Re: Negotiations end with both sides fustrated.
posted at 11/13/2012 5:28 PM EST
In response to WalkTheLine's comment:
To me, because there is such a huge gap revenue wise between the top 5 teams and the bottom 5 teams is the biggest reason there is a lockout. I don't know what the average attendance is in Tampa,Florida,Columbus,Pheonix etc..But even if they sold out every game they wouldnt even be close to generating as much revenue as teams like Montreal,Toronto and Boston etc..I dont think the local networks that show their games down there in Sunrise get as much for advertising. Probably not even close. Then you factor in appeareal,merchandise etc..It's gotta be huge, now the owners are askign the players to foot some of the bill in those regards.
For me, like I said, theres a huge difference between a small market and a bad market. NHL has too many teams in bad markets. Small markets can thrive, Look at the Packers. Just buying a ticket doesnt make anyone a good market. Example: A team in Quebec selling out their 10,000 seat stadium every night is much healthier than a team in Florida averaging 12.000 a night. The overall interest in the smaller market is much greater, thus generating more revenue across the board.
The NHL has had 4 work stoppages in the last 20 years. The single biggest reason for this is expansion. Expansion in bad markets.
If someone told you that Tampa, Florida, Phoenix, and Columbus all had better attendance than the Boston Bruins, the year before the salary cap came into effect....would that change your opinion
I'm with Kel, in principal anyway. The bad decisions (expansion) which the owners participated in (and got paid for) are a big part of the issue and why they "need" a better deal in the CBA. Solid market teams are objecting to having to share so much revenue to suport the weaker market teams. But they aren't about to let those teams sink so how do they share and get more revenue? By taking it out of the player's share.
Decent attendance in PHX doesn't translate into revenue the way it does in a good hockey town. You can probably go to a Coyote's game for $20 where the same ticket in Boston or Toronto or Detroit is $90. Think those hockey rabid fans of the sun belt would pay that? The barn would be empty.
I couldn't disagree much more. Not only are the 'little teams" looking to get more money....so are the "big teams". That's not abstract opinion. This is in no way related to expansion, or revenue sharing. If tomorrow, the league reverted back to 6 teams, nothing would change in terms of negotiations. The league STILL would not want to pay 57% of hrr.
A good hockey town has to be built. Boston hasn't always been one. Hockey went from being the toast of the town(70's), to more or less irrelevancelate (90's), then back again(current). I'm not going out on a limb by suggesting...someday....the Bruins will have a harder time selling tickets.
It's a proven fact, "nothing draws people, like a crowd". Attendance near 100% creates a buzz. When your rink is empty, ticket prices plummet, when it's full, the price goes through the roof. Supply and demand, and fans in any market will pay more when the rink starts filling up.
Could only research tickets from 2010 but the numbers don't support your statement.
First, a couple of the big dogs. Chicago $46, Boston $54
Florida $48, Nashville $48, Tampa $36, Phoenix $37
Based on their historical attendance, and their average prices these teams should have a shot at being decent franchises if they didn't sell for a ridiculous price.