HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   Which league would do better in the long run, NHL or Players (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1305359)

Ripper 12-08-2012 02:03 PM

Which league would do better in the long run, NHL or Players
 
Here's a question you an ask yourself. What league would do better over the next twenty years. The NHL (with possible replacement players to start the first 2 years or an NHLPA league, no ownerhip of arenas, no marketing staff or large corporate deals.
The NHL would retain the marketing of team names and logos, arena ownership, TV and corporate deals etc...

I think that we all can remember which teams through history have won cups, could you name every player whos name is engraved on the Stanley or had a trophy awarded, probably not because the individual is not greater than the TEAM.

5RingsAndABeer 12-08-2012 02:20 PM

The players would likely just go play for an already established league elsewhere.

Sureves 12-08-2012 03:54 PM

League by far.

The league can hire replacement players who many (myself included) would pay to watch. In theory (I don't know the legal ramifications) they could start a new league for the 2014 season and all the junior players becoming draft eligible would be eligible for the "New NHL" and they could get any players currently under contract to void their contracts and start playing in the New NHL under a new contract.

Realistically, they could have a league set up as early as next year with pretty decent hockey (they'd probably lose some of the star-talent to the KHL/SEL though).

The players? Some would go to other leagues (mostly the star players), but most North American players (which make up 70% of the league) would come crawling back and play for whatever the owners were willing to pay them in the New NHL within a year or two I think.

LickTheEnvelope 12-08-2012 04:07 PM

League.

All the current players would be gone and replaced. But within 5-10 years all would be replaced by upcoming prospects under the league's rules.

The player's wouldn't have the financial backing to support a league and certainly wouldn't have a clue on how to properly generate revenues.

rynryn 12-08-2012 05:37 PM

the players aren't nearly smart/experienced/knowledgeable enough to organize anything but pick up games. Also there are 700 of them and only 30 owners, so imagine the infighting junking up the works...

Renbarg 12-08-2012 05:40 PM

The players will have to foot the bill for quite a lot of things. THey don't have that kind of capital. It'll fail miserably very quickly without investors (aka owners).

IU Hawks fan 12-08-2012 05:48 PM

There was a thread just like this a couple of months ago, and we ended up getting a list together of buildings the players could theoretically play in. It didn't look good for them. For example, a Chicago area team would have to play at Sears Centre which is in Hoffman Estates. It's waaaay further west of the city than where the AHL Wolves play, and only seats about 8000 for hockey. Other current NHL markets don't have anywhere else to play, we'd end up with teams in current NBA arenas that don't have an NHL counterpart and such.

Astoria 12-08-2012 07:11 PM

I have to agree with everyone else.... The NHL.

It's an established league, with established teams, partnerships, sponsors, fan base, etc.

Could the NHL be run a bit better? Sure... But do I think players could run a league better and be more successful? No.

HockeyBuddha 12-09-2012 02:03 PM

Good question.

I'll say the players. The players wouldn't have to pony up that much money, there's plenty of billionaires willing to take a chance. Fans pay money to watch a high level of talent, not a particular league.

If two leagues started next season, the nhl (with jr, minor league players) and say 10 teams with the best players in the world, guess which one I'm watching and supporting.

Legionnaire11 12-09-2012 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyBuddha (Post 56394935)
Good question.

I'll say the players. The players wouldn't have to pony up that much money, there's plenty of billionaires willing to take a chance. Fans pay money to watch a high level of talent, not a particular league.

If two leagues started next season, the nhl (with jr, minor league players) and say 10 teams with the best players in the world, guess which one I'm watching and supporting.

Highlighted is completely false and exactly the reason that the players league would never get off the ground.

The NHL has a hard enough time attracting and retaining 30 qualified owners/ownership groups... the Players league has no chance of coming close to that.

rynryn 12-09-2012 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyBuddha (Post 56394935)
Good question.

I'll say the players. The players wouldn't have to pony up that much money, there's plenty of billionaires willing to take a chance. Fans pay money to watch a high level of talent, not a particular league.

If two leagues started next season, the nhl (with jr, minor league players) and say 10 teams with the best players in the world, guess which one I'm watching and supporting.

woah! so many billionaires out there right? how many of them do you think care one little bit about hockey? how many of those who care care enough to lose money year after year after year while the new league tries to get it's legs under it? i'm guessing maybe one or two insane people who wouldn't be able to get any municipality of any size to deal with them.

No Fun Shogun 12-09-2012 02:28 PM

Almost assuredly the league.

haveandare 12-09-2012 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyBuddha (Post 56394935)
Good question.

I'll say the players. The players wouldn't have to pony up that much money, there's plenty of billionaires willing to take a chance. Fans pay money to watch a high level of talent, not a particular league.

If two leagues started next season, the nhl (with jr, minor league players) and say 10 teams with the best players in the world, guess which one I'm watching and supporting.

You do realize that currently there are 30 "billionaires" who already have everything in place in terms of teams, logos, brands, buildings, TV contracts, established fanbases, etc. who aren't willing to employ the players under the conditions that they want, correct? Why on earth would other rich folks who have none of those things put a ton of their personal capital on the line for players whose demands are unreasonable to the current owners who only have to take a small fraction of that financial risk?

If the "if" situation that you proposed came to fruition, that'd be one thing. I will absolutely guarantee you that will never, ever happen for many reasons. The most obvious of which is that the "best players in the world league" would have no players at all once the current crop retired as the jr and minor players who would inevitably replace them would be in the NHL.

Swarez 12-09-2012 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haveandare (Post 56396555)
You do realize that currently there are 30 "billionaires" who already have everything in place in terms of teams, logos, brands, buildings, TV contracts, established fanbases, etc. who aren't willing to employ the players under the conditions that they want, correct? Why on earth would other rich folks who have none of those things put a ton of their personal capital on the line for players whose demands are unreasonable to the current owners who only have to take a small fraction of that financial risk?

If the "if" situation that you proposed came to fruition, that'd be one thing. I will absolutely guarantee you that will never, ever happen for many reasons. The most obvious of which is that the "best players in the world league" would have no players at all once the current crop retired as the jr and minor players who would inevitably replace them would be in the NHL.

There are 29 owners and its something like 10 are billionaires. (according to forbes)
If you brought in replacement players people will not pay the same gate, and the NHL has to know this. I know I wouldn't I don't spend money on Jr hockey or minor hockey, and if those guys came up, no shot I would pay for my ST anymore. Franchise values would drop quite a bit too.

You are going to have NHL teams drawing 3-4K a game with replacement players, people want the best if you are going to charge NHL prices. If there was a prolonged period of replacement players there would be several teams that fold. People barley pay for NHL talent in certain cities, there not going to come out and droves for a 25 year old that was could never make it. Over long haul more and more players (especially the stars) will just go over to KHL since they will pay the top 10-15 guys Millions.

Mayor Bee 12-09-2012 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 56369433)
Here's a question you an ask yourself. What league would do better over the next twenty years. The NHL (with possible replacement players to start the first 2 years or an NHLPA league, no ownerhip of arenas, no marketing staff or large corporate deals.
The NHL would retain the marketing of team names and logos, arena ownership, TV and corporate deals etc...

MLB players tried this twice, although in both cases before WWI. They also tried to stage a mini-revolt that saw a few established players jump to the Mexican League after WWII, which didn't go so well either.

The simple fact of a "players' league" or of any competing league is this. Without paying a high enough wage and enough other benefits to attract the best players out there, it's doomed to fail. And without the ability to profit, and thus be able to weather economic chaos that may result from any of a trillion variables, there's no stability and therefore no future.

This is why the original WHA succeeded, why the AFL succeeded, and why the ABA succeeded. And it's why so many other competitors faded quickly. The "new WHA" from last lockout, promising average wages for NHL players, couldn't attract anyone. Neither could the OSHL. And at that point, it becomes little more than a low-level independent minor league.

Quote:

I think that we all can remember which teams through history have won cups, could you name every player whos name is engraved on the Stanley or had a trophy awarded, probably not because the individual is not greater than the TEAM.
I was REALLY hoping that you were going to link to a Sporcle quiz asking exactly this.

Mayor Bee 12-09-2012 03:29 PM

I do have to wonder if Scottie Upshall and Krys Barch would appreciate the NHL version of "treated like cattle" as opposed to what their own league would provide.

haveandare 12-09-2012 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swarez99 (Post 56397741)
There are 29 owners and its something like 10 are billionaires. (according to forbes)
If you brought in replacement players people will not pay the same gate, and the NHL has to know this. I know I wouldn't I don't spend money on Jr hockey or minor hockey, and if those guys came up, no shot I would pay for my ST anymore. Franchise values would drop quite a bit too.

You are going to have NHL teams drawing 3-4K a game with replacement players, people want the best if you are going to charge NHL prices. If there was a prolonged period of replacement players there would be several teams that fold. People barley pay for NHL talent in certain cities, there not going to come out and droves for a 25 year old that was could never make it. Over long haul more and more players (especially the stars) will just go over to KHL since they will pay the top 10-15 guys Millions.

I quoted billionaires figuring most NHL owners weren't literally billionaires but that was the term the person I quoted was using.

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying - I don't think replacement players or a new players' league will ever, ever happen. My point is that the players starting a new league (as opposed to going to the KHL or others) is totally unreasonable and the idea that there are rich people out there who will gladly throw players the startup for such a venture is insane.

octopi 12-09-2012 03:46 PM

Players wouldn't be able to form teams, rent arenas, make merchandise, book flights, manage payroll, hire staff etc.

Yes, they could do it on a brief basis but wouldn't work well in reality. for one thing how to decide how to split the money? Then they need large enough arena to use. Booking flights for multiple people is always fun. It's not easy or simple at all.

Jacob8hockey* 12-09-2012 04:00 PM

It would take the owners a MAX of 5 years to completely rebuild the league to the quality it is with replacement players. Draft a 2 age groups instead of one to get 15ish players per team + free agents.

The players would just simply not be able to do it.

5 years from now the majority of the players in the NHL will be brand new anyways.

Ripper 12-10-2012 10:11 AM

to summarize
 
In the small sampling of replies it is quite obvious that we all recognize that the NHL is much greater than the players, so what exactly does the union think that they are doing. Could this be a union move to highlight all unions? Why was Fehr at the Auto Workers meeting? What where they trying to link, that was a desperate move no matter how you look at it. I hope the players realize what we all seem to kow, they are not bigger than the league and therefore should take a very generous 50-50 split from the league(owners) and get back to it or quit.

Ari91 12-10-2012 10:18 AM

I would say that the NHL would clearly win that battle. The PA league will diminish as they won't have a pool of talent to replenish as other talents retire or fade away. The league will struggle with replacement players, but the NHL will be able to replenish the talent pool with the same players that would eventually replace the Crosby's and Ovechkin's in the league currently.

blue bleeder 24-7 12-10-2012 12:14 PM

The league.

This, historically, has already happened in sports. Over in auto racing with IndyCar, the IRL vs. CART. It was the owner of Indianapolis Motor Speedway who won the war over the teams and drivers, despite having lesser drivers, lesser cars and lesser tracks (save for the Indy 500).

The marque items in a sports series are the things the public knows. The public knew the Indy 500. The public knows the Toronto Maple Leafs and Boston Bruins. The NHLPA would be facing starting a league all on its own, and trying to get the masses to believe that the Toronto Whatevers and Boston Whoosits are better than the franchises they've always heard of.

GeeoffBrown 12-10-2012 12:39 PM

The player league would not even get off the ground. How could they pay themselves fairly when by definition they only have as much money as they were paid? It balances out to broke at best.

ThatGuy22 12-10-2012 01:46 PM

Serious thought here, how would it be legal for the NHL to use replacement players to form a new league back up.

With out a Union to bargain a CBA with, pretty much all of the contracting rules the NHL uses or wants would be against US Law. Draft, term limits, Salary Cap, ELCs. They would not be able to uni-laterally install a CBA or rules for the replacement players without getting hammered by anti-trust lawsuits. McKinnon, Jones and Barkov? All to the highest bidder. It would be chaos and fantastic at the same time. Half the teams in the league would be bankrupt in 5 years cause teams can't contain themselves.

pdd 12-10-2012 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy22 (Post 56422873)
Serious thought here, how would it be legal for the NHL to use replacement players to form a new league back up.

With out a Union to bargain a CBA with, pretty much all of the contracting rules the NHL uses or wants would be against US Law. Draft, term limits, Salary Cap, ELCs. They would not be able to uni-laterally install a CBA or rules for the replacement players without getting hammered by anti-trust lawsuits. McKinnon, Jones and Barkov? All to the highest bidder. It would be chaos and fantastic at the same time. Half the teams in the league would be bankrupt in 5 years cause teams can't contain themselves.

I have worked for businesses where the union and the business worked in concert together well to provide the best possible environment for both. The most realistic situation were something like this suggestion to happen is that the league would "plant" a new NHLPA, in order to "negotiate" terms, and maintain the salary cap, draft, etc.

The player-based league would never work. Think about the WHA for a second. Now think about how badly it failed. The NHL was 12 teams when the WHA was created; the WHA was just as big as the NHL team-wise. the NHL has 30 teams now, there's no way a "new WHA" could manage that many markets and have as much talent as the NHL. They couldn't even pay high-end European players; they'd be NHL or KHL still. Which leaves NA players. Maybe half as many teams if you can find ownership. And then you have to find markets. Where do they go? Balsillie probably gets in an puts one in Hamilton. Toronto, Montreal/Quebec, New York, Detroit, Seattle, Houston, Kansas City, where else?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 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.