Players it's YOUR move!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Surprising so many are jumping on Days of Orr's comment.  He is absolutely correct.  If people flock back to NHL rinks in record numbers once this thing is over, a lockout will become standard procedure every time a CBA expires.  Not so much "anger" just a reasonable reaction to poor customer service.  Fiscal pain is the only thing either side understands, and If there's enough pain inflicted...a lockout will become a last resort, instead of the preferred method of negotiation.

    [/QUOTE]


    stevegm, some live on here just to take apart the comments of others....

    as for the rest, you hit the nail on the head....

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Surprising so many are jumping on Days of Orr's comment.  He is absolutely correct.  If people flock back to NHL rinks in record numbers once this thing is over, a lockout will become standard procedure every time a CBA expires.  Not so much "anger" just a reasonable reaction to poor customer service.  Fiscal pain is the only thing either side understands, and If there's enough pain inflicted...a lockout will become a last resort, instead of the preferred method of negotiation.

    [/QUOTE]


    Is there any basis to this statement?

    The NHL is a tried and true product that has existed for a very long time.  The owners are making a business decision.  They aren't banking on fans returning.  They aren't banking on the ice being hard.  They aren't banking on the sun rising in the east.  All of these things are guaranteed. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pauly1. Show pauly1's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    If Costanza spent a little less time attacking posters he does not like, maybe he wouldn't make so many stupid comments.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to pauly1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Costanza spent a little less time attacking posters he does not like, maybe he wouldn't make so many stupid comments.

    [/QUOTE]


    And if you didn't have any posts about Not-A-Shot, you wouldn't have any posts at all.

    Sad, sad person.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Surprising so many are jumping on Days of Orr's comment.  He is absolutely correct.  If people flock back to NHL rinks in record numbers once this thing is over, a lockout will become standard procedure every time a CBA expires.  Not so much "anger" just a reasonable reaction to poor customer service.  Fiscal pain is the only thing either side understands, and If there's enough pain inflicted...a lockout will become a last resort, instead of the preferred method of negotiation.

    [/QUOTE]


    Is there any basis to this statement?

    The NHL is a tried and true product that has existed for a very long time.  The owners are making a business decision.  They aren't banking on fans returning.  They aren't banking on the ice being hard.  They aren't banking on the sun rising in the east.  All of these things are guaranteed. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup.  From a labour relations perspective, hockey is the most volatile of all major pro sports.  Lock Outs are becoming predictable when a new CBA needs negotiated.  We don't need to research very deep to get that.  When this happens with such regularity, it's obvious that those driving the bus don't see much peril in the decision.

    Any business that assumes their customer count is "guaranteed", doesn't know much about business.

    Yes, the sun has "always" risen, but the ice isn't always hard, and you must admit, there is around 33% of the revenue base, that's brand new.  It hasn't always been there.  It's only been going this way for the last 5 or 6 years.

    What on earth would make you think anything that "new", could be logically considered "guaranteed". 

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    The 33% that you speak of over the past 5-6 years wasn't there in the 70's.  The NHL was, however.

    It also wasn't there in the 40's.  The NHL was, however.

    The fans will always return.

    Use history as a example.  Show me a league that had too many labor strifes and ended up never recovering.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The 33% that you speak of over the past 5-6 years wasn't there in the 70's.  The NHL was, however.

    It also wasn't there in the 40's.  The NHL was, however.

    The fans will always return.

    Use history as a example.  Show me a league that had too many labor strifes and ended up never recovering.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Guess we're talking different things here.  I've never suggested the league may not survive this.  In fact, I've even  written here, the league may even see some prosperity as a result of pent up demand. 

    Seems more likely to me though...that the pot could shrink.  No ones arguing over sustainability, they're arguing "gravy".  If the pot does shrink, these negotiations, this lockout will have been pointless from both perspectives.

    The fact that such a large proportion of league revenues are "new"(33%), suggests that money aint coming from folks like me and you, but from "boutique" sources.  That's very fickle, and that's the basis of my point.

    The question isn't, hasn't been, whether the fans will come back, whether the league will survive, but whether the numbers will be maintained or grown.  Any regression, will have made this whole process pointless, as real dollars are not the issue, but instead a percentage of the pot. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In order for this to be determined, the source of that 33% is needed.  Is it advertising?  Is it attendance?  Is it TV packages? Is it this or that?  What is it?  Has there been a benefit to having major market teams winning the Cup?  Has the absence of Canadian teams going deep made a difference?  I buy a lot more stuff online than I did in 2003.  Is that a factor?  Ticket prices are way up these last few years.  How much does that change the revenues?  That NBC deal was huge.  What percentage of the pie is that?

    I can't find anything that pins it down, but I am certainly not going to say that it is based upon new fans without knowing.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In order for this to be determined, the source of that 33% is needed.  Is it advertising?  Is it attendance?  Is it TV packages? Is it this or that?  What is it?  Has there been a benefit to having major market teams winning the Cup?  Has the absence of Canadian teams going deep made a difference?  I buy a lot more stuff online than I did in 2003.  Is that a factor?  Ticket prices are way up these last few years.  How much does that change the revenues?  That NBC deal was huge.  What percentage of the pie is that?

    I can't find anything that pins it down, but I am certainly not going to say that it is based upon new fans without knowing.

    [/QUOTE]


    We don't need to really pin it down NAS.  First the NBC deal isn't that huge, and it never came into effect til this year, making that a moot point.  The thing about the tv deal though, is that the increases the network has agreed to.... are determined by popularity.  Overall it's logical to assume that a good portion of that 33% is new.  If only half,  it equates to a staggering amount of money.

    Certainly things like Center Ice, and the online availability of swag is largely driven by comitted fans, but it's safe to assume that a 1.1 billion growth spurt, over a short period of time, which just happens to coincide with the darkest economy in memory.....can't be wholly funded by the same base.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In order for this to be determined, the source of that 33% is needed.  Is it advertising?  Is it attendance?  Is it TV packages? Is it this or that?  What is it?  Has there been a benefit to having major market teams winning the Cup?  Has the absence of Canadian teams going deep made a difference?  I buy a lot more stuff online than I did in 2003.  Is that a factor?  Ticket prices are way up these last few years.  How much does that change the revenues?  That NBC deal was huge.  What percentage of the pie is that?

    I can't find anything that pins it down, but I am certainly not going to say that it is based upon new fans without knowing.

    [/QUOTE]


    We don't need to really pin it down NAS.  First the NBC deal isn't that huge, and it never came into effect til this year, making that a moot point.  The thing about the tv deal though, is that the increases the network has agreed to.... are determined by popularity.  Overall it's logical to assume that a good portion of that 33% is new.  If only half,  it equates to a staggering amount of money.

    Certainly things like Center Ice, and the online availability of swag is largely driven by comitted fans, but it's safe to assume that a 1.1 billion growth spurt, over a short period of time, which just happens to coincide with the darkest economy in memory.....can't be wholly funded by the same base.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not sure it was a growth spurt overall, either. 

    In '03-04, Detroit's salaries totaled $77M, with the Rangers at $76M and Dallas (lol) at $68M, or about $221M.  When the cap was dropped to $39 across the board, there was $104MM (or 1/10 of a billion) saved right there. 

    Often times when people talk about the growth of the game, they look at it incorrectly.  The sales didn't necessarily go up by $1.1B.  The revenues did.  That's a big difference.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In order for this to be determined, the source of that 33% is needed.  Is it advertising?  Is it attendance?  Is it TV packages? Is it this or that?  What is it?  Has there been a benefit to having major market teams winning the Cup?  Has the absence of Canadian teams going deep made a difference?  I buy a lot more stuff online than I did in 2003.  Is that a factor?  Ticket prices are way up these last few years.  How much does that change the revenues?  That NBC deal was huge.  What percentage of the pie is that?

    I can't find anything that pins it down, but I am certainly not going to say that it is based upon new fans without knowing.

    [/QUOTE]


    We don't need to really pin it down NAS.  First the NBC deal isn't that huge, and it never came into effect til this year, making that a moot point.  The thing about the tv deal though, is that the increases the network has agreed to.... are determined by popularity.  Overall it's logical to assume that a good portion of that 33% is new.  If only half,  it equates to a staggering amount of money.

    Certainly things like Center Ice, and the online availability of swag is largely driven by comitted fans, but it's safe to assume that a 1.1 billion growth spurt, over a short period of time, which just happens to coincide with the darkest economy in memory.....can't be wholly funded by the same base.

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not sure it was a growth spurt overall, either. 

    In '03-04, Detroit's salaries totaled $77M, with the Rangers at $76M and Dallas (lol) at $68M, or about $221M.  When the cap was dropped to $39 across the board, there was $104MM (or 1/10 of a billion) saved right there. 

    Often times when people talk about the growth of the game, they look at it incorrectly.  The sales didn't necessarily go up by $1.1B.  The revenues did.  That's a big difference.

    [/QUOTE]

    You may have something there, but if you do, it's over my head.  My understanding was that salaries are a percentage of HHR, not subtracted from it.  Wouldn't those savings you mentioned above be just moved over to a different line in the company ledger(gross profit maybe?)

    I'm thinking the combined salaries of the Rangers, Detroit, and Dallas  in 03/04 had no bearing on HHR(if there was such a thing).  Isn't HHR determined before salaries enter the equation.

    e.g.   in 03/04 the salaries could have been ...say...73% of HHR.(just picked a number)  In 05/06, the legislated 39 mil worked out to 57%.  Sales/Revenue weren't impacted, just the percentage.  Therefore unless I'm mistaken sales and revenue are the same thing.  I know they are in most businesses.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pauly1. Show pauly1's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pauly1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Costanza spent a little less time attacking posters he does not like, maybe he wouldn't make so many stupid comments.

    [/QUOTE]


    And if you didn't have any posts about Not-A-Shot, you wouldn't have any posts at all.

    Sad, sad person. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Now i have u responding to "Costanza" upper management would know better.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not sure it was a growth spurt overall, either. 

    In '03-04, Detroit's salaries totaled $77M, with the Rangers at $76M and Dallas (lol) at $68M, or about $221M.  When the cap was dropped to $39 across the board, there was $104MM (or 1/10 of a billion) saved right there. 

    Often times when people talk about the growth of the game, they look at it incorrectly.  The sales didn't necessarily go up by $1.1B.  The revenues did.  That's a big difference.

    [/QUOTE]

    You may have something there, but if you do, it's over my head.  My understanding was that salaries are a percentage of HHR, not subtracted from it.  Wouldn't those savings you mentioned above be just moved over to a different line in the company ledger(gross profit maybe?)

    I'm thinking the combined salaries of the Rangers, Detroit, and Dallas  in 03/04 had no bearing on HHR(if there was such a thing).  Isn't HHR determined before salaries enter the equation.

    e.g.   in 03/04 the salaries could have been ...say...73% of HHR.(just picked a number)  In 05/06, the legislated 39 mil worked out to 57%.  Sales/Revenue weren't impacted, just the percentage.  Therefore unless I'm mistaken sales and revenue are the same thing.  I know they are in most businesses.

    [/QUOTE]


    bump.

    your thoughts NAS?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    You certainly could be correct, also, stevegm.  I gave up my accounting business to become a dog walker.


    It just seems so very illogical that they could have added $1.1B in sales in five years.  The buildings weren't close to 33% empty, so it's not all ticket sales.  They were on a dog of a network (Outdoor Life!), so it's not as if new fans were being created and buying $150 jerseys all over America.

    There has to be some major missing piece that we're just not seeing.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You certainly could be correct, also, stevegm.  I gave up my accounting business to become a dog walker.


    It just seems so very illogical that they could have added $1.1B in sales in five years.  The buildings weren't close to 33% empty, so it's not all ticket sales.  They were on a dog of a network (Outdoor Life!), so it's not as if new fans were being created and buying $150 jerseys all over America.

    There has to be some major missing piece that we're just not seeing.

    [/QUOTE]


    Just did a little research on attendance, and it's really changed my mind about a few things, and validated a few others

    Been significant fluctuation in attendance since the last lockout, and that tells a bit of a story.  Carolina is up a ton despite regressing competitively.  LA, despite winning a cup has been pretty flat since 03.  The Bruins are up about 16%.  A lot of teams up about that same percentage.  Florida and Tampa are more solid than I thought, and both have enjoyed reasonable growth.  Nashville is up  almost 27%.  Buffalo is a good example of a decent hockey market that hasn't seen a huge change in it's on ice product.  They're up  21%.  The Islanders have been the model of consistency in their terribleness.  Virtually flat.

    Despite a much better product, Phoenix has nose-dived around 17%.  With a pre lockout average of nearly 16,000 fans per game, it now seems more reasonable there may be a "marketing problem" rather than an interest one.  Obviously the league isn't doing much of a job running the show down there.  Columbus is going in the wrong direction, but if they used to average a very positive 17,300, with a bad team....it should still be possible, all things being equal.  I know Ohio was hit harder economically than most states.  Could that be an issue?

    Colorado is down about 13%.  I think that's a pretty solid hockey market, and it's reasonable to assume a big part of that problem is merely the degradation of the product.  Dallas surely more fickle, but competitiveness has to be somewhat of an issue there too.

    Last season, 21 NHL teams were either totally sold out, oversold, or virtually sold out for every home game they had.  28 of those NHL teams had attendance figures as good or better than the Bruins ever had before the Fleet Center came along, and the Bruins have never been "have nots".

    In any business comprised of 30 different products, there are always a few duds.  Always.  that's why overall health, is the only reasonable thing to measure. 

    Based on attendance figures though,  the top to bottom strength of the NHL is more balanced than I originally thought, and it all branches out from there.

    Our Bruins are considered one of the richest franchises in the sport, yet they're not even currently in the top 50% in attendance.  That speaks volumes as to the potential of the other 29 franchises.

    Finally, we know attendance is up, but that doesn't equate equally in dollars.  Every team has their own economic model, and their own pricing structure. 

    Originally, I thought there were a few teams in the league that had no business being there.  I'm not as sure of that now.  Is it impossible for the Islanders and Phoenix to merely replicate what they've already done?  It's not like they have to re-invent the wheel here.  Is it impossible for either of those teams to have a profitable business, when others have done so with the same number of customers?

    Maybe expansion is the best thing for the sport.

    Food for thought. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RickyHussle. Show RickyHussle's posts

    Re: Players it's YOUR move!

    Kudos to NAS and Steve GM, good reading guys.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share