Moderator: Referees
Just remember, Clam, the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs (and suite cost to fans like cc's herb) and via concessions i.e. food and hospitality costs.ClamRussel wrote:I could give two shits what a player takes home, that's the owners problem. All that should matter to fans is the cap hit, that has a direct impact on what kind of team can be put together, trades etc.
The owners charge whatever the market will bare. Ticket prices always go up. These are race horses for the fat cats, some living out childhood fantasies by meddling w/ hockey decisions. In Vancouver or Toronto we pay through our asses for the experience while in Florida it's 2 for 1 w/ included hotdogs & pop. The NHL has never been more profitable, regardless of salaries, and you'll never see savings...only increases for some & deals at others, those sad-sack markets that are unfortunate to be able to charge up the ying-yang at every opportunity.Betamax wrote:Just remember, Clam, the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs (and suite cost to fans like cc's herb) and via concessions i.e. food and hospitality costs.ClamRussel wrote:I could give two shits what a player takes home, that's the owners problem. All that should matter to fans is the cap hit, that has a direct impact on what kind of team can be put together, trades etc.
No, they don't, ticket prices (and really prices generally) are set by market demand (or lack thereof). If the teams thought they could get $1000 for a nosebleed ticket they'd charge it, even if costs were minimal, and if they can't get fans to pay $100 bucks for a good seat, even if the team is paying through the nose for players, then they have to throw in cheap hot dogs and package deals, like they do in some southern cities, to get people to show up. When the Canucks were the hottest ticket in town, Aquaman could charge a mint, and he did, but now the demand is lower and I hear the Canucks are even offering some season ticket, or ticket packages, deals because the customers ain't lining up at the door to snap them up...and yet the costs are the same on the team's end, if not moreso than before with the salaries of Gilly/Torts still on the payroll and all the new hires in the front office/coaching. Costs don't set prices, what the market will bear does. The "passes on the costs thing" is a contrivance used to argue against increased wages ( as in "we'd love to pay our workers more but that means we'll have to charge you the customer more"...the premise being that companies are holding back from charging higher prices for revenue they knew they could get right now just out of the goodness of their heart. Uh, no)Betamax wrote:Just remember, Clam, the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs (and suite cost to fans like cc's herb) and via concessions i.e. food and hospitality costs.ClamRussel wrote:I could give two shits what a player takes home, that's the owners problem. All that should matter to fans is the cap hit, that has a direct impact on what kind of team can be put together, trades etc.
Beat me to the punch!ClamRussel wrote:The owners charge whatever the market will bare. Ticket prices always go up. These are race horses for the fat cats, some living out childhood fantasies by meddling w/ hockey decisions. In Vancouver or Toronto we pay through our asses for the experience while in Florida it's 2 for 1 w/ included hotdogs & pop. The NHL has never been more profitable, regardless of salaries, and you'll never see savings...only increases for some & deals at others, those sad-sack markets that are unfortunate to be able to charge up the ying-yang at every opportunity.Betamax wrote:Just remember, Clam, the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs (and suite cost to fans like cc's herb) and via concessions i.e. food and hospitality costs.ClamRussel wrote:I could give two shits what a player takes home, that's the owners problem. All that should matter to fans is the cap hit, that has a direct impact on what kind of team can be put together, trades etc.
Clam, I made a short quip and I should have qualified it with a more thorough explanation. But during the evenings when I'm posting, I'm doing other stuff, so I'm not fully engaged in going into details.ClamRussel wrote:Betamax wrote:Just remember, Clam, the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs (and suite cost to fans like cc's herb) and via concessions i.e. food and hospitality costs.ClamRussel wrote:I could give two shits what a player takes home, that's the owners problem. All that should matter to fans is the cap hit, that has a direct impact on what kind of team can be put together, trades etc.The owners charge whatever the market will bare. Ticket prices always go up.
which is why when the first lockout happened and NHL salaries were reduced by 20(something percent) we all saw ticket prices decrease by the same amount....Betamax wrote:Just remember, Clam, the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs (and suite cost to fans like cc's herb) and via concessions i.e. food and hospitality costs.ClamRussel wrote:I could give two shits what a player takes home, that's the owners problem. All that should matter to fans is the cap hit, that has a direct impact on what kind of team can be put together, trades etc.
Well, I think I should clarify the context in which I made the statement by using an example:Boston Canucker wrote:No, they don't, ticket prices (and really prices generally) are set by market demand (or lack thereof). If the teams thought they could get $1000 for a nosebleed ticket they'd charge it, even if costs were minimal, and if they can't get fans to pay $100 bucks for a good seat, even if the team is paying through the nose for players, then they have to throw in cheap hot dogs and package deals, like they do in some southern cities, to get people to show up. When the Canucks were the hottest ticket in town, Aquaman could charge a mint, and he did, but now the demand is lower and I hear the Canucks are even offering some season ticket, or ticket packages, deals because the customers ain't lining up at the door to snap them up...and yet the costs are the same on the team's end, if not moreso than before with the salaries of Gilly/Torts still on the payroll and all the new hires in the front office/coaching. Costs don't set prices, what the market will bear does. The "passes on the costs thing" is a contrivance used to argue against increased wages ( as in "we'd love to pay our workers more but that means we'll have to charge you the customer more"...the premise being that companies are holding back from charging higher prices for revenue they knew they could get right now just out of the goodness of their heart. Uh, no)Betamax wrote:Just remember, Clam, the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs (and suite cost to fans like cc's herb) and via concessions i.e. food and hospitality costs.ClamRussel wrote:I could give two shits what a player takes home, that's the owners problem. All that should matter to fans is the cap hit, that has a direct impact on what kind of team can be put together, trades etc.
In essence, the signing of high profile players to big contract creates the consumer "demand" you cite and in turn, sooner or later ....... someone has to pay for it .... and it is passed along to the fans as we see in the above example.It was announced this past Thursday that the Minnesota Wild are increasing ticket prices for the upcoming 2013-14 season. There will be a 4.5 percent increase from the previous season. " We're continuing to provide an improved product and along with that sometimes comes a price increase", said Wild COO Matt Majka. Majka pointed out that NHL ticket prices have increased by 12 percent over the past three seasons, while the Wild's prices have remained the same.
All this goalpost-moving has got to stop.Betamax wrote: Clam, I made a short quip and I should have qualified it with a more thorough explanation. But during the evenings when I'm posting, I'm doing other stuff, so I'm not fully engaged in going into details.
Anyway, Clam, the two sentences you juxtaposes are a contradiction and are in conflict.
Ticket prices will only go up if there is the demand to sustain it. For example, there is more elasticity in the Vancouver Market than there is in the Toronto Market (for obvious reasons -- market size). I mean, if the Canucks' has a sustained period of delivering shit sandwiches (i.e. crappy on ice product) to their fan base, they aren't going to sell out and have a lot of empty seats. This was illustrated most recently in the Keenan/Messier Era of the Franchise. Now Vancouver has grown in market size since then, so the effect probably won't be as large as it was one and half decades ago but there would be still be a lot of empty seats, IMO if we saw that movie played here again.
This is going to be reflected in empty seats and thus in-season "promotions" to discount prices and a overall reduction of ticket prices in subsequent seasons will result as the team tries to maximize revenue given the circumstances they are in .... e.g. Selling a once empty seat for 33-50% less, via a promotion (say Student Discounts) from a bottom line point of view is "better" than getting zero revenue from an empty seat. But that strategy in itself is something the Franchise has to weigh the pros and cons over the long run, as you could and would be alienating a lot of your most loyal and existing fan base that pre-paid the full price of ticket.
While in Toronto, on ice performance doesn't really effect how much formerly OTPP and now MLSE could charge as even when they held the record for the longest number of years' without making a Playoffs appearance since the 2004 Lockout, they still were able to charge the league's highest average prices.
So, to sum things up, Contrary to the remarks made by Poster Boston Canucker on my quip, I agree with his sentiments that it is increased demand that yields increased ticket prices and in contrast, a decreased demand in tickets generally leads to a (price freeze like we saw this year's Canucks) and if the demand continues to trend downwards, reduction in prices in their attempt to maximize revenue under the conditions they have to deal with.
Now, as for cc forum member, Boston Canucker, do you agree or disagree with what I wrote above?
Betamax wrote: Well, I think I should clarify the context in which I made the statement by...
Well, Dudelove, if we are going to talk about "goalpost-moving" .... I firmly believe that it should start at the top of the CC ladder.Strangelove wrote:All this goalpost-moving has got to stop.
Well, I find it rather interesting, that in your vain attempt to deconstruct my one, and I mean one sentence quip that I spent less than 1/2 minute posting, you completely ignored the fact that in the first two sentences in cyber bro Clam's retort: "The owners charge whatever the market will bare. Ticket prices always go up." completely contradict each other and you, not so strangely enough (see wot I wrote there?) turn a blind eye to said comment.The debate was about the cap-hit of a contract vs the "take home pay" on a given year of that contract.
You said: "the owner passes what they pay to the players' onto their fans in terms of ticket costs".
You CLEARLY said that within the context above... and Clam & BC responded.
They were right, you were wrong, and so you.... yet-again move the goalposts.
All of sudden you claim you were talking about the product on the ice affecting ticket costs.
(which is pretty much what Clam & BC were using to deconstruct your argument)
Again, THIS is what they were responding to:
"the owner passes what they pay to the players onto their fans in terms of ticket costs"
... and you said that within the context of the cap-hit of a given contract vs the take home pay.
This all started because you wanted to nail poster Herb on cap-hit vs take home pay.
Please stop with all the obfuscation.... mmmmmkay?
Thank you and have a nice day!
Hmmm... might be the wrong time to tell you this but.Betamax wrote:Well, Dudelove, if we are going to talk about "goalpost-moving" .... I firmly believe that it should start at the top of the CC ladder.Strangelove wrote: All this goalpost-moving has got to stop.
I mean it was mere weeks ago, on June 27th, 2014 ........ where Betamax achieved (formerly) the greatest, uh, honour, that can bestowed upon a member here -- "Hall of Fan status."
About, uh, a day or so later ... the "Hall of Fan status" got relegated to, uh, second tier status, replaced by "Legend" status.
What's up with that?
I mean, it's like climbing up Mount Everest in world record time, only to be told the next day there's a mountain even higher to climb.
From one bro to another, "Stop the hypocrisy!!!"
Dudelove, as a current official (or unofficial member) of CC Management .... what is your response?
The Great Strangelove was not referring to your "one sentence quip".Betamax wrote: I find it rather interesting, that in your vain attempt to deconstruct my one, and I mean one sentence quip that I spent less than 1/2 minute posting, you completely ignored the fact that in the first two sentences in cyber bro Clam's retort: "The owners charge whatever the market will bare. Ticket prices always go up." completely contradict each other and you, not so strangely enough (see wot I wrote there?) turn a blind eye to said comment.
This is great news.Strangelove wrote: Your CC overlords are presently considering a new set of qualifications which may result in some members
.... losing their "CC Hall of Fan Member" status.
Your CC overlords are not "hypocrites" but rather... "trendsetters".
