View Single Post
12-04-2012, 04:43 PM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,530
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Big deal. Please, let us move on now. Franchises are overvalued, more specifically, struggling franchises are overvalued. And as you point out, 13 teams are operating at a loss.

As I have said many threads ago, there are too many teams playing in front of empty seats and this is the real underlying issue as to why Bettman and some owners are trying ever so hard to pinch as much as they can from the pie.

Like I have said in the past, the irony to the NHLPA's strong stance is that they will indirectly bring to open the real issues at the core - and the solution is one that holds even more consequences in the short term than if they had accepted the latest of offers. So what the NHLPA is really accomplishing is getting to the root of the problem, and for that, I applaud them.

Sure, an 2 extra teams in Canada can replace some jobs, but we have realistically a handful of teams that need to disappear to have a truly sustainable and functional league.
I've already refuted the myopic argument that contraction is a viable solution to the league's problems, but I'll do so again.

Currently, the four teams doing worst are ranked 27-30 in operating income. If you remove the 4 worst teams, the average revenue per team should go up and ... the teams now ranked 23-26 will be the 4 lowest teams and now struggling to keep up with the new, higher average. You'll be right back to square one. Will you suggest contracting those?

In today's NHL, you have parity of expenses simultaneously with disparity of income. As long as you have both, there will be successful teams and struggling teams. You can reduce the league to 10 teams and you'll still have 2 or 3 teams at the bottom that would "need to be contracted" if one follows this asinine argument.

At best, contraction might work if there are 1 or 2 teams that are outliers, in which case relocation works better anyway. For the vast majority of the teams, income and expenses are distributed smoothly and continuously, and are self-similar, thus contraction would solve nothing.

Last edited by DAChampion: 12-04-2012 at 04:52 PM.
DAChampion is online now