View Single Post
Old
11-30-2012, 02:55 AM
  #126
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Toronto, Boston, Montreal, etc. are not making profits by "forcing" lesser teams to expend, not sure how you came to that conclusion. They make money because simply put they're in the handful of rare markets in North America where hockey can generate a high amount of revenue, period.

The players are the ones who win big, because Toronto/Boston/Montreal/etc. subsidize the entire NHL and inflate hockey revenue, but every player from the guys playing for Toronto to the guys on the Blue Jackets, Hurricanes, etc. benefit as the cap rises every year (taking the cap floor up with it).

If you're Toronto, what the heck is Columbus/Carolina/etc. doing for you? They could stop existing tomorrow and you'd still be making the same money.

This is a sweet deal for the players. 30 teams, maybe half pull a profit, but all the players are happy because they're getting their paycheques, and the teams not making money become desperate to pull a profit and are easy to be baited into overspending in a desperate attempt to raise attendance.
Incorrect. The last CBA created a structure with the floor and range which forced lesser teams to spend while capping the payroll expenses of the big guys. That was the tradeoff. I don't buy your argument and I don't think any of the owners (big market or little) would either.

KevFu made some excellent posts about how the floor/range was going to create havenots regardless of the number of teams.

The primary issue is that some of those lesser teams were actually not doing worse before the last CBA and in fact may have been doing better because they were not mandated to carry big payrolls. But there is no doubt that the payroll expense dropped for the big guys and their profits skyrocketed. And there is no doubt that some small markets suffered relative to the previous CBA because their payroll was mandated upwards beyond fiscal prudence.

Ostensibly, the lesser teams are creating a footprint for the league which generates merchandise sales in places where there wouldn't be any and generates the interest that draws a bigger TV contract. I won't argue that the expansion initiative has been completely successful at this point, but it is far from a complete failure. Both extremes of that argument are hyperbole.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote