [insert any bad place here - Detroit?] that MSG, the league or any owner would agree to any type of max on revenue number. Why would they, it's un-American. Of course, they can cap what their 'performers'/revenue generators make, and us fans have to pay more for $$$ to go into other cities' pockets - cities of teams I could care less about and shouldn't be here in the first place.

Fletch is online now  
Old
10-07-2004, 03:02 PM
  #18
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Is it me or is that ridiculous (a word I admit I have been throwing around a lot when it comes to the league's proposals)? How can you want an NFL type of cap, WITHOUT an NFL type of revenue sharing? Why should 10 teams basically fund the league? And what would determine who gets money? Does Anaheim? They are in one of the biggest markets in America and are owned by one of the biggest corporations in the world. Yet, becuase their ownership CHOOSES not to spend money, they are looked upon as a small-market team (an utter crock, if you ask me).
How can anyone consider the NHL a "healthy" league if it is funder solely on the money made by 10 teams?
What revenue is available to share and who is making money? Most of the teams are reportedly losing revenue, the ones who spend less (Minnesota, Vancouver) and the Leafs are the only teams making any kind of tangible profit. There is almost no television revenue now either which is where the NFL makes a large part of their revenue.

Anaheim's payroll in 2003-04 was a reported 54.4 million dollars. How is that ownership not spending?


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 10-07-2004 at 03:21 PM.
NYIsles1* 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 10:01 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.