View Single Post
05-14-2013, 12:48 AM
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,805
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
The salary cap isn't the great equalizer the league makes it out to be. Unfortunately you still need to generate revenue to cover the salary. That means that certain markets, such as Philadelphia, NY, Boston, Toronto, have a distinct advantage when it comes to profitability. This allows them to spend to the cap freely, and at levels that would make small market teams cringe. The salary cap helps offset this, but as we've seen since the last lockout, the cap will continue to rise.

The Oilers might be making a profit now, and have been for the previous 6 years or so but that does not guarantee that this franchise will continue to profit. Our salary has been kept quite low during the rebuild, and as you should know, profit is what's left over after your costs have been covered by your revenue. Costs include salary.

To illustrate a point, if the Oilers right now in Rexall are making a $10M profit with a $40M payroll and the salary cap is raised to $50M, that means if they want to compete with the other teams such as Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago or Boston, they have a couple options: Use the model the EIG used, IE field a bunch of players with the most bang for the buck and watch as talent leaves as we wallow away in 1st round purgatory, or spend to retain that talent and remain competitive. If we don't move forward, eventually the cap floor will be unprofitable.

And that's what this all really comes down to. This notion that Edmonton is some lucrative money-making market where you make money hand over fist is a delusion. We're a small market that is still utilizing a 1980's NHL economic model that is just not sustainable now and assuredly not 10 years from now.

You might not like the idea that Katz has the control over all the revenue streams associated with this project, but that's just the reality for an NHL city in this day and age. No longer is the NHL a backwater 2nd rate league like it was in the 80's. It's becoming huge and it's going to be squeezing a lot of tiny markets like Edmonton's out in the very near future if things continue the way they are.

At the end of the day, it comes down to some very stark realities. Either the City of Edmonton as a whole ponies up for a good sized portion of the arena or the Oilers are literally on relocation notice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Katz cannot obtain a feasible economic structure suited to match the economic reality the present-and-future NHL, he'll sell the team. And he even said as much when he bought it off of EIG. That the future of the Oilers hinges on the construction of a new arena.

Edmonton has to decide if they want to move forward as a city with the Oilers as the NHL moves from a 2nd tier to a 1st tier sport. If you feel the Oilers are not worth having in Edmonton, then yeah the arena deal stinks. But all you're doing is damning this city to a slow death. Face it, the Oilers are the biggest thing Edmonton has going for it. And for once the Oilers and the new arena are poised to offer more than just a world class arena, but a catalyst for modernizing the city as a whole. It's really a great time to be an Edmontonian because backwards anti-progress thinking such as yours and others on this board are on the way out after 30 long years. Can't wait, personally.
Complete fallacy.
Recommend you read the following:

Page 11:
The Edmonton Oilers are a good example of how a small Canadian market with a high level of interest in hockey can be a better location for a team than a large American city whose residents have only a middling level of interest in the game. All else being equal, a team located in a big American market such as Phoe- nix, Miami or Atlanta should have nothing but ad- vantages when compared to a small-market Canadian team. But all else is not equal. A Canadian city of just over one million has far more hockey fans than a Sun Belt city of more than four million. (See Table 4)

Page 13:
Our analysis controls for the border and we come to a different conclusion: a team’s ability to generate revenues correlates strongly with the population of its home market—so long as you control for the presence of the Canada-US border.

Toronto is a more profitable market than Ottawa and New York is a more profitable market than Buffalo. But a small Canadian city the size of Edmonton is a more profitable market than a big Sun Belt city the size of Atlanta. Levitt, in effect, concluded that because Edmonton is a more profitable market than Atlanta there is no correlation between the size of a city and its profitability; instead he should have concluded that being a Canadian city—even a small one—makes a team much more likely to be profitable.

• Canada’s six NHL teams are only one-fifth of the NHL’s 30 fran- chises—yet Canada generates nearly a third of the league’s rev- enues.
• Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa are three of the smallest markets in the NHL, yet these franchises enjoy arena gate revenues that exceed almost every American franchise.
• The rights to broadcast NHL hockey are the most important deals in the Canadian television market. In the US, the NHL does not even have a proper national network TV deal.

Oh ya, and the rinks in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver were built by private investment.

Don't be so naive to think this is as simple as a 'progress v no progress' issue. Scary when uninformed people buy into simple, manipulative P.R. Without the benefit of looking deeper into the heart and reality of the issue.

Last edited by Behind Enemy Lines: 05-14-2013 at 01:00 AM.
Behind Enemy Lines is offline