Season Ticket Renewals

[spndnchz]

Don't drag me into this. Even if I fully explained it you'd be all frack this frack that still.

[PASabreFan]

Don't drag me into this. Even if I fully explained it you'd be all frack this frack that still.

Forget me. Educate everyone else.

[MBHockey13]

Forget me. Educate everyone else.

 

Why do you think you can tell women what to do?

[PASabreFan]

Don't drag me into this. Even if I fully explained it you'd be all frack this frack that still.

And get dinner on the table, goddamnit!

[woods-racer]

And get dinner on the table, goddamnit!

 

The fake port wine stain was actually the results of a frying pan I bet!

[LGR4GM]

Seriously...

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

The fake port wine stain was actually the results of a frying pan I bet!

 

Hey Woodsie,

 

Thanks for helping me decode PA's Soviet era user name.

 

And at least he didn't take that to the next level, right?  Gotta give the PA some lovin' for that.

[woods-racer]

Hey Woodsie,

 

Thanks for helping me decode PA's Soviet era user name.

 

And at least he didn't take that to the next level, right?  Gotta give the PA some lovin' for that.

 

I'm found of all *trouble makers*, so nothing but lovin for PA and Russian spies.

 

Between PA and GODD the moderators have been steppin lively in what should be a very quiet time. Whats not to like?

[X. Benedict]

We are going to imagine the CBA is optional again this too. I'm out.

[SwampD]

Everyone is assuming that the Sabres had to raise the ticket prices this year in order to meet the CBA requirement. Does anyone know if they actually had to, or is it easier to just attack PA?

[X. Benedict]

Everyone is assuming that the Sabres had to raise the ticket prices this year in order to meet the CBA requirement. Does anyone know if they actually had to, or is it easier to just attack PA?

They do. They have to submit a plan every year to raise revenues to share with the players. Even though the obligation is incentivized, there is no way to opt out in good faith.

[SwampD]

They do. They have to submit a plan every year to raise revenues to share with the players. Even though the obligation is incentivized, there is no way to opt out in good faith.

Is raising ticket prices the only way to increase revenue? If so, why don't we just assume that ticket prices have to and will go up every year? Something doesn't add up for me on this.

[PASabreFan]

Everyone is assuming that the Sabres had to raise the ticket prices this year in order to meet the CBA requirement. Does anyone know if they actually had to, or is it easier to just attack PA?

I'm not trying to come off as Mr. CBA here. But I was unclear about a few things before being challenged to read the CBA. So I did. I wish some others would do the same. There's nothing in the CBA that I can find that says teams are required to submit a yearly revenue plan, let alone be required to raise prices in order to get revenue sharing. Teams qualify for revenue sharing automatically. If you're low enough on the totem pole, you get it. Now, if your ticket revenues don't reach 75% of league average (on a per game basis), there are some repercussions, one of which is that a few years down the road, your continued eligibility for revenue sharing might be contingent on how successfully you've turned things around.

Edited May 1, 2015 by @fakegorbyportwinestain

[X. Benedict]

Is raising ticket prices the only way to increase revenue? If so, why don't we just assume that ticket prices have to and will go up every year? Something doesn't add up for me on this.

No. But for small markets, they are the major source of HRR. The players aren't likely to approve any plan without a ticket bump. Expect them to go up every year. 

I'm not trying to come off as Mr. CBA here. But I was unclear about a few things before being challenged to read the CBA. So I did. I wish some others would do the same. There's nothing in the CBA that I can find that says teams are required to submit a yearly revenue plan, let alone be required to raise prices in order to get revenue sharing. Teams qualify for revenue sharing automatically. If you're low enough on the totem pole, you get it. Now, if your ticket revenues don't reach 75% of league average for ticket revenue (on a per game basis), there are some repercussions, one of which is that a few years down the road, your continued eligibility for revenue sharing might be contingent on how successfully you've turned things around.

And this is it. The  CBA is fundamentally a revenue sharing agreement with the players. (not with other Clubs) It was the players idea to add incentives to revenue sharing to make the owners more likely to vote for it, it doesn't relieve them of obligations to honor the contract with the players and to increase year on year revenues. 

Edited May 1, 2015 by X. Benedict

[PASabreFan]

Ted Black has said this obligation is unwritten. Doesn't mean it's not real, of course. My point is that if they had wanted to hold the line on ticket prices this year, as a gesture to the suffering fans, they could have. The league would not have torn up their revenue sharing check. How would it wash out? Maybe if ticket prices don't go up, people spend more on merchandise and concessions, and those precious revenues still go up.

 

Maybe revenue-sharing with the players and revenue-sharing among teams is getting mixed up here, I don't know why there's this annual kerfuffle.

Is raising ticket prices the only way to increase revenue? If so, why don't we just assume that ticket prices have to and will go up every year? Something doesn't add up for me on this.

I don't know why ticket revenue is used as the benchmark in the CBA instead of overall revenue. Part of the reason might be that the NHL is more dependent on ticket sales than other sports. Something like 40% of revenue. The fans get socked with yearly ticket increases; I hope the sponsors and advertisers and corporate suite holders are getting boned as well.

[SwampD]

Ted Black has said this obligation is unwritten. Doesn't mean it's not real, of course. My point is that if they had wanted to hold the line on ticket prices this year, as a gesture to the suffering fans, they could have. The league would not have torn up their revenue sharing check. How would it wash out? Maybe if ticket prices don't go up, people spend more on merchandise and concessions, and those precious revenues still go up.

 

Maybe revenue-sharing with the players and revenue-sharing among teams is getting mixed up here, I don't know why there's this annual kerfuffle.

Because it's easier to make fun of you than it is to question the motives of the current administration.

 

And wouldn't paying AHL salaries instead of actual NHL salaries like they did all year be considered a way to increase revenue? (Hey, there's a new question. Do they only share revenue or is it profits?)

[X. Benedict]

Ted Black has said this obligation is unwritten. Doesn't mean it's not real, of course. My point is that if they had wanted to hold the line on ticket prices this year, as a gesture to the suffering fans, they could have. The league would not have torn up their revenue sharing check. How would it wash out? Maybe if ticket prices don't go up, people spend more on merchandise and concessions, and those precious revenues still go up.

 

 

No, the obligation IS written. The how isn't.  They Sabres have to have a plan to raise revenue. (it could conceivably be by other methods. A Personal Seat Licence perhaps?  Yikes) The Sabres have to follow the agreed plan even if it the plan doesn't actually raise more revenue.  

 

What you are confusing (again) is the good faith obligation to have a plan to raise revenue and act on it,  and the baroque incentive which Fehr had written into the CBA to get small market teams to vote to break the deadlock in the lockout negotiations. 

 

There is no clause in the CBA to opt out of the obligation to have a viable plan to increase year on year revenue, the revenue they share 50/50 with the players union.  

 

 

Remember the players went from 57% revenue sharing in the previous CBA to 50% in this one(a net loss) , provided that there was a strategy to raise more revenue each year. 

 

The Sabres have to qualify for revenue sharing because of the players, not because of the incentives. 

[shrader]

Remember the players went from 57% revenue sharing in the previous CBA to 50% in this one(a net loss) , provided that there was a strategy to raise more revenue each year.

 

I'll add to this portion of your post by saying that the quote from Ted Black that PA keeps falling back on pre-dates the current CBA.

 

Edit: if I'm reading the timeline in his post correctly.

Edited May 1, 2015 by shrader

[LastPommerFan]

Didn't have a chance to read through everything. Are we arguing about the difference between "if I want to make money" (profit) and raising prices (revenue) yet?

[PASabreFan]

I'll add to this portion of your post by saying that the quote from Ted Black that PA keeps falling back on pre-dates the current CBA.

 

Edit: if I'm reading the timeline in his post correctly.

No, "unwritten obligation" and the quote about having to raise ticket prices to qualify for revenue sharing are from 2013. New CBA. (The old CBA looked at a team's Hockey Related Revenue, which had to be increasing at a rate above the league average for a team to continue to receive revenue sharing at 100%.)

Edited May 1, 2015 by @fakegorbyportwinestain

[PASabreFan]

No, the obligation IS written. The how isn't.  They Sabres have to have a plan to raise revenue. (it could conceivably be by other methods. A Personal Seat Licence perhaps?  Yikes) The Sabres have to follow the agreed plan even if it the plan doesn't actually raise more revenue.  

 

What you are confusing (again) is the good faith obligation to have a plan to raise revenue and act on it,  and the baroque incentive which Fehr had written into the CBA to get small market teams to vote to break the deadlock in the lockout negotiations. 

 

There is no clause in the CBA to opt out of the obligation to have a viable plan to increase year on year revenue, the revenue they share 50/50 with the players union.  

 

 

Remember the players went from 57% revenue sharing in the previous CBA to 50% in this one(a net loss) , provided that there was a strategy to raise more revenue each year. 

 

The Sabres have to qualify for revenue sharing because of the players, not because of the incentives. 

Where is the obligation to submit a revenue plan written into the CBA?

[X. Benedict]

Article 49.

[dudacek]

Fake Gorby is Ted Black.  Marketing strikes again!

 

The are both from Pennsylvania and I've never seen them in the samarium at the same time.

And Black is English for chernyy....

[SwampD]

Article 49.

Nowhere in there does it say you have to make more next year than you did the last. All it says is that the the teams that fall under the 75% of the league average have to submit a 3 year plan to improve their revenue. And that only pertains to regular season gate revenue.

 

I'll ask it again. Does anyone know positively that if the Sabres didn't raise their prices, would they fall into that category and be subject to this revue?

 

This is a valid point that PA brings up.

[X. Benedict]

Nowhere in there does it say you have to make more next year than you did the last. All it says is that the the teams that fall under the 75% of the league average have to submit a 3 year plan to improve their revenue. And that only pertains to regular season gate revenue.

 

I'll ask it again. Does anyone know positively that if the Sabres didn't raise their prices, would they fall into that category and be subject to this revue?

 

This is a valid point that PA brings up.

Yes, they would.

 

Here's the thing, ticket sales are unpredictable, and Sabres have to have a schedule to raise revenue by virtue of being in the bottom tier, but if the plan they submit to the players gets approved, but it doesn't actually work, they have still fulfilled their obligation to the players.

 

Now PA seems to think that the Sabres could simply ignore their obligation to have a plan to increase revenues, (we sucked and it feels like an insult) but the players won a hammer in the CBA which amounts to a club financial takeover -

 

49.3 d C - paraphrase - if the Oversight Commitee thinks the Sabres plan to raise revenue is simply a joke - it can appoint a 3rd party to run the consumer and business sales side of the team.

 

So PA is right in thinking Black could simply ignore this, but then Black would no longer be controlling Team sales decisions. A 3rd party appointee would.

 

Think about it, 50% of Sabres sales belong to the NHL players union. The players negotiated a way to Guarantee that clubs simply didn't try to freeze or lower their portion of revenue streams.

 

Imagine this scenario, because we sucked this year and last year, the Sabres decide to sell 10000 season tickets for $1 to its most loyal fans. It is conceivable. Pegula is rich, right? But the players cut of that revenue would be only $5000. They share the gate.

 

But that is like the old joke about the cheating husband asking his wife to sell the classic Porsche so they can split the money in a divorce. She sells it to a neighborhood teen kid for $10, and mails her husband a check for $5 with a note that says "here's your half, ."