CanucksCorner.com Forums

ClamRussel wrote:

Betamax wrote: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.

Curious that.

There is no contradiction there. The owners push the ticket prices as high they can incrementally year after year. How many teams reduce prices when they shed contracts & spend only the minimum? They get away with what they can. Time to switch from bath salts to smelling salts buddy.

Clam,

There IS a contradiction in your juxtaposed sentences. When the "market" will not pay the price of a ticket and sell out an arena and the team is left with a lot of unoccupied seats, the owner is left with a choice of having an empty seat or REDUCING ticket prices in hopes that they would at least extract some utility from that seat.

I will give you a recent real world example involving the Canucks:

Leaked Canucks email offers half-price tickets
CTV British Columbia
Published Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:45PM PDT
Last Updated Wednesday, May 1, 2013 12:15PM PDT

An email to Canucks staff and corporate partners offering half-price Stanley Cup playoff tickets has been leaked, and CTV News has the details.

The ticket deal is only accessible using a designated web link and password that were sent to Canucks employees along with a message encouraging them to spread the love.

“Distribute the code as well if you know of any die-hard Canucks fans,” the email reads.
The discount applies to lower-bowl seats for the first two home games against the San Jose Sharks, decreasing some of the regularly $300 tickets to as low as $130.

Uh, the reason why they offered this discount ... is pretty obvious. So the notion that "ticket prices always go up" only applies if the decision makers that set prices for ticket believes that raising ticket prices would provide the optimal revenue generation. But if they miscalculate and the tickets aren't selling out, they sometimes chose an option like the aforementioned example i.e. offer a discount or "sale" on tickets .... as they determined it's better to extract some revenue rather than no revenue from an empty seat.

As I pointed out this strategy is not completely without issues as the fans that paid full price are probably not too happy to see someone sitting close to them in similar seats paying a Hell of a lot less for their ticket. So as you can see, the Canucks' tried to promote their discount in a somewhat discreet manner before it got "leaked."

In regards to your previous statement:

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.

I love how this discussion is about a sentence obviously intended to express cynicism ("ticket prices will always go up") that should be treated as a blanket statement - ie. probably not ironclad.

Excellent job of distracting focus from the post Clam was responding to; your laughable assertion that the difference between a players cap hit and their salary is going to (not immeasurably) impact ticket prices.

givemeda411 wrote:Jordan Schroeder signs with minny

"Chuck Fletcher has signed former Vancouver Canucks centre, Jordan Schroeder to a 2-year, 2-way contract, according to Michael Russo of the Star Tribune."

Don't know the cap but it is a two way deal. Gives him a chance to show he belongs and allows Minny some cap flexibility should he not make the big club. If he stays healthy and gets a chance to play he may regain some of that promise,mount he develops much past what we have seen. Wish him well, just not against the Canucks

Beta, pretty sure you just provided point evidence that this statement is completely incorrect:

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.

The Canucks were right against the cap in 2012-13 and had an even higher payroll IIRC. But they were offering discounted ticket prices for the playoffs. Shouldn't they have increased them further?

Or perhaps the market just wouldn't bare it!

dbr wrote:I love how this discussion is about a sentence obviously intended to express cynicism ("ticket prices will always go up") that should be treated as a blanket statement - ie. probably not ironclad.

Excellent job of distracting focus from the post Clam was responding to; your laughable assertion that the difference between a players cap hit and their salary is going to (not immeasurably) impact ticket prices.

Thank you!

Meanwhile...

After some digging, I discovered the Florida Panthers were offering 24 home games, 24 parking passes and a Panthers jersey for $173, taxes in. To put that into perspective, I attended one Canuck game this season for $298.50 (face value) and bought a jersey for $140.

http://www.cavemag.com/my-year-as-a-flo ... et-holder/
Welcome home, Roberto.

dbr wrote:I love how this discussion is about a sentence obviously intended to express cynicism ("ticket prices will always go up") that should be treated as a blanket statement - ie. probably not ironclad.

Excellent job of distracting focus from the post Clam was responding to; your laughable assertion that the difference between a players cap hit and their salary is going to (not immeasurably) impact ticket prices.

In reference to:

Betamax wrote:

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.

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.

dave, my assertion is that at the end of the day .... there are two tiers of "fans."

Ones that may support the team but don't directly lay out the dollars and just watch them on your 20" tube, listen to them on your transistor radio or read about them on the net.

Then there are those that step up and uh, help directly pay the bills. It's their best customers, the ones that actually pay for tickets and go to games, especially the ones that make a yearly commitment, their STHs who are their key supporters, (since the NHL despite significant increases in broadcasts revenues), still are largely depended on gate revenue that pay ultimately help pay the increases in players salaries.

That's why the Canucks' made a calculated decision to not "tank it" and have been very "STH/Suite Holder" friendly with their open discussion and "STH events" that Linden and Co. hosted this off-season and made high profile signings with Miller and Vrbata to retain as many of those as possible.

I mean, they've locked the twins to 4 year, 28M total contracts each, with a slew of other guaranteed contracts and buyouts ..... STH are only locked to one year "contracts" and can renew or not ......

Aaronp18 wrote:Beta, pretty sure you just provided point evidence that this statement is completely incorrect:

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.

The Canucks were right against the cap in 2012-13 and had an even higher payroll IIRC. But they were offering discounted ticket prices for the playoffs. Shouldn't they have increased them further?

Or perhaps the market just wouldn't bare it!

Uh, that's not true. You are misconstruing my previous comment on why the Canucks had to "discount" or re-adjust their prices.

In the Playoffs, they significantly price the tickets higher than what the same seat would cost you for a regular season game.

For the 2012-13 Playoffs season, they made a wrong calculation on the demand for said tickets at the high price points they were offering them at and many regular STH who had the option to buy up their seats declined their option to purchase and/or the tickets allocated for the walk-up crowd didn't sell completely, so with soft demand, they were left with a choice of empty seats or offering an "adjustment" i.e. so they could at least extract some revenue that they otherwise would not have had if the seat remained unsold.

They would probably comp'ed some of those unsold tickets to charities etc.. to ensure that the building appears full, rather than having empty seats. You see the UFC for example, offering a lot of comp'ed tickets for some of their less high profile events to give the optics that it's a full house ....

refer to the following:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2013/04/27 ... er-market/


Loads of Canucks playoff tickets available raising questions about Vancouver market
April 27, 2013. 2:23 pm • Section: The White Towel

If you’re looking for Canucks playoff tickets, you’re in luck.

Seats are available. Lots of them. All those dark blue dots could be yours. In fact, it looks like entire rows can be had in the lower bowl.

You can take your pick too. Seats remain in every section of the Rogers Arena lower bowl for the first game of the playoffs. Obviously there were plenty of season ticket holders who said no thanks when given first crack at the postseason tickets this year.

It probably says more about the price point than interest in the team, but it sure raises all kinds of questions.

Often tickets for event games like the postseason are stockpiled by the secondary market, and sold through sites like StubHub. But not even scalpers want a piece of the Canucks this year. They know they can’t make any money .

Why?

There’s been a downward-sloping demand curve in Vancouver and there are several factors, including the lockout, a team many view as stale and that team’s renewed commitment this year to play a more defensive style. You know, boring.

Mix in a fan base which has incredibly high expectations, one that has apparently allowed itself to be spoiled by a few division titles and one run to the Stanley Cup final.

givemeda411 wrote:Jordan Schroeder signs with minny

I don't see this player ever developing as an NHL regular.

Betamax wrote: blah blah blah

Supply and demand, Canucks couldn't charge as much as they wanted for playoff tickets, players salary doesn't affect ticket prices.

Got it!

Supply and demand, Canucks couldn't charge as much as they wanted for playoff tickets, players salary doesn't affect ticket prices.

Makes sense to me, and the reason why so many NHL teams struggle to break even and why at least a third of them lose money ...

Mind you to be fair, players aren't paid for playoff games so not sure why this is part of the discussion...

With all of the applause for the most recent media deals the league has signed, maybe the most underwritten story is the salary cap floor and the havoc it will cause those bottom third revenue generators and even many of the middle third....

$51 million is the floor for the upcoming season....

Does that sound like a number teams like the Panthers and the Islanders and the Coyotes should be playing with?

And with the ceiling due to increase again and again the floor will move with it ...

The trickle down effect from teams over paying to attract players and getting to the cap floor, and because the league uses a "as compared to" approach to players salaries I wonder if the league would have been wise to introduce exemption contracts in the last CBA....

Maybe allow 2 per team and remove the salary cap floor....

As it is, and with the CBA set for a number of years, makes you wonder how many teams will be forced to relocate in hopes of stopping the red ink before the league gets a chance for a do over...

I wasn't a fan of a long term CBA because I think by nature they have too many band aide solutions within them which will have to be fixed or modified within the life of the contract and this one is far too long for many teams to wait out...


Take care...

rikster wrote:

Supply and demand, Canucks couldn't charge as much as they wanted for playoff tickets, players salary doesn't affect ticket prices.

Makes sense to me, and the reason why so many NHL teams struggle to break even and why at least a third of them lose money ...

Mind you to be fair, players aren't paid for playoff games so not sure why this is part of the discussion...

With all of the applause for the most recent media deals the league has signed, maybe the most underwritten story is the salary cap floor and the havoc it will cause those bottom third revenue generators and even many of the middle third....

$51 million is the floor for the upcoming season....

Does that sound like a number teams like the Panthers and the Islanders and the Coyotes should be playing with?

And with the ceiling due to increase again and again the floor will move with it ...

The trickle down effect from teams over paying to attract players and getting to the cap floor, and because the league uses a "as compared to" approach to players salaries I wonder if the league would have been wise to introduce exemption contracts in the last CBA....

Maybe allow 2 per team and remove the salary cap floor....

As it is, and with the CBA set for a number of years, makes you wonder how many teams will be forced to relocate in hopes of stopping the red ink before the league gets a chance for a do over...

I wasn't a fan of a long term CBA because I think by nature they have too many band aide solutions within them which will have to be fixed or modified within the life of the contract and this one is far too long for many teams to wait out...


Take care...

True players salaries end on the last game of the season but there is bonus money. The numbers in 2013, with set increases built into the CBA are highlighted in this article:




CHRIS JOHNSTON
MAY 13, 2013, 1:53 PM
BOSTON — There is more than pride and glory on the line in the two Game 7s that will be held in the NHL playoffs on Monday night.

There is a little bit of money, too.

You just wouldn’t know it if you talked to most of the players involved in the games. Even though the playoff bonus pool is an area where the NHL Players’ Association made gains in the recent collective bargaining talks — the annual payout was doubled to $13 million for this season — it was next to impossible to find anyone who knew what kind of financial reward they were actually playing for.


The difference between a win and a loss in the first round works out to roughly $10,000 per player — with some variation depending on how a team chooses to divvy up its payout (roster sizes aren’t consistent and some teams give out partial shares to the Black Aces and scratches).

Each of the eight teams that lose in the first round will be given $250,000 to disperse among the players. By comparison, the Stanley Cup champion receives $3.75 million and the runner-up gets $2.25 million (the full breakdown is provided below).

Assuming 25 shares per team, a player would receive $10,000 for a first-round exit this spring, $20,000 for a second-round exit, $50,000 for a third-round exit, $90,000 for losing in the Stanley Cup final and $150,000 for winning a championship.

Those numbers will grow over the course of the CBA with the overall pool set to climb to $17 million for the 2020-21 season.

—

Here’s a breakdown of the NHL’s playoff bonus pool for this season:

President’s Trophy winner (Chicago) — $500,000

First round losers — $2 million ($250,000 each to eight teams)

Second round losers — $2 million ($500,000 each to four teams)

Third round losers — $2.5 million ($1.25-million each to two teams)

Stanley Cup finalist — $2.25 million

Stanley Cup champion — $3.75 million

Blob Mckenzie wrote:

givemeda411 wrote:Jordan Schroeder signs with minny

I don't see this player ever developing as an NHL regular.

Definitely not a huge loss. But sweet fuck would it be nice if we'd taken O'Reilly or Johansson.

rikster wrote:

Supply and demand, Canucks couldn't charge as much as they wanted for playoff tickets, players salary doesn't affect ticket prices.

Makes sense to me, and the reason why so many NHL teams struggle to break even and why at least a third of them lose money ...

Mind you to be fair, players aren't paid for playoff games so not sure why this is part of the discussion...

Uh, it was to the claim that Clam previously made that ticket prices "always goes up." I just cited that example involving the Canucks' because it was a high profile recent case of where they re-adjusted their prices downward when the ticket weren't selling. I've previous noted other discounts when they had thousands of empty seats during the regular season (i.e. Keenan/Messier era) and they heavily promoted discount tickets to university students.

As it is, and with the CBA set for a number of years, makes you wonder how many teams will be forced to relocate in hopes of stopping the red ink before the league gets a chance for a do over...

I wasn't a fan of a long term CBA because I think by nature they have too many band aide solutions within them which will have to be fixed or modified within the life of the contract and this one is far too long for many teams to wait out...


Take care...

Well, if teams are "forced" to re-locate there are quite a few prime locations waiting for them to do.

Act

wearing

t
h
i
n

.

Sabres sign Zac Dalpe...

http://sabresdigitalpressbox.com/2014/0 ... zac-dalpe/

*yawn, fart*