BOG Meetings: Bettman optimistic 23/24 salary cap could go up to $86 million

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Britflamesfan

At some point it will become to expensive for fans to attend live games.\

It's basic supply and demand. If they try to charge more than the market will bear, why, the market won't bear it and prices will fall.

Now, I don't think any NHL markets are charging less than the market will bear. There are a good many empty seats in the arenas, and prices seem due for a correction. But I suspect this correction will be largely invisible. It will take the form of ticket prices (for once) staying more or less flat while everything else goes up due to inflation. As other forms of entertainment become more expensive, hockey tickets will no longer be overpriced by comparison and the arenas will be fuller.

[madmike]

Originally Posted by McG

I saw an oilers fan tweet about just how fantastic this would be for the oilers. The very next poster pointed out that it wasn’t just the oilers that get a salary cap increase.

It’s more than the water.

The Oilers are screwed regardless of what happens with the cap. Draisaitl won’t be coming at a deep discount any more. Plus as the cap goes up, so do the demands from McDrai. The Oilers are likely looking at a minimum of $27 million a year to sign those two.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There is nowhere near enough of it. Waiting lists are years long, and the supply cannot be easily increased because homeowners (who want the value of their property to go up) do not want affordable housing built in their neighbourhoods.

The point stands on its merits.

No it doesn’t. Housing and entertainment tickets work on two very different systems. None of what you said here is relevant.

And it’s a bit more complicated than “basic supply and demand” (which is always a funny phrase to watch people trot out). One of the biggest and most obvious differences is that the NHL cannot charge the maximum the market will bear if that pricing does exclude families (like WhiteOut said) or puts them out of competition with other entertainment options. Ensuring people can afford to bring their kids to games is essential in building out the next generation of ticket buyers. This is already an issue for most major sports, where younger generations are happier experiencing them solely through a screen or not at all. It’s a problem that will get worse the longer it goes on, especially for hockey where actually playing the game is also prohibitively expensive for a lot of families.

The NHL can’t just follow “basic supply and demand.” A lot of businesses can’t. There are things like building and protecting culture and a future customer base that needs to be factored in, which includes pricing structures and accessibility.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No it doesn’t. Housing and entertainment tickets work on two very different systems. None of what you said here is relevant.

And it’s a bit more complicated than “basic supply and demand” (which is always a funny phrase to watch people trot out). One of the biggest and most obvious differences is that the NHL cannot charge the maximum the market will bear if that pricing does exclude families (like WhiteOut said) or puts them out of competition with other entertainment options. Ensuring people can afford to bring their kids to games is essential in building out the next generation of ticket buyers. This is already an issue for most major sports, where younger generations are happier experiencing them solely through a screen or not at all. It’s a problem that will get worse the longer it goes on, especially for hockey where actually playing the game is also prohibitively expensive for a lot of families.

The NHL can’t just follow “basic supply and demand.” A lot of businesses can’t. There are things like building and protecting culture and a future customer base that needs to be factored in, which includes pricing structures and accessibility.

Well it's a little more complicated on the other side than simply pushing up prices as high as they can. They are just as aware as you are that future demand is part of the equation. And it isn't like there aren't multiple tiers of seat pricing. Also, there is more than one way to grow demand for future generations, including different platforms of streaming and online viewing, merchandising (lots of new and variant uniforms), etc.

So yeah, simply saying that they are pricing out families is pretty naive. It has also been a constant complaint for decades, and yet we're all still here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well it's a little more complicated on the other side than simply pushing up prices as high as they can. They are just as aware as you are that future demand is part of the equation. And it isn't like there aren't multiple tiers of seat pricing. Also, there is more than one way to grow demand for future generations, including different platforms of streaming and online viewing, merchandising (lots of new and variant uniforms), etc.

So yeah, simply saying that they are pricing out families is pretty naive. It has also been a constant complaint for decades, and yet we're all still here.

I’m not saying they aren’t, I’m saying they can’t simply “charge what the market will bear” if it prices out families. You seem to agree.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m not saying they aren’t, I’m saying they can’t simply “charge what the market will bear” if it prices out families. You seem to agree.

I think the issue here is that you and I have different definitions of 'what the market will bear'. I am saying that the NHL understands that what the market will bear includes being aware of future demand. The statement is more nuanced, and complicated than simply jacking up ticket prices until sales drop.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think the issue here is that you and I have different definitions of 'what the market will bear'. I am saying that the NHL understands that what the market will bear includes being aware of future demand. The statement is more nuanced, and complicated than simply jacking up ticket prices until sales drop.

“What the market will bear” refers to pricing that optimizes or maximizes profit. I don’t know what definition you’re using but that would not include lowering prices to ensure theoretical future profit.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“What the market will bear” refers to pricing that optimizes or maximizes profit. I don’t know what definition you’re using but that would not include lowering prices to ensure theoretical future profit.

Wow. First, I didn't suggest lowering prices (though that can certainly be part of the equation, when necessary). Second, maximizing profit does in fact consist of an element of understanding demand, and the impact on demand, of pricing. Both immediately, and going forward.

It is literally part of 'maximizing demand'. Unless you are only defining demand as this year (which no one would do)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wow. First, I didn't suggest lowering prices (though that can certainly be part of the equation, when necessary). Second, maximizing profit does in fact consist of an element of understanding demand, and the impact on demand, of pricing. Both immediately, and going forward.

It is literally part of 'maximizing demand'. Unless you are only defining demand as this year (which no one would do)

I know. That’s not what we’re discussing. I’m honestly not sure if we’re just talking past each other or you’re dead set on making up things to disagree with as my original statement was pretty well defined and purposeful.

You, again, seem to agree that it is not “basic supply and demand,” which is what I said, and that they cannot (or don’t) just implement a “what the market will bear” pricing scheme (based on the actual definition, not a made up one) so we, again, agree. So I don’t know what we’re discussing.

I know this isn’t what you mean, but it is a little funny to suggest no one would define demand on a yearly basis when we’re talking about a team that changes their pricing structure every year and, if they were smart, would adjust for demand on a yearly basis based on the makeup of the team and local economy lol.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know. That’s not what we’re discussing. I’m honestly not sure if we’re just talking past each other or you’re dead set on making up things to disagree with as my original statement was pretty well defined and purposeful.

You, again, seem to agree that it is not “basic supply and demand,” which is what I said, and that they cannot (or don’t) just implement a “what the market will bear” pricing scheme (based on the actual definition, not a made up one) so we, again, agree. So I don’t know what we’re discussing.

I know this isn’t what you mean, but it is a little funny to suggest no one would define demand on a yearly basis when we’re talking about a team that changes their pricing structure every year and, if they were smart, would adjust for demand on a yearly basis based on the makeup of the team and local economy lol.

I made up nothing. The conversation was:

what will the market bear?
which is the definition of supply and demand
supply and demand includes demand
demand includes future demand (among other things)

This is as straight-forward as it gets. You tried to suggest that being focused on maximizing profit would ignore the future impacts on demand, but that is wrong. People making these decisions aren't that stupid or short-sighted.

You seem determined to find an angle to justify your initial stance - knock yourself out. I am finished with this.

[White Out 403]

I think people are forgetting the state of hockey in Canada as a business from the late 80s to the early 00s'. People are under the impression that since hockey being very successful as a business in Canada for, I dunno, say 17 years now, it will always stay that way. This isn't the case and this is the kind of assumption to leads people making bad long term decisions. There was a time where people speculated their would only be 3 teams left in Canada due to spiraling salaries and #### attendance.

On the other page one of the posters misunderstood my point about families and kids. I don't think that kids and parents have a right above others to see the game, I think that as a business if you're serious about growing your future client base you recognize you need to earn your customers when they're young. My childhood experiences of going to Jets and Bombers games made me a full time customer of both leagues that has spent money and time supporting it. You can't earn that kind of business, at least not as easily and readily, with adults. I'm not going to become a die hard cricket or soccer fan at 42, for example. Sure I may follow team and watch the occasional game, but I'm not spending the money on the CPL or MLS or euro teams that I do on the CFL and NHL.

I just can't quite wrap my head around why regular folk here, even the double meat subway crowd, can't recognize this is a terrible long term business plan, to gouge and extort your clients for 55 dollar nacho combos and 300 dollar seats for a game in the lower bowl. Everything has an expiration date, including fans tolerance for being financially raped. Again, unless you're a very rich person with significant shares in the Flames or some other Canadian team charging people 8 dollars for a soda.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I think people are forgetting the state of hockey in Canada as a business from the late 80s to the early 00s'. People are under the impression that since hockey being very successful as a business in Canada for, I dunno, say 17 years now, it will always stay that way. This isn't the case and this is the kind of assumption to leads people making bad long term decisions. There was a time where people speculated their would only be 3 teams left in Canada due to spiraling salaries and #### attendance.

On the other page one of the posters misunderstood my point about families and kids. I don't think that kids and parents have a right above others to see the game, I think that as a business if you're serious about growing your future client base you recognize you need to earn your customers when they're young. My childhood experiences of going to Jets and Bombers games made me a full time customer of both leagues that has spent money and time supporting it. You can't earn that kind of business, at least not as easily and readily, with adults. I'm not going to become a die hard cricket or soccer fan at 42, for example. Sure I may follow team and watch the occasional game, but I'm not spending the money on the CPL or MLS or euro teams that I do on the CFL and NHL.

I just can't quite wrap my head around why regular folk here, even the double meat subway crowd, can't recognize this is a terrible long term business plan, to gouge and extort your clients for 55 dollar nacho combos and 300 dollar seats for a game in the lower bowl. Everything has an expiration date, including fans tolerance for being financially raped. Again, unless you're a very rich person with significant shares in the Flames or some other Canadian team charging people 8 dollars for a soda.

Since you appear to be referring to me, I'll respond...

I doubt anyone (who is old enough) forgets what it was like in the 90s. I was a Jets fan and STH in Wpg, when the Jets left. It sucked. But things change. And despite how dire things got, prices have escalated more rapidly since then, than they did leading up to that situation.

As for the rest, you are arguing that they are raising prices to the detriment of their fanbase. But I would suggest that they know more about that than you do. There is more than one way to price a product - Ferrari loses a lot of potential customers by charging a huge premium. They know that, but they don't care, as they are more profitable this way. Their strategy works for them, even though they sell many fewer cars than they could if they priced differently.

The NHL is more complicated than that, in that they market and sell their product in many different ways, with in-game seating only being one of them. If you watch on TV, you still consume their product. If they can reach out to young people through various social media platforms, they can grow their product, and their fanbase, that way.

For you, going to a game appears to be an integral part of being a fan. But maybe for many younger people, that is not the case, or is less important. Maybe growing the game through various social media platforms is more effective with younger people.

The point is that, just because you don't like ticket prices going up, does not mean that they are idiots who are destroying their own fanbase.

To circle back to your original point, the NHL managed to save hockey in Canada, when it looked like it was dying, or could only survive in Toronto and Montreal, and they have grown it significantly since then. So maybe they do have some grasp on how supply and demand work.

[PepsiFree]

“A business knows more about what customers will accept than the customer.”

Interesting strategy. Let’s see if it pays off.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“A business knows more about what customers will accept than the customer.”

Interesting strategy. Let’s see if it pays off.

A $5B business knows more about the impacts of their pricing strategies than a random person does. Fascinating. Let's see who's right.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A $5B business knows more about the impacts of their pricing strategies than a random person does. Fascinating. Let's see who's right.

Sports teams with billionaire ownership have never failed. Anything else is fake news.

Jesus christ the hubris on behalf of other rich people is hilarious.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A $5B business knows more about the impacts of their pricing strategies than a random person does. Fascinating. Let's see who's right.

Guess how they come up with and find out the impacts of their pricing strategies…

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Sports teams with billionaire ownership have never failed. Anything else is fake news.

Jesus christ the hubris on behalf of other rich people is hilarious.

Oh there's hubris in this thread. But it isn't on behalf of rich people.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Guess how they come up with and find out the impacts of their pricing strategies…

They call up White Out 403 and ask them?

[Strange Brew]

The Flames are not a $5 billion business, not even close. How many employees do they have in total, maybe a hundred?

IMO sometimes people give NHL teams too much credit for being these sophisticated organizations.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The Flames are not a $5 billion business, not even close. How many employees do they have in total, maybe a hundred?

IMO sometimes people give NHL teams too much credit for being these sophisticated organizations.

The NHL is a $5B business. Do you think the teams all act entirely independently with respect to marketing and pricing research.

Of course each team has to set their own ticket prices, but they aren't doing that blind.