4 ms·

that's doesn't make much sense its not like ticket prices are fixed, even if you already sell out every game, you can always raise prices if the demand will su

by pitt1980 11y ago

that's doesn't make much sense its not like ticket prices are fixed, even if you already sell out every game, you can always raise prices if the demand will support it not to mention all the other revenue streams that have nothing to do with how many people are in the building -------------------------------------------- I'd look more at the relative tax rates, hockey is a capped sport, Canadian teams can only pay what US teams can pay, however less of it can stay in the players pockets after taxes its appears that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in the US leveled the field signficantly for Canadian teams (though they were in effect for a signficant portion of the time frame examined in the 538 article) http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/10/01/u-s-tax-changes-level-the-playing-field-for-canadian-nhl-teams/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/10/01/u-s-t...

slantyyz 11y ago
>> that's doesn't make much sense Not sure I follow you. The Maple Leafs are one of, if not the richest team in hockey. They're rich because they've got incredibly rabid fans who will pay whether the team wins or loses, and prices generally go up in Toronto, not down. Most of my forty-some-odd-years have been "lean" years for the Leafs. For a long time, the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan owned a huge chunk of the Leafs, and there was little to no interest in spending what it took to produce a Stanley Cup winner, just some occasional lip service. Taxes might be a factor, but less so for hockey than other sports. Toronto has a lot of cachet for being one of the Original Six (one of the reasons why Babcock chose Toronto over Buffalo) and for being one of the major focal points for hockey fandom.
- pitt1980 11y ago
  you and the original author seemed to be indicating that they didn't have incentive to win because they already made alot of money I was just saying, if they make this much money when they're not winning, there is probably even more money to be made if they actually did win (though I suppose I may have overstated that, as doing what it takes to win also costs money [though that's probably less an issue in the games current fixed player costs mode])

slantyyz 11y ago

>> that's doesn't make much sense Not sure I follow you. The Maple Leafs are one of, if not the richest team in hockey. They're rich because they've got incredibly rabid fans who will pay whether the team wins or loses, and prices generally go up in Toronto, not down. Most of my forty-some-odd-years have been "lean" years for the Leafs. For a long time, the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan owned a huge chunk of the Leafs, and there was little to no interest in spending what it took to produce a Stanley Cup winner, just some occasional lip service. Taxes might be a factor, but less so for hockey than other sports. Toronto has a lot of cachet for being one of the Original Six (one of the reasons why Babcock chose Toronto over Buffalo) and for being one of the major focal points for hockey fandom.

pitt1980 11y ago
you and the original author seemed to be indicating that they didn't have incentive to win because they already made alot of money I was just saying, if they make this much money when they're not winning, there is probably even more money to be made if they actually did win (though I suppose I may have overstated that, as doing what it takes to win also costs money [though that's probably less an issue in the games current fixed player costs mode])