Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1767044" data-attributes="member: 2013">And here are my thoughts, as a non-hockey fan.Again, remember, this is a non-hockey fan (though I am a fan of other sports - basketball, aussie rules football, somewhat soccer, somewhat US football)...The players, IMO, are more greedy than the owners because they do not want a salary cap.  They want artificially high salaries and, in fact, it is their huge salaries that are killing the game.  Yes, the owners are stupid to pay the players the money they are paying them, BUT a little enlightened self-interest goes a long way here... it's not like these guys are making starvation wages... but in demanding a bigger paycheck every day, they're killing the golden goose... hockey, more than any other sport, relies on "fans in the seats" for its revenue (especially in light of their recent TV deal).  The higher player salaries go, the higher ticket prices must go... and with any supply-demand curve, the higher the prices go, the lower demand goes... once the ticket prices hit the point where the demand drops to less than the capacity of the arena, each "upping" of the price will drop the total seats sold (I think it's already past that point, myself), meaning the harder you try to squeeze, the less results you get... the players don't understand - or, more precisely, don't want to admit to themselves - that at this point, raising salaries... and with them the prices of seats... will lead to LESS overall revenue now, not more, because you're losing fans exponentially versus ticket price increases.This is not only a problem for hockey, mind you... it is endemic to the NBA and NFL (MLB, for what it's worth, still has a lot of very reasonably priced... by which I mean under $10... tickets available for most games, so they're not to that point yet).The owners, IMO are more stupid than the players because they "need" a salary cap... but as has been mentioned before, if they get together and agree to practice fiscal responsibility, that's called "collusion" and gets them into big trouble with the government.The owners have, I think, realized that their revenue streams are, for the most part, maxxed out... they CAN'T get any more money in.  I think the TV deal - which basically is "you broadcast our games for free" - was a cold dose of reality for the owners.  Hockey fans probably don't want to hear it, but the cold, hard truth is that right now, there's simply no interest in hockey among the population at large.  (More on this shortly.)As a business owner, when I realize that my revenue stream has peaked, I then look at expenses... and there's one expense that continues to grow unabated - player salaries.  At some point, I have to decide to cut that expense or go under.  A little simple math tells me that if the average price of a seat at an NHL arena is $100 (on the high side, perhaps), and there are 20,000 seats at an arena, and 40 home games per year, I'm going to pull down $100 x 20,000 x 40 = $80 million in revenue each year.  Player salaries are averaging $1.83 million.  With a 25-man roster, that's what, $45 million?  So I'm left, as an owner, with $35 million, right?  That's a pretty good income stream?Not exactly.Some of that has to go to paying rent, electricity, property tax, buying uniforms, sticks, zambonis, and paying all the "common folk" that work at the arena... the ushers, the guys in the concession stands, and so forth.  There's also travel expenses to cart my team from one city to another... and first-class hotel accomodations... that's not cheap, either.  AND the players want a "per diem" over and above their salary when on the road.  Oh, AND the NHL will be taking their cut as well for operating expenses, providing officials, etc.  Anyone really think that this doesn't account for close to another $30 million or so?And the players say, "we need MORE money."  The players are in denial.  There's simply no money left.  As a business owner, I am not going to be pleased if I'm already operating on razor-thin margins and I'm being told that I need to pony up more money because I'm a cheapskate.I have more sympathy for the owners than for the players because the owners are "victims" (if you can call it that) of being in competition with other owners, thus driving up salary expenses through the roof - though they've realized it can't keep happening, they can't formally cap these expenses without negotiating it into the CBA.  In other words, they're legally prohibited from trying to solve the problem any other way.  The players, though, I have no sympathy at all for because they're simply trying to ignore/deny reality.  If there's $50 on the table, you simply can't slice it into 100 pieces of $1 each, which is what the players seem to be trying to do.The solution is the same solution I offer for soccer if it ever wants to be accepted into the mainstream of US sporting culture.  Simply put, you must remove all "off-sides" rules (in hockey, that includes both "off-sides" and the "two-line pass" as well as "icing") that occur while the ball/puck/etc. is "live."  You do that, and the neutral zone trap goes away, simply because there's no longer a neutral zone.  It would also increase scoring, which the US sporting public prefers (this is something the NBA is still struggling with, though I contend it's because they refuse to call the game the way it is meant to be called - contact == foul, not "advantage from contact" == foul, and even then maybe not - if the NBA tightened up its calls significantly, you'd see a huge increase in scoring... the NFL is trying to increase the scoring by enforcing the "no contact after 5 yards" rule... the NFL gets it).  The NFL does not need to eliminate the off-side, because (a) it only applies when the ball is "dead" - once the ball is put into play, if you did not start "off-sides" you cannot later become "off-sides" ("ineligible downfield receivers" rule should probably go, though, by this logic) and (b) football is a special case because of the nature of the game... the object of the game is to simply advance the ball horizontally along the field, as opposed to trying to get the ball into a specific, small target (soccer, basketball, hockey), and therefore "splitting the field in half" horizontally along the plane of the ball itself makes some intuitive sense.Here, I don't think so.  The NHL season is their primary source of revenue... cut from 80 to 60 games and you cut your revenue by 25% also.  The NHL actually has it right in the playoffs and the NBA doesn't - games are played pretty much as back-to-back as travel will allow.  The NHL is pretty much through its playoff period before the NBA has gotten out of the first round.  I don't see much need for change here.*shrugs* There's only so much a devoted fan can do... I think the product must improve - notably by implementing rules changes to increase offense and emphasizing skill over thuggery - before "recruiting" will do more than convince someone to watch a game with you and then go back to their "regular" sporting lifestyle.My 2 cents.-The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification