HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1299299)

Crease 11-29-2012 08:34 AM

Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...
 
...one man gathers what another man spills.

Continue here.

Here's where we left off:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1295929

CerebralGenesis 11-29-2012 09:02 AM

In response to the last post:

I misunderstood what you were saying and upon clarification I don't agree with you. You lead with, "Past performance is not at all indicative of future results" and then say how the USD will essentially suck forever because it is and has. What happens when it becomes more ideal to move a team to Milwaukee instead of Winnipeg? Moving them willy nilly should be avoided.

"Unfilled demand" because it is in Canada is a not an argument I'm a buyer of either, unfortunately.

But I think I would like a 32 team league once they make the split to 4 superconferences and I don't think the talent pool will be that greatly affected.

Hanklite* 11-29-2012 09:02 AM

Meetings resume at 11 am EST.

Deal announced at 2 pm EST?:sarcasm:

Clock 11-29-2012 10:01 AM

Apathy beginning to set in. Get it done.

Melrose Munch 11-29-2012 10:17 AM

This will be a full season. Still hoping the NHLPA wins.

coldsteelonice84 11-29-2012 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis (Post 56112355)
"Unfilled demand" because it is in Canada is a not an argument I'm a buyer of either, unfortunately.

I'm not Canadian but I admit at the very least, Phoenix should move to Quebec. As far as other moves, I agree that they should be considered carefully. However, that single move, moving the worst franchise in the league to a great Canadian market, would help the NHL a lot. Hopefully they realize it.

aj8000 11-29-2012 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose Munch (Post 56113701)
This will be a full season. Still hoping the NHLPA wins.

Wins what? They have already lost. they just do not know that yet.

Gump Hasek 11-29-2012 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis (Post 56112355)
You lead with, "Past performance is not at all indicative of future results" and then say how the USD will essentially suck forever because it is and has. What happens when it becomes more ideal to move a team to Milwaukee instead of Winnipeg? Moving them willy nilly should be avoided.

Well, no, that isn't what I said, at all. What I said was that past performance of the Canadian dollar doesn't necessarily dictate future results. What I essentially also said was that the economic outlook of the two nations is growing increasingly divergent. I said that moving a few under-performing teams to the region better equipped to support them is probably the prudent course to take. Not sure how you extrapolated anything beyond that.

Quote:

"Unfilled demand" because it is in Canada is a not an argument I'm a buyer of either, unfortunately.
You are free to ignore evidence that some of the poorly performing US franchises would be better off located elsewhere all you wish. The anecdotal evidence however is that Southern Ontario and Quebec are both under-served and historic hockey markets. The relative financial performance of Winnipeg versus Atlanta for example underscores that relocating teams to the above markets would prove a financial boon for the league. Another team in the GTA would be a financial home run, as would QC to a somewhat lesser extent.

Quote:

But I think I would like a 32 team league once they make the split to 4 superconferences and I don't think the talent pool will be that greatly affected.
I'm sure fans of the under-performing US markets would prefer that, as they could use even more cash generated elsewhere (expansion fees) to continue to underwrite the folly of teams located in markets that probably couldn't survive in the NHL otherwise.

haseoke39 11-29-2012 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melrose Munch (Post 56113701)
This will be a full season. Still hoping the NHLPA wins.

It's completely outside the realm of what's possible for the PA to get as much money as they would have if they just took the October 26th offer. There was too little separating them at that time for it to make any sense for the PA to cancel games. So when the PA went ahead and did their thing, it became clear that they wanted to prove some point more than they wanted to maximize their take - ie, the $500M just wasn't worth enough to them. Whatever that point is, different people can imagine they won it or not at the end of this.

AtlantaWhaler 11-29-2012 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gump Hasek (Post 56113891)
You are free to ignore evidence that some of the poorly performing US franchises would be better off located elsewhere all you wish. The anecdotal evidence however is that Southern Ontario and Quebec are both under-served and historic hockey markets. The relative financial performance of Winnipeg versus Atlanta for example underscores that relocating teams to the above markets would prove a financial boon for the league. Another team in the GTA would be a financial home run, as would QC to a somewhat lesser extent.

The NHL has shown that, every 10 to 15 years, things drastically change. See Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Chicago, etc... I agree with what you're saying regarding the present, but just moving teams around isn't the answer. In another few years, we may be discussing moving the respective team back again.

Ola 11-29-2012 10:49 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
There has been some talk about how many votes it takes to approve a new CBA etc.

I was wondering, do we know for sure that these numbers that has been mentioned (Bettman's super majority clause etc) really applies here? I mean, there must be some kind of restrictions?

It just seems odd that like 25 owners could decide that like NYR and Toronto should pay say 500m each in revenue sharing. My point is, there must be some kind of restrictions on what can be decided by a majority vote even among the owners. Like there is no way anyone representing MSG legaly (in relation to their fidutiary duties) could enter into that kind of agreement where they undertake to do anything decided by a 3rd party, including giving money to other entities, without having some kind of veto or cap.

But I've never heard any detailed discussion on this.
If I am not mistaken, those teams could appeal anything Bettman put forward but in the strictest of sense, yes they could be essentially "forced" into an agreement due to having allowed Bettman to retain a super majority, although when it comes to implementing new systems, like a CBA, I do not believe he has as much say.
What do I know, but I just sense that there gotta be some kind of restrictions there.

I mean, imagine this situation. The guy (or girl) representing the company that is an owner of a NHL team calls up his company's lawyer and say something like "I am planning to sign this agreement [the agreement between the owners], its kind of like a cooperation agreement, and the other parties to this agreement can by a majority vote decide that I shall give them an unlimited amount of money, for any length, and at any time, and so on. Do you think this is OK for me to sign?"

Revenue sharing is just a very odd subject in a CBA. It has nothing to do with an employer's relation to an employee, its one employer giving money to another. I would just recon that it would requite consent on something like that. If so, quite possibly they carve that issue out and it doesn't factor in on the rest of the CBA, but I was just wondering. We have heard very little about that subject.

Gump Hasek 11-29-2012 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler (Post 56114267)
The NHL has shown that, every 10 to 15 years, things drastically change. See Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Chicago, etc... I agree with what you're saying regarding the present, but just moving teams around isn't the answer. In another few years, we may be discussing moving the respective team back again.

I disagree. Moving some money losing teams to areas where they would finally contribute to the pie (versus drain it) means fewer welfare cases on the whole. Eventually it possibly could even lead to a league full of teams on actual solid financial ground. Removing the welfare cases from the roll means revenue sharing could eventually evolve into actual profit sharing amongst all parties versus the current scenario of certain teams essentially being financed by others and seemingly in perpetuity.

Shrimper 11-29-2012 11:01 AM

Really hoping that they have a long meeting today and actually get close to a deal but I'm holding out much hope as that's all but gone after previous events.

haseoke39 11-29-2012 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gump Hasek (Post 56114427)
I disagree. Moving some money losing teams to areas where they would finally contribute to the pie (versus drain it) means fewer welfare cases on the whole. Eventually it possibly could even lead to a league full of teams on actual solid financial ground. Removing the welfare cases from the roll means revenue sharing could eventually evolve into actual profit sharing amongst all parties versus the current scenario of certain teams essentially being financed by others and seemingly in perpetuity.

You're ignoring his point. What he's saying is that what you call "welfare teams" and "contributing" teams isn't necessarily accurate over the long haul. Teams fluctuate in value and fiscal success over the years even in the same market. Teams that are struggling where they are today may not be so in another 5 years, while markets that appear primed for an NHL team may not prove so lucrative in 5 years either. We've had enough teams leave Canadian cities to know they're not necessarily a panacea.

I think he's probably half-right, and that's why there's more hesitation from the NHL to move a team from the fifth largest metropolitan area int he country than there is from the fans. I think the league engages in more long-term thinking on this issue, and is wary of just assuming anyplace cold is going to fix their problems.

Alan Jackson 11-29-2012 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantaWhaler (Post 56114267)
The NHL has shown that, every 10 to 15 years, things drastically change. See Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Chicago, etc... I agree with what you're saying regarding the present, but just moving teams around isn't the answer. In another few years, we may be discussing moving the respective team back again.

The trouble is that many of the markets that are struggling shouldn't have been given teams in the first place. Or more to the point, they didn't want or ask for teams in the first place.

There was no demand for hockey in many of these markets. The League went in to these markets hoping they could create hockey fans out of thin air. Yes, there are times where teams in "hockey markets" have stuggled, too, but they had fans and a tradition of support to fall back on - eventually, they would be successful again.

I don't want to see teams being moved, either, but at some point the League might have to admit that its Grand Experiment has failed.

But, this discussion has been had time and again, and this probably isn't the thread for it.

I wish we would be talking about the game on the ice, instead.

Gump Hasek 11-29-2012 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haseoke39 (Post 56114633)
You're ignoring his point. What he's saying is that what you call "welfare teams" and "contributing" teams isn't necessarily accurate over the long haul. Teams fluctuate in value and fiscal success over the years even in the same market. Teams that are struggling where they are today may not be so in another 5 years, while markets that appear primed for an NHL team may not prove so lucrative in 5 years either. We've had enough teams leave Canadian cities to know they're not necessarily a panacea.

I think he's probably half-right, and that's why there's more hesitation from the NHL to move a team from the fifth largest metropolitan area int he country than there is from the fans. I think the league engages in more long-term thinking on this issue, and is wary of just assuming anyplace cold is going to fix their problems.

First of all, those Canadian teams you mentioned that left Canada only did so during a period of time when they were not afforded the annual welfare payments extended to the financial basket cases of today. You forgot to include that.

Rather than suggest teams be moved to where it is cold, I'm actually conversely suggesting teams could be moved to areas more financially suited to support them over the long haul. Hope that helps.

haseoke39 11-29-2012 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gump Hasek (Post 56114837)
First of all, those Canadian teams you mentioned that left Canada only did so during a period of time when they were not afforded the annual welfare payments extended to the financial basket cases of today. You forgot to include that.

Rather than suggest team be moved to where it is cold, I'm actually conversely suggesting teams could be moved to areas more financially suited to support them over the long haul. Hope that helps.

Okay, but you're just jumping to conclusions again. The whole point is that your conclusions about where teams will be best financially supported may not be wholly self-evident or supported. And history provides enough good examples of teams that went through bad times and came out of it and fallen out of good times into bad ones. Just restating that you want to move teams where they're profitable doesn't complete the argument.

Gump Hasek 11-29-2012 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haseoke39 (Post 56114935)
Just restating that you want to move teams where they're profitable doesn't complete the argument.

It does complete the argument though. This is a business forum. The arbiter here should be exactly that.

Th suggestion to move a few more hockey teams to Canada, where a demonstrable and inherent level of built-in demand for NHL hockey exists, is pretty much a home run, and especially when that gain would come while at the same time removing other money losing locations. The net result is a financially stronger league.

Win/win.

TrillMike 11-29-2012 11:27 AM

The whole Phoenix thing is getting annoying. They are a rival of my team (Dallas). The thing that frustrates me the most is that the Coyotes lack of fans/playing style/players affect other teams' attendance when they come to town (please exclude Canadian markets). When was the last time anyone looked at their team's schedule and gone "O look. We have Phoenix coming up. I've got to get a ticket!" ? It doesn't happen.

Anyways, hopefully the meeting today goes well.

DyerMaker66 11-29-2012 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orrthebest (Post 56108659)
How did you come up with 28 teams when according to the Forbes numbers there was 6 teams that lost money every year during the expired CBA.

:laugh: Contract all teh teams!

I came up with 28 by removing two teams (which instantly and greatly raises the profit made by the NHL). Others can be relocated if needed. There are at least 4 cities which could handle an NHL now or in the near future: Hamilton, QC, Seattle, and KC.

I really can't believe that question was asked.

Turbofan 11-29-2012 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gump Hasek (Post 56115099)
It does complete the argument though. This is a business forum. The arbiter here should be exactly that.

Th suggestion to move a few more hockey teams to Canada, where a demonstrable and inherent level of built-in demand for NHL hockey exists, is pretty much a home run, and especially when that gain would come while at the same time removing other money losing locations. The net result is a financially stronger league.

Win/win.

I'm sort of on both sides here. In 2008 the Canadian dollar was at 80 cents US. Even still, the 6 Canadian teams pulled in very strong gate revenues of $40+ million per year.

But there have been some pretty large shifts in the industry of professional sports in the last few decades. It does seem that every 10-15 years or so you have to throw out the playbook because of how volatile it is.No one has a crystal ball here, not us and not even the wealthy, experienced, businessmen and owners behind the scenes.

Back in the 80's you probably wouldn't have believed that Winnipeg and Quebec would lose their teams. In the early 2000's, you probably would thought Pittsburgh and Chicago would have terrible attendance, and would never win the cup again. Things can change.

Columbus Mike 11-29-2012 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 (Post 56115653)
:laugh: Contract all teh teams!

Isn't this essentially what has happened?

DyerMaker66 11-29-2012 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Columbus Mike (Post 56116155)
Isn't this essentially what has happened?

How so?

Tawnos 11-29-2012 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haseoke39 (Post 56114109)
It's completely outside the realm of what's possible for the PA to get as much money as they would have if they just took the October 26th offer. There was too little separating them at that time for it to make any sense for the PA to cancel games. So when the PA went ahead and did their thing, it became clear that they wanted to prove some point more than they wanted to maximize their take - ie, the $500M just wasn't worth enough to them. Whatever that point is, different people can imagine they won it or not at the end of this.

It depends on what you mean by winning, which depends on the goal. My suspicion is that we won't know who won this lockout until the CBA they're trying to negotiate expires. If the NHL takes the PA seriously at the negotiating table from the very start next time and we avoid a lockout, the PA will have won this, no matter what the specifics of this particular deal is.

haseoke39 11-29-2012 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tawnos (Post 56116435)
It depends on what you mean by winning, which depends on the goal. My suspicion is that we won't know who won this lockout until the CBA they're trying to negotiate expires. If the NHL takes the PA seriously at the negotiating table from the very start next time and we avoid a lockout, the PA will have won this, no matter what the specifics of this particular deal is.

Sure, maybe. All this eye of the beholder winning and losing stuff is great for whoever needs to tell their people they won at the end of the day. I count dollars, and players lost on dollars already.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.