Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-18-2012, 04:25 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
Thing is, from NHLPA perspective, more teams=more jobs. Fair enough.
As for NHL, while people complain about Bettman on lower market teams, it's a LONG term plan. There's now hockey players coming out of california. The sport is trending upwards. Perhaps not as fast as they hoped but for the good of the game a contraction isn't a good thing. Those teams are necessary for the long term growth. Short term? Yah, they cause problems but if NHL looks short term and doesn't try and grow the sport they will lose more and more ground in the US. A lot of people think adding canadian teams will increase revenues, absolutely true but CDN$ aside there's another issue. People in winnipeg will watch the NHL either way, they will buy merchandise and they will likely even do road trips to say calgary or whatever to watch games. They aren't lost costumers. if you can get a fanbase in nashville(which they appear to have done) you gain new fans and gain more ground. That's the NHL's plan. Long term I agree but short term there's issues for sure.
It's a very good long-term plan, but it also negates the posts of some of the pro-owner types that each of the 30 teams is entitled to a profit.
Currently, with very limited revenue sharing, the league makes a total operating income of 160 million, and the majority of the teams are profitable. In light of the fact the league is in aggressive expansion mode rather than mature steady state, with 6+ teams in locations with no hockey history, that's a healthy income stream.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion