From: p7z092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Anthony Jang)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Ticket prices again (Was: Calder: Lindros & more)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 13:07:09 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: keats.rick.cs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov10.163058.2916@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> seth@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (peter.r.clark..jr) writes:
>In article <1didhfINN6dv@gambier.rick.cs.ubc.ca>, p7z092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Anthony Jang) writes:
>> You must not know anything.  TV contracts absorb the players salaries.
>> I love going to games, but they are too expensive.  But that's because
>> gate revenues make up something like 90% of total revenue.  If the NHL
>> ever gets a contract like MLB has (or is it had now), then the owners
>> would not have to charge as much for a ticket. 
>> >
>> >mick
>> >
>> Just my thoughts,
>> Tony
>
>This gave me quite a chuckle. Have you ever heard the term "Supply and Demand"?
>If the owners were charging $100 per seat for the worst seats in the house,
>and they were filled every night, do you honestly believe that doubling
>the TV money they brought in would for a second make them think to themselves
>"Gee, our ticket prices are awful high, and even though the stupid masses
>keep paying those prices, let's drop them a bit so that poor people can
>afford it too"
Obviously, if teams could charge $100 for bad seats they would, but they
*can't*.  Going down the list of teams with more than a thousand seats
empty would include Vancouver, Minnesota, Edmonton, Winnipeg, NJ, NYI,
Hartford, etc.  So the supply is there, but the demand at the current
ticket prices isn't.  There is an equillibrium point where supply and
demand are equal and profits are maximized.  If TV revenue brought
in enough money to compensate for 2000 tickets, do you not think
that most of the teams would lower there ticket prices enough to draw
in more fans considering the elasticity of demand?

>
>This is a capitalist society we live in. And we're damn proud of it too.
>But part of the basis for a capitalist economic system is that everybody
>who has something to sell tries to get as much $$$ for their product as
>they can. And if people are filling arenas night after night paying these
>prices, the owners have every right to keep raising prices until people
>stop showing up. And despite the fact that we're in quite bad economic times
>here in the northeast, I still haven't seen more than 200 or so empty seats
>for a FLYERS game. Any Rangers fans wanna post the ticket prices for the
>garden and what the attendance levels are like? I know there's some pretty
>high priced seats there...
>
>pete clark - rsh FLYERS contact

It's great that people in the NE are filling up to see the games, but
I'd venture a guess that this 200 empty seats is not true for half the
teams.  Although the Flyers have had good fan support throughout, how
about the other teams such as NJ, NYI who routinely get about 12 000
fans.  Teams like the Blues and Penguins were strugling before their
superstars arrived and they will have their work cut out
for them when Lemieux and Hull retire.  (No flames from the long time fans
of those two teams please).

The ticket price increases hae been directly caused by the escalating
player salaries, not due to increased demand.  If the demand hasn't
changed put the prices have then that must mean the prices charged are too
high.
As a further note, the Canucks budgeted for a slight loss of income with
15000 fans, instead they are getting 14000.  This is following our best
season ever and two award winners.

Just my thoughts,
Tony



Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey