You guys aren't understanding how supply and demand works.

Here, let's illustrate it with an example...

- You own a team that has 10,000 seats.
- You can draw 9,000 fans each game (when you charge your $10 per ticket).
- So...
- You have 9,000 people fighting over 10,000 seats, can you raise ticket-prices?
- No. Anyone who wants a seat can easily get one. The scalpers are going to be out there selling your tickets for $1 each, just to get rid of them. You actually have to lower ticket prices (enough so that you start averaging 10,000 fans).
- Now... You can lower your ticket price to like $8 - or, you do have another option, you can take out 2,000 seats.
- Taking out seats doesn't change demand, it only reduces supply (it shifts the supply curve inward).
- So...
- You now have 9,000 people fighting over 8,000 seats, what do you think this is going to do to the price?
- Right, you can now charge a much higher price than you could before. 1,000 people are going to want tickets, but be completely unable to buy them.
- So, even though you lost 20% of your seating, you might be able to charge $12 or 13 each now.
- 8,000 x $12 is $96,000 per game.
- 9,000 x $10 is only $90,000. And 10,000 x $8 is only $80,000. You actually increased your revenue by removing seats and lowering the supply (and moving to a better equilibrium point of your supply and demand curves).
- stringerbell

Yes, I majored in Econ too.

Everyone understands the concept of supply and demand. Just because you threw in some fancy textbook-lingo like "equilibrium point" and "shifting supply/demand curves" doesn't make this anything other than a really overly-detailed explanation of a really simple concept.

They are trying to create a retroactive playoff sell-out.

Only about 4000 more seat removals to go
- Aetherial

nice. The average home attendance for a Dallas Stars game.

If Matty D wants out, he certainly doesn't want to get injured and ruin any possibility of a trade.

Yes, I majored in Econ too.

Everyone understands the concept of supply and demand. Just because you threw in some fancy textbook-lingo like "equilibrium point" and "shifting supply/demand curves" doesn't make this anything other than a really overly-detailed explanation of a really simple concept.
- eichiefs9

Also , the sens won't sell out regardless of seat cuts, at least that's what i'm assuming people are going for here.

" I also feel Winnipeg may be the team to watch in the West this year..."

Thanks for the kiss of death Eklund

Having an owner that actually tries to win ,would be a nice start.Instead we get budget man

You guys aren't understanding how supply and demand works.

Here, let's illustrate it with an example...

- You own a team that has 10,000 seats.
- You can draw 9,000 fans each game (when you charge your $10 per ticket).
- So...
- You have 9,000 people fighting over 10,000 seats, can you raise ticket-prices?
- No. Anyone who wants a seat can easily get one. The scalpers are going to be out there selling your tickets for $1 each, just to get rid of them. You actually have to lower ticket prices (enough so that you start averaging 10,000 fans).
- Now... You can lower your ticket price to like $8 - or, you do have another option, you can take out 2,000 seats.
- Taking out seats doesn't change demand, it only reduces supply (it shifts the supply curve inward).
- So...
- You now have 9,000 people fighting over 8,000 seats, what do you think this is going to do to the price?
- Right, you can now charge a much higher price than you could before. 1,000 people are going to want tickets, but be completely unable to buy them.
- So, even though you lost 20% of your seating, you might be able to charge $12 or 13 each now.
- 8,000 x $12 is $96,000 per game.
- 9,000 x $10 is only $90,000. And 10,000 x $8 is only $80,000. You actually increased your revenue by removing seats and lowering the supply (and moving to a better equilibrium point of your supply and demand curves).

EDIT: Actually, I shouldn't say equilibrium-point there, as neither point is actually in equilibrium. The best economic result would involve finding the price at which you average exactly 10,000 fans per game (the actual equilibrium point). Although, depending on the shape of the curves involved, it might still be better to remove seats. Especially if demand is inelastic.
- stringerbell

Sakic is a buffoon... get the deal done already... Drouin for Sergachev was a brilliant win win move... that loser Sakic could have made that deal with the Habs...

He should try and make a similar deal for some prospect grade A dman... but he's totally gun shy and will sit there paralyzed with fear like a doe in the headlights... not even a buck deer.

Yes, I majored in Econ too.

Everyone understands the concept of supply and demand. Just because you threw in some fancy textbook-lingo like "equilibrium point" and "shifting supply/demand curves" doesn't make this anything other than a really overly-detailed explanation of a really simple concept.
- eichiefs9

WRONG!!

lols... lots of arts majors who have no clue...... especially this one guy who likely has a ridiculous accent.

Yes, I majored in Econ too.

Everyone understands the concept of supply and demand. Just because you threw in some fancy textbook-lingo like "equilibrium point" and "shifting supply/demand curves" doesn't make this anything other than a really overly-detailed explanation of a really simple concept.
- eichiefs9

right?

Ottawa doesnt count as a canadian city...no one likes Ottawa, not even Canada
- DDM-Coga

...i like ottawa...

...i like ottawa...
- mgriffen

I know your reason why

You guys aren't understanding how supply and demand works.

Here, let's illustrate it with an example...

- You own a team that has 10,000 seats.
- You can draw 9,000 fans each game (when you charge your $10 per ticket).
- So...
- You have 9,000 people fighting over 10,000 seats, can you raise ticket-prices?
- No. Anyone who wants a seat can easily get one. The scalpers are going to be out there selling your tickets for $1 each, just to get rid of them. You actually have to lower ticket prices (enough so that you start averaging 10,000 fans).
- Now... You can lower your ticket price to like $8 - or, you do have another option, you can take out 2,000 seats.
- Taking out seats doesn't change demand, it only reduces supply (it shifts the supply curve inward).
- So...
- You now have 9,000 people fighting over 8,000 seats, what do you think this is going to do to the price?
- Right, you can now charge a much higher price than you could before. 1,000 people are going to want tickets, but be completely unable to buy them.
- So, even though you lost 20% of your seating, you might be able to charge $12 or 13 each now.
- 8,000 x $12 is $96,000 per game.
- 9,000 x $10 is only $90,000. And 10,000 x $8 is only $80,000. You actually increased your revenue by removing seats and lowering the supply (and moving to a better equilibrium point of your supply and demand curves).

EDIT: Actually, I shouldn't say equilibrium-point there, as neither point is actually in equilibrium. The best economic result would involve finding the price at which you average exactly 10,000 fans per game (the actual equilibrium point). Although, depending on the shape of the curves involved, it might still be better to remove seats. Especially if demand is inelastic.
- stringerbell

you should embed some supply and demand graphics that demonstrate the shifting of the supply curve inward, thereby moving the price upward at any given price point, such as P1 or P2.... it might make more sense then... If you look at the E2 point of intersection of the supply and demand curves, you'll note that going straight down along the dotted line at Q2,
the price is lower when you have greater supply. when the curve shifts up (by eliminating seats) the price point is higher (P2) and the intersection is at E2....

Having an owner that actually tries to win ,would be a nice start.Instead we get budget man
- top shelf 15

I know everyone rips him for being cheap, but what players has he lost because he's been cheap? I know he's made some weird "seemed like a good idea at the time" deals like Bobby Ryan and Phaneuf, but since the new guard has taken over I can't think of any big stars they failed to keep because of him not wanting to pay up. And on the basis of attracting big names, I think that's always tough for Canadian teams. I can't really think of the last really big UFA who signed in Canada from another team. Typically seems like guys at the ends of their careers, guys who had one big year and then bust, or bottom six guys. I dunno, this is off the top of my head...

I know everyone rips him for being cheap, but what players has he lost because he's been cheap? I know he's made some weird "seemed like a good idea at the time" deals like Bobby Ryan and Phaneuf, but since the new guard has taken over I can't think of any big stars they failed to keep because of him not wanting to pay up. And on the basis of attracting big names, I think that's always tough for Canadian teams. I can't really think of the last really big UFA who signed in Canada from another team. Typically seems like guys at the ends of their careers, guys who had one big year and then bust, or bottom six guys. I dunno, this is off the top of my head...
- mgriffen

trading phaneuf for a pile of expensive crap was a short term cost cutting move. phaneuf's declining salary was also a selling point in that deal.

trading zibinajed for brassard. brassard's salary < caphit. zib just got expensive.

two major blunders that have mcnickelanddimeit's name on them.

Yes, I majored in Econ too.

Everyone understands the concept of supply and demand. Just because you threw in some fancy textbook-lingo like "equilibrium point" and "shifting supply/demand curves" doesn't make this anything other than a really overly-detailed explanation of a really simple concept.
- eichiefs9

He definitely likes the sound of his own voice. Reminds me of mikeinhismomsbasement.

you should embed some supply and demand graphics that demonstrate the shifting of the supply curve inward, thereby moving the price upward at any given price point, such as P1 or P2.... it might make more sense then... If you look at the E2 point of intersection of the supply and demand curves, you'll note that going straight down along the dotted line at Q2,
the price is lower when you have greater supply. when the curve shifts up (by eliminating seats) the price point is higher (P2) and the intersection is at E2....
- kaptaan

oh boy you mean just like back in the 90's when there were too many pontiac aztecs and no one wanted them .....

oh boy you mean just like back in the 90's when there were too many pontiac aztecs and no one wanted them .....
- Alexzanki

Hey I had one. Yeah it was a piece of poop.

Hey I had one. Yeah it was a piece of poop.
- gergeswillems

should of waited , you could of had one for peanuts

trading phaneuf for a pile of expensive crap was a short term cost cutting move. phaneuf's declining salary was also a selling point in that deal.

trading zibinajed for brassard. brassard's salary < caphit. zib just got expensive.

two major blunders that have mcnickelanddimeit's name on them.
- Tumbleweed

Fair enough, those are some pretty questionable moves

right?
- Fountain-San

https://youtu.be/XndjoAsBGr8?t=3s

oh boy you mean just like back in the 90's when there were too many pontiac aztecs and no one wanted them .....
- Alexzanki

Only bad news out of Ottawa seems to sell???Why is it that the media out of Toronto just harps and harps on it .You would think maybe having two strong hockey teams in a province the size of Texas would be a good thing.

Nobody in Ottawa thinks they will ever reach the level, of the loyal mega sized fanbase,that they have earned of the decades.But the money to be made with having two teams that are natural rivals,is something both sides should be working on expanding on .Instead Ottawa gets a one sided beatdown in the media,which serves only one side

Ottawa should just relocate to Quebec City.

Only bad news out of Ottawa seems to sell???Why is it that the media out of Toronto just harps and harps on it .You would think maybe having two strong hockey teams in a province the size of Texas would be a good thing.

Nobody in Ottawa thinks they will ever reach the level, of the loyal mega sized fanbase,that they have earned of the decades.But the money to be made with having two teams that are natural rivals,is something both sides should be working on expanding on .Instead Ottawa gets a one sided beatdown in the media,which serves only one side
- top shelf 15

Because it's embarrassing and worthy of being harped on. Under capacity in the playoffs...I had almost forgotten that until this news broke. Playoffs is where the money is made!

And what's worse? People in Ottawa see this as a Toronto media problem.