Brooks (usal pro-player stuff, BUT some interesting things)

http://www.nypost.com/sports/21412.htm

"For in demanding a 35-percent giveback from the league's highest-paid and most recognizable athletes, Bettman is attempting to hammer the NHL's marquee players into the middle of the spectrum just as his punitive hard cap would hammer the NHL's marquee teams into the middle of the league. Make no mistake. The Board has embarked on a mission that is two-fold: a) to bust the union; and, b) to create an NHL in which all teams and all players are squeezed into the middle as quasi-equals. "

I did not realize that instead of having a 24% reduction across the board, Bettman wants to reduce the amount for 4th liners, but increase it to a whopping 35% for the top liners. 35%? Are you kidding me?
I have said for a while that he is engaged in union-busting, his attempt to sweeten the pot for the grinders, while putting the hammer to the stars shows that. He is trying to drive a wedge.

And perhaps the most interesting thing of all:

"Under the NHL proposal, a team would draft a player at the age of 18 and hold his rights to the age of 30 without the athlete owning a single systemic tool to negotiate himself a raise. "

"Under the NHL proposal, a player entering the league would be capped at $850,000 per for the first four years of his career. After that, he would be forced to take whatever his GM offers, with the only existing alternative being not to play"

I got to say that it is no wonder that the NHLPA walked out. While I admit that the arbitration system as it WAS set up favored the players, the NHLPA shifted it to the owners favor. Bettman is looking to do away with it completely. And, like it or not, Brooks is right. Bettman is looking for teams to draft players and then not give players any wiggle movement for close to a decade.
Forget about European stars not coming here. North American stars might start to migrate to Europe under that rule.

where you bin livin'? In a box? Yeah, I was saying something to the effect that Brooks is saying...Bettman's proposal was an attempt to divide the Union amongst the haves and have-nots, possibly putting together his scab league (and perhaps not realizing that the have-nots have a better chance of becoming haves under the NHLPA's propsal).

I don't fully understand the other point, as I haven't read either proposal in detail to believe that that's true. Imagine, a player making $850K or less his entire career? In no sport does the system come close to resembling that. I can't believe the owners would actually put that forward, so I have a hard time believing that.

It should be noted (but Brooks fails to do so) that the league's offer also agreed to lower the age for UFA but Brooks wrote thirty.

What I do not understand is if Goodenow was ready to give Bettman a cap a decade ago why not now?

where you bin livin'? In a box?

I don't fully understand the other point, as I haven't read either proposal in detail to believe that that's true. Imagine, a player making $850K or less his entire career? In no sport does the system come close to resembling that. I can't believe the owners would actually put that forward, so I have a hard time believing that.
Not quite a box, but a vacuum. However, on the other point....If you have a $850k cap, no arbitration system, and the UFA age is at 30, how can it be any other way? Saying that the player will make the same every year until he is 30 is probably not correct. However, under Bettman's proposal (becuase of the complete abolition of the arbitration system) what alternative does the player have after his first 4 years other than either not to play or take whatever his GM gives him?

It should be noted (but Brooks fails to do so) that the league's offer also agreed to lower the age for UFA but Brooks wrote thirty.

Is the act of lowering the UFA age from 31 to 30 such a big deal?

"What I do not understand is if Goodenow was ready to give Bettman a cap a decade ago why not now?"

I THINK it is becuase Goodenow was ready to give a soft cap (NBA). Bettman does not want a soft cap. He wants an NFL-style cap.

Is the act of lowering the UFA age from 31 to 30 such a big deal?

"What I do not understand is if Goodenow was ready to give Bettman a cap a decade ago why not now?"

I THINK it is becuase Goodenow was ready to give a soft cap (NBA). Bettman does not want a soft cap. He wants an NFL-style cap.

no?

The league has risen to heights un-thought of in the last 10 years and during those years the CBA was extended twice and they are working on extending it a 3rd time.

Seems to me that both sides are very pleased with the agreement.

Don't understand why the NHLPA wouldn't be willing to agree to a cap.

Brooks does say the owner holds the rights until the age of 30...I think we all inferred that the UFA threshold dropped from 31 to 30.

Brooks does say the owner holds the rights until the age of 30...I think we all inferred that the UFA threshold dropped from 31 to 30.I took a quick look at the NHL offer at it does specifically say thirty so Brooks was correct in his article on that point. I'm not sure what kind of cap Goodenow was ready to accept a decade ago, the current NBA model came after a work-stoppage years later. Goodenow today will not accept any version of a cap.

The thing with Brooks is he seems to be very concerned in making sure there is continued market disparity and one of those parameters he uses is payroll defining a market.

If a market is a big market it should be that way regardless of what the payroll is. Why is he so concerned?

It should be noted (but Brooks fails to do so) that the league's offer also agreed to lower the age for UFA but Brooks wrote thirty.

What I do not understand is if Goodenow was ready to give Bettman a cap a decade ago why not now?

Brooks is right about the age. It was the NHL who lowered it ONE year to 30, while taking the players 24% plus getting rid of arbitration and qualifying offers

http://nhlcbanews.com/news/comparison.html

The real question is why did Goodenow offer a 24% rollback in all existing contracts and not include lowering unrestricted free agency to 28

http://www.nypost.com/sports/21412.htm

"For in demanding a 35-percent giveback from the league's highest-paid and most recognizable athletes, Bettman is attempting to hammer the NHL's marquee players into the middle of the spectrum just as his punitive hard cap would hammer the NHL's marquee teams into the middle of the league. Make no mistake. The Board has embarked on a mission that is two-fold: a) to bust the union; and, b) to create an NHL in which all teams and all players are squeezed into the middle as quasi-equals. "

I did not realize that instead of having a 24% reduction across the board, Bettman wants to reduce the amount for 4th liners, but increase it to a whopping 35% for the top liners. 35%? Are you kidding me?
I have said for a while that he is engaged in union-busting, his attempt to sweeten the pot for the grinders, while putting the hammer to the stars shows that. He is trying to drive a wedge.

And perhaps the most interesting thing of all:

"Under the NHL proposal, a team would draft a player at the age of 18 and hold his rights to the age of 30 without the athlete owning a single systemic tool to negotiate himself a raise. "

"Under the NHL proposal, a player entering the league would be capped at $850,000 per for the first four years of his career. After that, he would be forced to take whatever his GM offers, with the only existing alternative being not to play"

I got to say that it is no wonder that the NHLPA walked out. While I admit that the arbitration system as it WAS set up favored the players, the NHLPA shifted it to the owners favor. Bettman is looking to do away with it completely. And, like it or not, Brooks is right. Bettman is looking for teams to draft players and then not give players any wiggle movement for close to a decade.
Forget about European stars not coming here. North American stars might start to migrate to Europe under that rule.

Why are you so concerned about the $10 or $11 million players having their salaries cut 35%?They are all overpaid and not worth the money they are getting.

The NHL should change the buyout from 2/3 to 1/2.Instead of the player getting 66 cents on the dollar,they will get 50 cents on the dollar

The entry level players will have a tough time making ends meet on $3.4 million over the term of the 4 year ENTRY LEVEL CONTRACT :lol

They are all overpaid and not worth the money they are getting.

That is not the point. ALL athleted are overpaid. However that fact by itself is not enough to make Bettman right. An athlete (or anybody else for that matter) is worth exactly what a prospective employer is willing to pay for him.

"Why are you so concerned about the $10 or $11 million players having their salaries cut 35%"

It is the stars that drive the league. It is not fair to have the top players take a 35% paycut while the lower tier players would take a 15% paycut. That is a pretty obvious tactic by Bettman to attempt to drive a wedge within the union. ALL players benefited from skyrocketing salaries, therefore ALL players should feel the same pinch. How happy would you be to take a 35% paycut, while a co-worker who does not perform to the same level as you has to take one as well, but it is half as much?

"The entry level players will have a tough time making ends meet on $3.4 million over the term of the 4 year ENTRY LEVEL CONTRACT "

Just curious, what exactly give you the right to tell another human being how much they should and should not make? NO ONE is arguing that the players, for the most part, make more money than any of the posters on this board. No one is aruing how much money is needed to make ends meet. However, the fact is you are not going to find hockey playes all of a sudden making salaries that do not have at least 5 zeros. And the point of the was that a team controls a player until they are 30. So, after the $850 initial salary, because there is no freedom until 30 and with no arbitration system, said player has to take whatever salary his team
offers or not play at all.

both sides in the NFL like it because of the television contract and the revenue sharing in place makes the overall pay to the teams higher.

both sides in the NFL like it because of the television contract and the revenue sharing in place makes the overall pay to the teams higher.

That without the cap, there's no TV revenue to speak of simply because the cap levels the playing field for all teams thus creating and keeping fans interested from year to year and in the process attracting new fans along the way.

Without the cap, the league would still be dominated by the 49'ers, Cowboys and all the other teams that have money, as it is today, a small market team like Pittsburgh can generate tons of fan interest (interest = money spent on merchandise of all forms) which then translates into a more demanded product.

The cap in Football is pretty much responsible for the TV revenue that the league enjoy's. It's more of an indirect affect, but without the cap the NFL would be in the same position as the NHL.

That without the cap, there's no TV revenue to speak of simply because the cap levels the playing field for all teams thus creating and keeping fans interested from year to year and in the process attracting new fans along the way.

Without the cap, the league would still be dominated by the 49'ers, Cowboys and all the other teams that have money, as it is today, a small market team like Pittsburgh can generate tons of fan interest (interest = money spent on merchandise of all forms) which then translates into a more demanded product.

The cap in Football is pretty much responsible for the TV revenue that the league enjoy's. It's more of an indirect affect, but without the cap the NFL would be in the same position as the NHL.

Pittsburgh is the 22nd largest tv market in the US. That does not make them a small market team in my book. Especially since the Steelers are the pride and joy of Pittsburgh and the Pirates and Pens come nowhere near them as far as fanbase across the country.

Really in the NFL the franchises are all located in good markets. In hockey, you have a number of teams located in pretty crappy media/hockey markets (ie. Nashville and Columbus). The NHL dropped franchises in markets that cannot support a pro-franchise NHL team.

The reason why the NFL has the deals it does, both tv and sponsorships is simply because it is a sport that appeals to people. It has a much broader fanbase and attendence-wise, sell outs are much more common than for hockey because the games mean that much more with a shorter season. During the years of the Cowboys and Niners domination, the league was still healthy. Its not the parity that attracts the fanbase but the sport itself and the marketing/community reach that goes into it.

the NFL has the contract because of its popularity as a sport. Much like college football. Bringing 'parity' does nothing to the popularity in my opinion, as there is more 'parity' in hockey than in any other sport. Look at the diversity of teams making the playoffs over the past few seasons. It's all over the map. Nashville, Tampa, Calgary, Edmonton, among others. But unlike football, if a team totally sucks, like say Carolina (which is still very possible even under the most stringest of caps), there will be nobody attending games, and there would be no sponsorship. The elasticity is huge in hockey in terms of fair weather. No cap changes that. Just like you said the reason why you like football...because you can go from 3-13 to 13-3...if you're the Raiders and 3-13, there will still be people watching your team, attending games, and thus sponsorship. The networks, and the sponsors know that in hockey, if you're losing big, there's no interest. Parity will not change that, and a cap would not change that either.

And again, you point to how the league would be dominated without a cap...look at hockey without a cap..Lightning vs. Calgary (yeah, a real winner for prime time viewing...parity at its best). Nashville in, Rangers out. San Jose in, Chicago out. Two crappy NHL markets in, two great NHL markets out...not good for sponsorship at all. Kind of underscores what expansion has done.

Point is, parity will not drive revenues up. Teams are competitive despite the big $$$$. Bring the playing field more level, and the teams can make more money too. You don't need a cap to make it more fair.

Pittsburgh is the 22nd largest tv market in the US. That does not make them a small market team in my book. Especially since the Steelers are the pride and joy of Pittsburgh and the Pirates and Pens come nowhere near them as far as fanbase across the country.

Really in the NFL the franchises are all located in good markets. In hockey, you have a number of teams located in pretty crappy media/hockey markets (ie. Nashville and Columbus). The NHL dropped franchises in markets that cannot support a pro-franchise NHL team.

The reason why the NFL has the deals it does, both tv and sponsorships is simply because it is a sport that appeals to people. It has a much broader fanbase and attendence-wise, sell outs are much more common than for hockey because the games mean that much more with a shorter season. During the years of the Cowboys and Niners domination, the league was still healthy. Its not the parity that attracts the fanbase but the sport itself and the marketing/community reach that goes into it.

the number if football fans in pitt as if there are the same number for hockey. You fell into the trap that BADDMAN sold the buyers of NHL teams, "Look at the size of the market"

That is not the point. ALL athleted are overpaid. However that fact by itself is not enough to make Bettman right. An athlete (or anybody else for that matter) is worth exactly what a prospective employer is willing to pay for him.

"Why are you so concerned about the $10 or $11 million players having their salaries cut 35%"

It is the stars that drive the league. It is not fair to have the top players take a 35% paycut while the lower tier players would take a 15% paycut. That is a pretty obvious tactic by Bettman to attempt to drive a wedge within the union. ALL players benefited from skyrocketing salaries, therefore ALL players should feel the same pinch. How happy would you be to take a 35% paycut, while a co-worker who does not perform to the same level as you has to take one as well, but it is half as much?

"The entry level players will have a tough time making ends meet on $3.4 million over the term of the 4 year ENTRY LEVEL CONTRACT "

Just curious, what exactly give you the right to tell another human being how much they should and should not make? NO ONE is arguing that the players, for the most part, make more money than any of the posters on this board. No one is aruing how much money is needed to make ends meet. However, the fact is you are not going to find hockey playes all of a sudden making salaries that do not have at least 5 zeros. And the point of the was that a team controls a player until they are 30. So, after the $850 initial salary, because there is no freedom until 30 and with no arbitration system, said player has to take whatever salary his team
offers or not play at all.

Who cares if it drives a wedge between the players?Maybe some of the middle level players will wake up.The NHLPA proposed 24% for every player.Why should the guy making $1 million see his salary cut by the same % as the player making $10 million?That 1/4 of million for the player making $1 million is a bigger hit and than the guy losing $2.4 million.Bettman adjusted the rollback using comments made by NHLPA exec Ted Saskin.The NHLPA drove the wedge with having the 24% rollback with the have players and the have not players

how do you define large or small market? With 24 U.S. teams, in something like 20 markets, the 22nd could be pretty small, no? Of course we're not talking apples and oranges of markets, but 22 doesn't necessarily seem overly big.

the NFL has the contract because of its popularity as a sport. Much like college football. Bringing 'parity' does nothing to the popularity in my opinion, as there is more 'parity' in hockey than in any other sport. Look at the diversity of teams making the playoffs over the past few seasons. It's all over the map. Nashville, Tampa, Calgary, Edmonton, among others. But unlike football, if a team totally sucks, like say Carolina (which is still very possible even under the most stringest of caps), there will be nobody attending games, and there would be no sponsorship. The elasticity is huge in hockey in terms of fair weather. No cap changes that. Just like you said the reason why you like football...because you can go from 3-13 to 13-3...if you're the Raiders and 3-13, there will still be people watching your team, attending games, and thus sponsorship. The networks, and the sponsors know that in hockey, if you're losing big, there's no interest. Parity will not change that, and a cap would not change that either.

And again, you point to how the league would be dominated without a cap...look at hockey without a cap..Lightning vs. Calgary (yeah, a real winner for prime time viewing...parity at its best). Nashville in, Rangers out. San Jose in, Chicago out. Two crappy NHL markets in, two great NHL markets out...not good for sponsorship at all. Kind of underscores what expansion has done.

Point is, parity will not drive revenues up. Teams are competitive despite the big $$$$. Bring the playing field more level, and the teams can make more money too. You don't need a cap to make it more fair.

Simply put, how many more Rangers fans were there when the team was doing well in the early 90's?

When a team is doing well, or the potential for a team to do well, when there's always that real possibility that a 6-10 franchise has the ability to do well exists, there will be more fans making the game that much more popular. That's what builds popularity. The idea of a very real possibility that your team can win it all. What nails things down is when your team actually does well, then you have that fan hooked for that year and the following 2 at least.

My point doesn't really drive to who actually wins it all as that really doesn't matter to the overall interest in the game. My point is that in the NHL, you have the teams with the highest payrolls (except the Rangers) that pretty much dominate the regular season, The Ottawa Senators are the exception to the rule, as was San Jose last year, but if you looked at the top 10 teams in the NHL 8 out of 10 would be in the top 10 in payroll. What's the sense in following a league that pretty much almost guarantees regular season mediocrity and hope for a cinderella run to the finals? Yes you'll have the occassional TB winning it all, and the occassional Carolina or Calgary flame team make a run, the NHL has a rich history of that, but it doesn't mean that the playing field is level by any stretch and there's ALOT of potential fans out there that are driven away by the spectre of knowing that there team 'may' make the PO's but are pretty much guaranteed to see the top 10 -15 payrolls in the post season.

The popularity in the NFL continues to grow, it's because fans know that every year their team has a legit, let me repeat that, they have a LEGIT shot at something special. I don't think that we can honestly say the same thing about the NHL. Not for the last 10 years at least.

but even with parity PLD, there are teams that suck. Then what do you do? Look at the NFL...15 teams with 5 or less wins (almost 1/2 the league). In hockey, more than 1/2 of the league makes the playoffs. There's another, maybe 1/4, that's in a playoff run up until the last couple weeks. So the analogy of a 6-10 team turning it around exists. The analogy that when a team has a chance already exists in hockey. I don't think you're going to get much more parity than that, and yet you still don't see the arenas filling-up night after night at some venues. The Devils can't stop winning...and we always joke about their inability to fill-up an arena.

And in hockey, there is ALWAYS a chance for an upset. Even Ron Low's under .500 Oilers twice upset the #1 seed in the first round. I really do not think that any other economic system would change this in hockey. At the beginning of the year, I would say that more than 80-90% of the teams have a shot at the playoffs, if not more. By 1/2 the way there, there's still about that much with a shot. In the last few weeks, there's nearly that much. What else can you ask, for every single team to have a chance? And as I said, once you make the playoffs, there is always a chance for an upset, which is what's so good about hockey, and 1980 will always remind us of that possibility. Heck...the Devils, from Stanley Cup winners to missing the playoffs...the Rangers, from the Conference Finals to missing the playoffs...

but even with parity PLD, there are teams that suck. Then what do you do? Look at the NFL...15 teams with 5 or less wins (almost 1/2 the league). In hockey, more than 1/2 of the league makes the playoffs. There's another, maybe 1/4, that's in a playoff run up until the last couple weeks. So the analogy of a 6-10 team turning it around exists. The analogy that when a team has a chance already exists in hockey. I don't think you're going to get much more parity than that, and yet you still don't see the arenas filling-up night after night at some venues. The Devils can't stop winning...and we always joke about their inability to fill-up an arena.

And in hockey, there is ALWAYS a chance for an upset. Even Ron Low's under .500 Oilers twice upset the #1 seed in the first round. I really do not think that any other economic system would change this in hockey. At the beginning of the year, I would say that more than 80-90% of the teams have a shot at the playoffs, if not more. By 1/2 the way there, there's still about that much with a shot. In the last few weeks, there's nearly that much. What else can you ask, for every single team to have a chance? And as I said, once you make the playoffs, there is always a chance for an upset, which is what's so good about hockey, and 1980 will always remind us of that possibility. Heck...the Devils, from Stanley Cup winners to missing the playoffs...the Rangers, from the Conference Finals to missing the playoffs...

Those 15 teams with less than 5 wins? The fans don;t come into the season feeling like that's a possibility, Who'd a thunk that Miami would have less than 5 wins? Who'd a thunk that Cincinnatti would have mroe than 5 wins? the unknown is the hook. And when you see a Jets team or a Steelers team or a Chargers team doing what they are doing, the first thing that comes to mind is that My team can do that to and that's the hook.

No doubt, every year there will be a patsy, a few patsies to be exact, but it's 90% of the time it's not always the same teams

http://www.nypost.com/sports/21412.htm

"For in demanding a 35-percent giveback from the league's highest-paid and most recognizable athletes, Bettman is attempting to hammer the NHL's marquee players into the middle of the spectrum just as his punitive hard cap would hammer the NHL's marquee teams into the middle of the league. Make no mistake. The Board has embarked on a mission that is two-fold: a) to bust the union; and, b) to create an NHL in which all teams and all players are squeezed into the middle as quasi-equals. "

I did not realize that instead of having a 24% reduction across the board, Bettman wants to reduce the amount for 4th liners, but increase it to a whopping 35% for the top liners. 35%? Are you kidding me?
I have said for a while that he is engaged in union-busting, his attempt to sweeten the pot for the grinders, while putting the hammer to the stars shows that. He is trying to drive a wedge.

And perhaps the most interesting thing of all:

"Under the NHL proposal, a team would draft a player at the age of 18 and hold his rights to the age of 30 without the athlete owning a single systemic tool to negotiate himself a raise. "

"Under the NHL proposal, a player entering the league would be capped at $850,000 per for the first four years of his career. After that, he would be forced to take whatever his GM offers, with the only existing alternative being not to play"

I got to say that it is no wonder that the NHLPA walked out. While I admit that the arbitration system as it WAS set up favored the players, the NHLPA shifted it to the owners favor. Bettman is looking to do away with it completely. And, like it or not, Brooks is right. Bettman is looking for teams to draft players and then not give players any wiggle movement for close to a decade.
Forget about European stars not coming here. North American stars might start to migrate to Europe under that rule.

Very misleading by Brooks. Here are the numbers as it pertains to the amount of players effected. There are 796 players currently under contract in the NHL. Only 41 players (that's 5%) make over $5 million and would be cut 35%. 349 (44%) players make under $800,000 and would not be cut back at all. 191 players (24%) would be cut UP TO 15% (can not reduce below $800,000). So the NHL is basically asking only 32% of the players to take a 20% or more pay cut.

according to this article by somebody with a lot more crediblity than larry brooks the league would win an impasse.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041215.wxnhl-impasse16/BNStory/Sports/

With the NHL Players' Association maintaining that it will never accept a salary cap, declaring an impasse is the most obvious way for the league to achieve its goal of cost certainty. The NHL's knowledge of the NLRB makeup is no doubt providing some comfort to the league as it moves closer to cancelling the 2004-05 season.

"Four years ago, the [NHLPA] could be more confident with a [former president Bill] Clinton board than under Bush," said Gary Roberts, a sports law expert at Tulane University in New Orleans, La. "It's clearly a more conservative NLRB than it was four years ago, so management may take a stronger degree of comfort. When baseball was going through this, the chairman of the NLRB was a former union lawyer. Now it's a Republican-dominated board that is clearly more conservative."

the Garden was packed in the beginning of each of the last seven seasons...and we all thought we knew the outcome.

And going into the season, in the NHL, like I said, 85-90% of the teams seemingly have a shot at making the playoffs. That number doesn't change significantly until February/March, more tha halfway through the season.

S-O-T-I...what's misleading? Personally agree with the Union-busting attempt and don't see what's misleading. He doesn't cite percentages anywhere. If 40 players (approximately 5%) start crying to the NHLPA, or in public (hey, the owners are looking after us, the bigger earners should take even more of the burden off than they already are with the fixed percentage cut), then Bettman accomplishes what he wants to in his attempt to bust the Union. He was smiling when some marginal players spoke out. That's what he's hoping to do once again.

So the NHL is basically asking only 32% of the players to take a 20% or more pay cut.

Only problem is SOTI is that the 32% that he's asking to cut their salaries by 1/3 are the guys that the fans actually pay big money to come and see!!!

These are the guys who put bottoms in the seats and they deserve to be paid accordingly just as any top $$$ producer is in any buisness.

kinda tough to compare the nfl to the nhl no? i mean the nfl plays an infinitely more popular game once per week for only 16 weeks. on top of that it's national broadcasts appeal to a much broader market in terms of demographics. it's like comparing the distribution of budweiser to some microbrew. i'm not saying that some form of cap can't work in the nhl but saying that a hard cap works for the nfl is hardly justification.

means nothing. I'm sure if you polled a hundred lawyers you'd get different answers. Not saying he's right or wrong, but there's always more than one side with lawyers, and the best lawyers find the right angles to prevail.

Only problem is SOTI is that the 32% that he's asking to cut their salaries by 1/3 are the guys that the fans actually pay big money to come and see!!!

These are the guys who put bottoms in the seats and they deserve to be paid accordingly just as any top $$$ producer is in any buisness.

---High pay comes with free agency and is thus based largely on seniority. Go here and order the players by compensation:

http://www.nhlpa.com/WebStats/PlayerSearchV2.asp

Are those really the guys who people are paying to see? I don't think people were lining up around the corner to pay top dollar to watch Yashin or Holik, do you?

I'm not sure you can accurately claim that the league's highest-paid guys are the ones drawing fans.

how do you define large or small market? With 24 U.S. teams, in something like 20 markets, the 22nd could be pretty small, no? Of course we're not talking apples and oranges of markets, but 22 doesn't necessarily seem overly big.

Here are the market numbers just from tv households:

Rank Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Households % of US
1 New York 7,376,330 6.8041
2 Los Angeles 5,402,260 4.9832
3 Chicago 3,399,460 3.1357
4 Philadelphia 2,874,330 2.6513
5 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,440,920 2.2516
6 Boston (Manchester) 2,391,830 2.2063
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,255,970 2.0810
8 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,224,070 2.0515
9 Atlanta 2,035,060 1.8772
10 Detroit 1,923,230 1.7740
11 Houston 1,848,770 1.7053
12 Seattle-Tacoma 1,685,480 1.5547
13 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1,644,270 1.5167
14 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,635,650 1.5088
15 Phoenix 1,561,760 1.4406
16 Cleveland-Akron 1,542,970 1.4233
17 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,510,740 1.3935
18 Denver 1,399,100 1.2906
19 Sacramnto-Stktn-Modesto 1,278,430 1.1793
20 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,263,900 1.1659
21 St. Louis 1,202,170 1.1089
22 Pittsburgh 1,175,410 1.0842
23 Baltimore 1,083,030 0.9990
24 Portland, OR 1,073,210 0.9900
25 Indianapolis 1,038,370 0.9578
26 San Diego 1,029,210 0.9494
27 Hartford & New Haven 1,001,320 0.9236
28 Charlotte 986,830 0.9103
29 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 947,750 0.8742
30 Nashville 904,380 0.8342
31 Kansas City 875,090 0.8072
32 Cincinnati 872,330 0.8047
33 Milwaukee 871,490 0.8039
34 Columbus, OH 854,040 0.7878
35 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And 806,930 0.7443
36 Salt Lake City 786,030 0.7251
37 San Antonio 736,240 0.6791
38 Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk 724,290 0.6681
39 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce 709,290 0.6543
40 Birmingham (Ann and Tusc) 697,570 0.6435
41 Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws 693,660 0.6398
42 New Orleans 665,190 0.6136
43 Memphis 662,280 0.6109
44 Buffalo 647,920 0.5977
45 Oklahoma City 647,390 0.5972
46 Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem 645,430 0.5954
47 Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York 637,240 0.5878
48 Providence-New Bedford 635,610 0.5863
49 Albuquerque-Santa Fe 633,500 0.5844
50 Louisville 624,470 0.5760

Source: Neilson

And I consider Pittsburgh a larger market just simply because of population, household income, the fact that the Steelers have a fan base outside of Pittsburgh, and tv households as listed above.

For football, its a proven success in the city, especially after the construction of Heinz Field (which I was at last year for the Rolling Rock Town Fair and I have to say is a great field)

than, say, Columbus, but what defines a 'large' market. Heck, if PITT is a large market than Tampa is ver large and Atlanta, at nearly twice PITT, is tremendous.

than, say, Columbus, but what defines a 'large' market. Heck, if PITT is a large market than Tampa is ver large and Atlanta, at nearly twice PITT, is tremendous.

I am calling Pittsburgh a large football market... never said large NHL market. This is based on the factors listed in the previous post and the support the team receives.

As I tried to say in previous posts but failed to properly express myself I guess, is its not only the number of potential viewers but also the support system set up to support a sport. In my eyes atleast, any city that has over a million potential viewing households has the potential to be a nice size market. What is just as important as the number of tv sets is the support set up in the area to reach the fans and potential fans and to help the sport grow in the community. That is what a Nashville or Columbus lack in my eyes for hockey.

I missed your previous threads and then saw PITT and large market. Put that together without the other relevant information, and you get what I'm asking.

PITT's a football town...blue collar, tough guys. PITT took to hockey, but seemingly only will take to winning hockey. The town's gone through a transition and the economy wasn't so great there - but still no matter what, it's Steel Town and they're always going to support their Steelers, 8 times per year, and a cost of $200-500 per year. As opposed to hockey, at 41 times per year, probably at double the cost (but again, I assume you get them winning again, and people may come).

As I tried to say in previous posts but failed to properly express myself I guess, is its not only the number of potential viewers but also the support system set up to support a sport. In my eyes atleast, any city that has over a million potential viewing households has the potential to be a nice size market. What is just as important as the number of tv sets is the support set up in the area to reach the fans and potential fans and to help the sport grow in the community. That is what a Nashville or Columbus lack in my eyes for hockey.
Only problem with that is they are likely doing better than the New York market for hockey. The Bluejackets never have empty seats and were selected to host the World Cup exhibition games for team USA because how well they have drawn.

This was written this week and appeared in Newsday.

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/index.asp?story_id=42197 (http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/index.asp?story_id=42197)
And unlike the public outcry over missing the high-profile Yankees, fewer subscribers are screaming about the lack of Rangers, Islanders and Devils telecasts. That's because substantially fewer viewers tune in: Last season, Rangers telecasts on MSG produced an average 0.75 rating, or about 60,000 homes. On FSNY, Islanders telecasts generated a 0.31 rating and the Devils earned a 0.26. When all three teams are in action, about 100,000 homes are watching.

A few years ago when the Milstein's were keeping fans away the Islanders would avg over 55,000 homes on Fox. When they put one 2002 playoff game on Msg it drew 200,000 homes and went right back on Metro.

Metro is doing a lot of damage with it's limited network and the market for all three teams seems dramatically reduced based on those numbers.

This is old but very telling of what a competitive product in Pittsburgh can accomlish it was written by the Pens writer in the Post Gazette in 2000 this was during a Q/A with Pittsburgh Post Gazette writerDejan Kovacevic.

http://www.post-gazette.com/penguins/questions/20001025pensqa.asp

A final point: Don't underestimate how good a hockey town this is, Greg. For one, among all NHL teams based in the United States, only St. Louis tops Pittsburgh in television ratings for hockey.

"With the NHL Players' Association maintaining that it will never accept a salary cap, declaring an impasse is the most obvious way for the league to achieve its goal of cost certainty. The NHL's knowledge of the NLRB makeup is no doubt providing some comfort to the league as it moves closer to cancelling the 2004-05 season"

Just substituhe NHLPA w/Bettman and instead of never accepting a cap, say it was we will ONLY accept a cap. I'd say that was equally as damming a comment. Want to bet that Goddenow knows at least as much about labor laws as Bettman does?

Only problem with that is they are likely doing better than the New York market for hockey. The Bluejackets never have empty seats and were selected to host the World Cup exhibition games for team USA because how well they have drawn.

This was written this week and appeared in Newsday.

http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/index.asp?story_id=42197 (http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/index.asp?story_id=42197)
And unlike the public outcry over missing the high-profile Yankees, fewer subscribers are screaming about the lack of Rangers, Islanders and Devils telecasts. That's because substantially fewer viewers tune in: Last season, Rangers telecasts on MSG produced an average 0.75 rating, or about 60,000 homes. On FSNY, Islanders telecasts generated a 0.31 rating and the Devils earned a 0.26. When all three teams are in action, about 100,000 homes are watching.

A few years ago when the Milstein's were keeping fans away the Islanders would avg over 55,000 homes on Fox. When they put one 2002 playoff game on Msg it drew 200,000 homes and went right back on Metro.

Metro is doing a lot of damage with it's limited network and the market for all three teams seems dramatically reduced based on those numbers.

This is old but very telling of what a competitive product in Pittsburgh can accomlish it was written by the Pens writer in the Post Gazette in 2000 this was during a Q/A with Pittsburgh Post Gazette writerDejan Kovacevic.

http://www.post-gazette.com/penguins/questions/20001025pensqa.asp

A final point: Don't underestimate how good a hockey town this is, Greg. For one, among all NHL teams based in the United States, only St. Louis tops Pittsburgh in television ratings for hockey.

you always bring up attendance but you have no facts to back up your statements just your very shady "whenever i'm at the garden" :shakehead

Everytime you post about how the garden is half full you never use facts well here are the numbers so you can refrance them whenever you like.

18,081 http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_nyr_attendance.html

Islanders average attendance last season

13,456 http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_nyi_attendance.html

madison squre garden didn't host world cup games because of the RNC convention and USA hockey said as much.

"With the NHL Players' Association maintaining that it will never accept a salary cap, declaring an impasse is the most obvious way for the league to achieve its goal of cost certainty. The NHL's knowledge of the NLRB makeup is no doubt providing some comfort to the league as it moves closer to cancelling the 2004-05 season"

Just substituhe NHLPA w/Bettman and instead of never accepting a cap, say it was we will ONLY accept a cap. I'd say that was equally as damming a comment. Want to bet that Goddenow knows at least as much about labor laws as Bettman does?

It's not about knowing labor law, TB, it's about the makeup of the NLRB. Goodenow and his lawyers can know as much as they want about labor law, but Bettman can still feel good and carry more confidence because he knows there is a pro-business panel which will rule on the impasse. That's the point of the article and it's true. There's no claim about which way the panel would rule, only that the owners should feel better than the PA about a ruling because of the current philosophy of the Board.

It's not about knowing labor law, TB, it's about the makeup of the NLRB. Goodenow and his lawyers can know as much as they want about labor law, but Bettman can still feel good and carry more confidence because he knows there is a pro-business panel which will rule on the impasse. That's the point of the article and it's true. There's no claim about which way the panel would rule, only that the owners should feel better than the PA about a ruling because of the current philosophy of the Board.

It's still a crapshoot regardless of the makeup of the board. Bettman is betting the farm and it is in no way a sure bet. And in the meantime, interest in hockey is getting smaller and smaller by the day.

with the extra thousands of dollars save from not attending hockey games, do you think people are feeling good now? More money to spend for Christmas, or a new appliance, or what-have-you. People are finding other things to do. It's going to be tough to get hockey back to the level it was at the end of the season, let alone get it back to where it was at the end of '94.

with the extra thousands of dollars save from not attending hockey games, do you think people are feeling good now? More money to spend for Christmas, or a new appliance, or what-have-you. People are finding other things to do. It's going to be tough to get hockey back to the level it was at the end of the season, let alone get it back to where it was at the end of '94.
THere are several articles on ESPN that have some of the hockey players mentioning the same thing. They think that it is going to be very hard for the NHL to recover from this. And if an entire season is canceled, it just might be impossible. Oh, I know that there will be those who will come on here and tell us that great hockey markets like Tampa and Florida just need time, and that America will be so hockey starved that it will embrace Bettman's scab league. But, I just do not see it that way. And that is not the side of me that is on the anti-Bettman side talking. THat is me as a hockey fan. I think that already there has been damage that will take another 10 years to recover from. And if an entire season is canceled, I really do think that at best the NHL (whenver they play again) will be on the same level of popularity as arena football.

if the league really does take a big hit with this lockout (which seems likely at this point) then I have to wonder how it's really gonna end up making even with a better CBA in place.

I mean...the idea is to come up with something that fixes the problem "once and for all", but at this rate, there isn't going to be a problem to fix because the league is going to be dead.

I agree 100% with TrueBlue and Brooks on this issue. I made this post one day before Brooks wrote his article! http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=118738

The rollback in salary is a small issue, it only affects the majority of players a couple of years before its time to negotiate new contracts.

The big issue is that players would have no leverege whats so ever, AND negotiating cheap contracts with players will be as important for a teams success as drafting players. I envision that a few players, thoose with leverege because they are franchise players or UFA are gooing to be paid really high while the rest will have a median salary at 850K. This is not something Bettman is interested in achieving, it a by product from his offer but it would be a terrible blow for NHLPA.

It's still a crapshoot regardless of the makeup of the board. Bettman is betting the farm and it is in no way a sure bet.
They're both betting the farm in that both have taken absolute positions, but whether or not a ruling in his favor is a sure thing, Bettman DOES have reason to feel more confident going before the NLRB than Goodenow does. I think that's the point of the article.

and getting to an impasse. The results the same: no hockey. Instead of a lockout, there's a strike, and any attempt at getting scabs, in my opinion, would be a colossal failure as players will sit on the sidelines (I believe) and watch as b-level hockey players play in large arenas in front of empty crowds. Imagine the small crowds in Carolina, Tampa, PHX, Anaheim, Nasvhille and other places while watching these sewmi-pros play? It'll cost them more money to turn the lights on and pay the hot dog vendors than to not have hockey at all.

Absolutely and every day without hockey means more fans who are finding something else to do with their spare time. And it's not like the League can declare an impass and then magically start up again the next week. I don't know how long it takes to go before NLRB, but I don't imagine it's a quick process and even more fans will be lost as the arguing between sides goes on.

Plus, some of us--no matter how hard core--will never see another game as long as there are scabs on the ice.

The future is so bright for hockey, I'm surprised the league doesn't hand out sunglasses.

Absolutely and every day without hockey means more fans who are finding something else to do with their spare time. And it's not like the League can declare an impass and then magically start up again the next week. I don't know how long it takes to go before NLRB, but I don't imagine it's a quick process and even more fans will be lost as the arguing between sides goes on.

Plus, some of us--no matter how hard core--will never see another game as long as there are scabs on the ice.

The future is so bright for hockey, I'm surprised the league doesn't hand out sunglasses.
That sums it up rather nicely. Couple it with what Fletch said and you have the NHL future, ladies and gentlemen. They are at critical mass right now. There is already damage done. Anyone want to be that already attendance will be low?
But in just a short while, critical mass will become a detonation. That detonation is the cancelation of a season. Hockey is comprised of mainly rabid hard core fans. But as Brook says, no matter how rabid, enough of us will not watch scab hockey. To me watching a few ECHLers & various all-stars from mens roller hockey leagues, along with All-Stars like Rob Ray, is just not interesting. I thought that the skill level of the NHL went down in the past few seasons. Imagine the skill level of Bettman's scab league? We could probably put together a team from this board and give them a run.
The thing that is really beginning to get to me is that you see comments from the players about wanting to play as they realize the shape of the NHL, and the damage that a canceled season could cause. Bettman does not seen to have anything to do with the desire & feelings of the fans. He just does not seem to be concerned? I just truly wonder is he arrogant and just thinking that nothing can go wrong with his plan or is he ignorant and truly believes that he will be able to draw back all the fans?

It's not about arrogance, it's about the position that Bettman has put himself in. He's basically put his job on the line, and that is all he is concerned about. He may have convinced himself that what he believes is the truth, and has become a true believer of his strategy as have the yes-men who surround him.

As to the matter of replacement players, I think you're missing the point a little. The goal of going to start a league with replacement players is not to continue with them but to put pressure on other players to cross the line. Enough people are likely to turn out for the first few games, though I imagine like you say that there'll be little long term support for the league and questionable commercial support until the true NHL players come back.

But what it will do is make some of those NHL players start to think about crossing the lines and if some cross then that will put more pressure on other players. Ultimately the mid and low-level salaried players have the least to lose and most to gain in this scenario and this is where Bettman and his NHL crew will be putting their trust if the NHLPA doesn't break before then.

The league has all the leverage and they think there is greater risk to the league overall if they don't break the union. It's an ideology of sorts...they think that there is greater damage in not fixing it than the damage done now by not having hockey playing.

They look at what happened to baseball and the downturn in attendance, but then also see what a home-run race did to bring interest back to the sport. They no doubt help to find a way to replicate it...believing that the potential can be brought back if they promote things the right way, and they'll have a bigger buffer window the lower the salaries are.

It's interesting, I've watched attendance figures for the last few years and it has actually been increasing modestly each year...revenues too have been increasing, the biggest thing that hasn't been is of course TV ratings, but they're not alone...most of the major sports have seen downturns there, perhaps not as large as hockey, but it's fair to say that there are fewer people watching live sports on TV.

Bettman does not seen to have anything to do with the desire & feelings of the fans. He just does not seem to be concerned? I just truly wonder is he arrogant and just thinking that nothing can go wrong with his plan or is he ignorant and truly believes that he will be able to draw back all the fans?

Who's arrogant? The players don't want a salary cap which in effect means that they think that ticket prices for fans should go up infinitely. The owners are in the position that they actually need to consider the fans' feelings so that they can maintain their customer base.

the players feel as though the owners should be able to pay as much as they want for them. The owners do not have to pay what they cannot afford. They can run it like a business let what they pay be dictated by their revenues.

the players feel as though the owners should be able to pay as much as they want for them. The owners do not have to pay what they cannot afford. They can run it like a business let what they pay be dictated by their revenues.

In other words, players like Leafs and Red Wings fans but Flames and Penguins fans can go p*** up a stump.

I actually don't understand what your post says. Perhaps I should phrase my post differently. You said the players are arrogant because they feel that prices should or could rise indefinitely. What I meant to say is that in the end, it's the owners that set the ticket prices and sign the contracts. We all can feel sorry for the billionaire owners who get taken to the cleaners by players, but ultimately, it is their call; they control both ends. Further, why not say the owners are arrogant and raise ticket prices to profit?

I actually don't understand what your post says. Perhaps I should phrase my post differently. You said the players are arrogant because they feel that prices should or could rise indefinitely. What I meant to say is that in the end, it's the owners that set the ticket prices and sign the contracts. We all can feel sorry for the billionaire owners who get taken to the cleaners by players, but ultimately, it is their call; they control both ends. Further, why not say the owners are arrogant and raise ticket prices to profit?

The fans set the ticket prices. The owners can only raise the price of tickets until the fan says the price is too high and won't go any more. That has happened in every hockey market already so the ticket prices are basically fixed, the arena can only hold so many people, and that is why the salaries need to be controlled.

I find it equally hard to feel sorry for "millionaire players" as I do for "billionaire owners". It's not as if these guys are living on the edge barely making it, and it's not like the bad old days when Alan Eagleson was working with the league to keep the players down and before even then when players careers were completely controlled by the league.

These are guys who make a lot of money because there are people who are willing to pay them this. If there wasn't an NHL there wouldn't be nearly the number of jobs in hockey and certainly not the money.

The owners absorb the financial risk, promote the game and look to make a buck on the backs of the players...but it's not like these guys aren't fairly compensated. You can distrust the owners, hate Bettman etc and you'll find me agree with you on most points...but let's not start feeling sorry for millionaire players who spend less time at work than you or I.

and there are so many seats, then wouldn't that make the players stupid, not arrogant, in regards to them thinking that ticket prices should rise indefinitely? I think the players are fully aware as to the elasticity of ticket prices, as well as the fixed number of seats in an arena and the attendance figures for the arena. What's disputed are the losses of the owners and whether or not they should be able to spend whatever amount they want on players' salaries.

But I have to admit, I didn't understand your previous post and don't really know what your last post means vis-a-vis your previous post. Sorry, I may be a bit slow today.

The fans set the ticket prices. The owners can only raise the price of tickets until the fan says the price is too high and won't go any more. That has happened in every hockey market already so the ticket prices are basically fixed, the arena can only hold so many people, and that is why the salaries need to be controlled.
Theoretically that is true. Realistically, it is not. If it were, we in NY would pay the same for tickets as those in Nashville. Ranger tickets have been raised every year. Tickets prices only go up.

Theoretically that is true. Realistically, it is not. If it were, we in NY would pay the same for tickets as those in Nashville. Ranger tickets have been raised every year. Tickets prices only go up.

Come on TBl, there is plenty of ways to win this argument without resorting to stretching the truth. Ranger ticket prices haven't been increased since the 1999-2000 season (except for that stupid "arena charge" which is a common fee in the industry) and they were reduced 10% for season ticket holders over the summer.

have been raised, TB. The 300 sections, I believe, are about the same price they were 10 years ago. There were a couple seasons of no raises. Then they were raised when Theo and co. came on board. Then I believe they were lowered from that level. Down on the ice is where there's been more consistent raises. It's nice...the better-off pay the higher ticket prices for the Rangers to acquire the big-name talent and us schmoes pay pretty reasonable ticket prices.

Come on TBl, there is plenty of ways to win this argument without resorting to stretching the truth. Ranger ticket prices haven't been increased since the 1999-2000 season (except for that stupid "arena charge" which is a common fee in the industry) and they were reduced 10% for season ticket holders over the summer.
Ok, I may be stretching it, but still I cannot state that fans set ticket prices. And I am still not convinced that Dolan did not decide to lower ticket prices for next year, knowing that there isn't going to be a next year.

because the arenas weren't full, I would think. And knowing or believing that this season his payroll would be significantly cut, he can easily afford to lower the prices, to bring the fans back in so when the Rangers start winning, he can start raising them again.

Ok, I may be stretching it, but still I cannot state that fans set ticket prices. And I am still not convinced that Dolan did not decide to lower ticket prices for next year, knowing that there isn't going to be a next year.

I agree that fans don't set the price of tickets. And I'm certainly one to question Dolan's reasons for lowering ticket prices (and I believe I remember him coming out and saying that prices will not be changed once next season starts, whenever that is). But, it's been 5 years since prices were raised for hockey at Madison Square Garden. It would be better to find another example--I'm sure there are plenty out there.

There was a Hockey News table earlier this year that had ticket prices from around the league, and I believe their increase from the previous season. The Rangers are actually one of the more affordable tickets on average in comparison to some out there.

I can tell you though that Pittsburgh and Sabres games are pretty cheap :)

Theoretically that is true. Realistically, it is not. If it were, we in NY would pay the same for tickets as those in Nashville. Ranger tickets have been raised every year. Tickets prices only go up.

No, because there are more people who can afford high ticket prices in New York than there are in Nashville so the Rangers ticket prices are higher. However they will reach, or maybe already have reached, a price in New York where people will stop buying.

No, because there are more people who can afford high ticket prices in New York than there are in Nashville so the Rangers ticket prices are higher. However they will reach, or maybe already have reached, a price in New York where people will stop buying.

I don't know if I'd go that far, New York is an extremely expensive city and many "average" people were priced out of MSG years ago.

However, the cost of tickets has not been the main reason why people have stopped buying: it's because the Rangers suck and have been lousy for years now. When the team was coming off their Stanley Cup win, the wait for season tickets was over 4 years and tickets for EVERY single regular season game sold out on the day they were placed on sale. The Rangers were one of the hottest tickets in town and this continued for years. It's only in the last 4-5 years that it has changed and it has everything to do with the way the organization has performed on the ice.

I don't know if I'd go that far, New York is an extremely expensive city and many "average" people were priced out of MSG years ago.

However, the cost of tickets has not been the main reason why people have stopped buying: it's because the Rangers suck and have been lousy for years now. When the team was coming off their Stanley Cup win, the wait for season tickets was over 4 years and tickets for EVERY single regular season game sold out on the day they were placed on sale. The Rangers were one of the hottest tickets in town and this continued for years. It's only in the last 4-5 years that it has changed and it has everything to do with the way the organization has performed on the ice.

Using your example, I'd say that New York Rangers tickets were UNDER priced. Basically the demand exceeded the supply at the pricing levels that were set...

You can certainly make arguments about "average" fans etc, but New York is an inherently expensive place to live and the price of tickets actually has probably gone up slower than the cost of living during the same period of time...particularly in Manhattan.

The New York Rangers are actually not a very good example for high ticket prices...it's probably easier to make that argument in New Jersey where they weren't selling out, or in the various other markets where attendance lagged.

In fact it might even be more expensive now to attend a game in Philadelphia than in New York...

That is not the point. ALL athleted are overpaid. However that fact by itself is not enough to make Bettman right. An athlete (or anybody else for that matter) is worth exactly what a prospective employer is willing to pay for him.


To say all athletes are overpaid is a little critical. Basic economics outlines why these guys make the salaries they do, it also gives us the answer as to why there is a lockout.

Athletes have a skill that is extremely rare in supply which puts them in a great spot to begin with - they belong to an extremely valuable non-competing group of the labour force. In addition, their skill produces an extremely high marginal revenue productivity for their employer. You'll find that many athletes are paid at a level to which the supply of their labour is at equilibrium with the demand for their labour and that their wage is dictated by the revenue their services produce; in the case of athletes that revenue is extremely high.

The NHL is arguing that the salaries of players on the whole have exceeded that marginal revenue productivity (ie, the amount of salary being paid exceeds the contributions to revenue being made). The NHL wants a guarantee that wages will be brought down to a more favourable profit-maximizing situation. While the Union agrees they feel it should be done in a matter more akin to an actual business, ie., manage your own revenue and expenditures whilst setting a budget and not exceeding your projected earnings in any given year. This I'm sure everyone understands and knows by now.

It irks me a bit to hear that players are overpaid and that it should be no different than any other guy making 50 grand a year - but this is the world we live in today, Capitalism, and last time I checked the commies weren't doing so well. :help:

:)

There was a Hockey News table earlier this year that had ticket prices from around the league, and I believe their increase from the previous season. The Rangers are actually one of the more affordable tickets on average in comparison to some out there.

I can tell you though that Pittsburgh and Sabres games are pretty cheap :)

I was surfing the Panthers site a while back and saw an advertisement for a 6 game pack, any team you wanted, at $79. That's damn good!

It irks me a bit to hear that players are overpaid and that it should be no different than any other guy making 50 grand a year - but this is the world we live in today, Capitalism, and last time I checked the commies weren't doing so well. :help:

:)
Capitalism is certainly wonderfull, and I believe in it 100%. No one is saying that you should not make whatever you can get. But that does not preclude me for having the opinion that in the overall scheme of things, athletes are overpaid for the total worth of the goods and services that they provide.