brelic Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 1st - assuming that 49ers price is a typ-o?Not a typo, but maybe a bad source. Here's where I got it. http://seatgeek.com/blog/nfl/average-ticket-prices-nflBut I found this article showing it at about $83. http://www.ticketnews.com/news/San-Francisco-niners-seek-ticket-price-increase111005926You would know better than I would!2nd - we asked the same question basically...if the Sharks charge Flyers prices would the still sell out thus closing that revenue gap? Maybe...but should they have to? To answer you last question...my answer is a strong "no". That does not at all signify that the market cannot sustain an NHL franchise considering that the Flyers are at the upper end of the ticket price spectrum and at the top of that list for U.S. based teams. It's not as if the Sharks prices are articifially low. If teams need to all charge that much to sustain profitability while spending to the cap then it's a clear indicator that the cap is too high. Just look at the cap room some teams have...even the hugely profitable teams like the Pens and Flyers.I'm not sure I understand why you're saying 'no'. If a team is losing money then it must find a way to boost revenue; otherwise, why are they in business? Maybe some billionaire's pet project, but I would suspect just about everyone making that kind of investment wants to make money, not lose it. So, if the number of teams that can't sustain high ticket prices is too high, then yes, I agree there's a problem because a 6 team league would not be interesting (some old-timers may disagree ).I guess where we differ is that I don't believe for one second that Comcast should have to fork over its profits to other teams. Professional hockey is not a public good. It's a private enterprise, and if the league naturally peters out to 20 markets, so be it. I understand that at some point, Comcast has a vested interest in helping sustain other franchises; I'm sure that when/if we ever reach that point, Comcast will want to help out because it's in their interests. Right now, you could easily argue that it is not.When it comes to sport, in theory things should be on a level playing field among competitors. There are exceptions - sure. But finances shouldn't be one of them. I'm not looking for total equality among teams but when you have 30% - 35% differences that's a problem i/m/o.But cap spending is not an indicator of Cup success. It can certainly help, but offers no guarantee to even make the playoffs let alone win a Cup. The Flyers should know Cup winners and their payroll rank since the lockout:2006 - Hurricanes (16th)2007 - Ducks (15th)2008 - Red Wings (14th)2009 - Penguins (11th)2010 - Hawks (13th)2011 - Bruins (7th)2012 - Kings (7th)You could make the argument that as the years pass since the last CBA, the trend is for winning teams to spend more than its opponents. That might be a result of the climbing cap ceiling, and the growing gap between the ceiling and floor, both of which benefit richer teams. But drafting and team composition are just as important. Again, the Flyers offer a great example of a team willing to spend to the cap, but their inability to draft and develop cornerstone defensemen and #1 goaltenders does them no favors. In fact, they're forced to go out and spend a lot of money just to try and overcome that weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 @brelicI'm not sure I understand why you're saying 'no'. If a team is losing money then it must find a way to boost revenue; otherwise, why are they in business? Maybe some billionaire's pet project, but I would suspect just about everyone making that kind of investment wants to make money, not lose it. So, if the number of teams that can't sustain high ticket prices is too high, then yes, I agree there's a problem because a 6 team league would not be interesting (some old-timers may disagree ).Actually I think you are spot on when you say "some billionaire's pet project". No team is their owners primary source of income so I would argue that the objective is first not to lose money. Making money is a niec bonus....just don't lose money. I haven't heard an owner complain about not making enough...only losing. Maybe that is semantics but it's a big difference to me. Few teams are going to turn a profit or have a return on investment like some of the companies that made these owners wealthy in the first place. Owning a team has status...a think that's a big reason why a lot of these guys try to by a team.I guess where we differ is that I don't believe for one second that Comcast should have to fork over its profits to other teams. Professional hockey is not a public good. It's a private enterprise, and if the league naturally peters out to 20 markets, so be it. I understand that at some point, Comcast has a vested interest in helping sustain other franchises; I'm sure that when/if we ever reach that point, Comcast will want to help out because it's in their interests. Right now, you could easily argue that it is not.But cap spending is not an indicator of Cup success. It can certainly help, but offers no guarantee to even make the playoffs let alone win a Cup. The Flyers should know No but it sure helps and does make life a lot eastier. Also, I'm not saying Comcast should have to fork over Comcast revenue. Only Flyers revenue.You could make the argument that as the years pass since the last CBA, the trend is for winning teams to spend more than its opponents. That might be a result of the climbing cap ceiling, and the growing gap between the ceiling and floor, both of which benefit richer teams. But drafting and team composition are just as important. Again, the Flyers offer a great example of a team willing to spend to the cap, but their inability to draft and develop cornerstone defensemen and #1 goaltenders does them no favors. In fact, they're forced to go out and spend a lot of money just to try and overcome that weakness.Agree to a point but even if you draft great players at some point you have to pay to keep them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakanekimiwa Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I'm a firm believer in work for what you get. I'm no supporter of long term welfare or Obama's mentality on carrying the lazy on our backs. That being said, I DO support revenue sharing to some degree IF it benefits the sport. I agree with some of what's been said in that the teams in question have to be managing their revenue's correctly and not sandbagging to get the extra $$. But I also think its in the long term best interest of the league to expand into new markets and give it a go. Revenue sharing can help teams become solvent in new areas and expand the popularity of the sport. @mojo1917. Your point on tv shares is valid. The NHL tv shares just rose $125 million from what I read, but I doubt it'll ever compare to the billions the NFL gets regardless of new markets.then i'm supposing you agree with the healthcare reform that has been put in place. it's revenue sharing to some degree. do you agree with it IF it benefits the people? not to derail this into a political debate, but i just find it incongruent when Right leaning beliefs are selectively applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 @brelic I agree 100% Bre, There is NO WAY Comcast will ever want to share their money, or fund suffering teams....same as the other 8-10 big wigs in this league. The Leafs, Wings, Bruins among others want to ol' club left intact, where they keep their money and then let the chips fall where they may. That's who Betteman really works for, those 8 money making squads. That's why the league keeps the cap floor entact...to help the Big 8-10 profit even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 then i'm supposing you agree with the healthcare reform that has been put in place. it's revenue sharing to some degree. do you agree with it IF it benefits the people? not to derail this into a political debate, but i just find it incongruent when Right leaning beliefs are selectively applied.There are a lot of flaws with the healthcare reform so no I do not agree. Pennsylvania already has a state healthcare for those who are struggling. I believe there should be a system in place for short term care, and affordable care for people who work for low wages. I don't believe the healthcare or welfare systems in place are acceptable though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I understand that at some point, Comcast has a vested interest in helping sustain other franchises; I'm sure that when/if we ever reach that point, Comcast will want to help out because it's in their interests. Right now, you could easily argue that it is not.Actually.. it IS in their interest. Comcast is a cable television giant. Until recently they had a monopoly in a lot of areas. NHL hockey on television makes money. They pay for the right to broadcast the games, but they make money on the advertising. Now, let's just say they make a paltry amount of $5 million in a single NHL market on their television broadcasts... would Comcast rather multiply that times 30 markets or 20? Don't forget the true interest Comcast has in the NHL. They didn't invest with Snider as a friend. Snider doesn't own Comcast, he only controls one of comcast's subsidiaries. They're in it for the money. They get more money broadcasting more games in more cities. I mean there are 300 channels... it's not like they're holding good shows off to broadcast hockey games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH1FlyersFan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I just think a 28-32 team league where the wealth is pooled is better than 20 teams each doing what is best for them.A valid point! I can respect that point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OH1FlyersFan Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Actually I think you are spot on when you say "some billionaire's pet project". No team is their owners primary source of income so I would argue that the objective is first not to lose money. Making money is a niec bonus....just don't lose money. I haven't heard an owner complain about not making enough...only losing. Maybe that is semantics but it's a big difference to me. Few teams are going to turn a profit or have a return on investment like some of the companies that made these owners wealthy in the first place. Owning a team has status...a think that's a big reason why a lot of these guys try to by a team.Sounds like a tax write-off! Haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Actually.. it IS in their interest. Comcast is a cable television giant. Until recently they had a monopoly in a lot of areas. NHL hockey on television makes money. They pay for the right to broadcast the games, but they make money on the advertising. Now, let's just say they make a paltry amount of $5 million in a single NHL market on their television broadcasts... would Comcast rather multiply that times 30 markets or 20?Don't forget the true interest Comcast has in the NHL. They didn't invest with Snider as a friend. Snider doesn't own Comcast, he only controls one of comcast's subsidiaries. They're in it for the money. They get more money broadcasting more games in more cities. I mean there are 300 channels... it's not like they're holding good shows off to broadcast hockey games.I don't know how many games Comcast broadcasts... 90% of the time, I'm stuck with the out of town feed and in the US, that usually means the local FSN affiliate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I don't know how many games Comcast broadcasts... 90% of the time, I'm stuck with the out of town feed and in the US, that usually means the local FSN affiliate.Comcast actually owns (along with Cox Communications) the NHL Center Ice package, so if you get that you're sending money to Comcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Comcast actually owns (along with Cox Communications) the NHL Center Ice package, so if you get that you're sending money to Comcast.I don't get Center Ice... I just get the online Gamecenter package. Is that the same pool of money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I don't get Center Ice... I just get the online Gamecenter package. Is that the same pool of money?Don't know about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Does Comcast own any other NHL team other than the Flyers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Does Comcast own any other NHL team other than the Flyers?No. And the Flyers are actually owned by Comcast Spectacor, which is a subsidiary of Comcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.