HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

An article from Pittsburgh on contraction issue

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-16-2004, 12:56 PM
  #51
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Nope. Just put in a salary cap. If fans feel their team has a chance to compete or build a winner in a short period of time it will increase interest and sales.

If fans see that they are continuously losing players because they cannot afford to keep established core players and stay under the salary cap, they will lose interest.

I do not buy into this premise.

A salary cap doesn't do anything at all to increase revenues to the NHL in the short term. It merely increases money to the owners decreasing it to the players. What happens in the long term is debatable. Its quite possible it could fail. The league right now is doing alright financially. Most markets are making big bucks. The game is competitive. Any market can win right now.

If all you want is the situation that any team can win any given year why not try this model? Every season the NHL re-drafts itself entirely? The team that finished last place last year gets first pick. Then last year's bad team could win this year if they are smart.

Or try this. We replace every game with a spin of a roulette wheel or a coin toss. Any given team can win on any given night.

How's this one? Any player nominated for a post season award will be re-assigned to a team chosen randomly in a draft lottery type system involving last season's non-playoff teams?

All of these accomplish your goal of making it so any team can win in any season.

All of them also will weaken fan support for the league. The more rediculous the solution the more fan support weakens.

Want to severly hurt some burgeoning franchises? 5 years from now let Atlanta decide how to keep Kovalchuk and Heatly and stay under the salary cap. Let Tampa Bay decide which of St Louis or LeCavalier they plan to cut loose. Thats not going to do anything to increase attendance in the non-traditional NHL markets. It will hurt it.


Last edited by CH: 03-16-2004 at 01:05 PM.
CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 12:58 PM
  #52
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Thats fine as long as there is somewhere to move. How much longer can failing teams move?

There is always somewhere to move. Houston, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City etc.

If one of those is a better market then an existing NHL market then a team should leave their worse market and move to one of them.

Better than holding down to quality of all the teams because the team in the bad maket cannot compete.

CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 01:16 PM
  #53
CH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 611
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
Thats the beauty part. You can put making money ahead of real fans.
There is no cow killing going on here. The NHL is already an old dried up cow put out to pasture. Im trying to bring in a new cow.

The NHL currently reports revenues around $2 billion a year. And you claim there is no cash cow?

What color is the sky in your world?

CH is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 05:16 PM
  #54
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iagreewithidiots
When you say "even more money" you make it sound like teams move because they want to make more money. Thats not the case. Most teams move because they cant make money where they are at.
Why do so many teams move in the NFL?

Norm Green and Harold Baldwin got the North Stars for $50 million in 1990 and sold it to Tom Hicks about five years later for $84 million. In Quebec Aubut bought the team in 1988 for $18 million and sold it seven years later for $75 million. In Winnipeg, Shenkarow got the team for a song, sold it for a huge profit to Burke and then Burke realized another huge gain by moving the team.

Poor Norm Green. Poor Marcel Aubut. Poor Barry Shenkarow. Oh boo-hoo. Poor Cal Nichols and the Edmon- oops, a little too early for that one.

It's all the fault of the players and the CBA. Nobody can own a hockey team and make any money at it today. Everybody has to be satisfied making a huge capital gain and so hockey is surely doomed. Oh, boo-hoo.

Hurrah for the NFL. Teams never move in the NFL. If there is an NFL system, Edmonton would survive forever and ever, amen. Just like Green Bay. Unless, of course, the owners can sell out for a huge capital gain to somebody who can make more money somplace else.

You might think that would hurt the owner's case, but the chumps can be convinced the capital gains had nothing to do with it. The poor team just couldn't make any money. If the Nordiques could have made even a reasonable return on the $18 million investment, Aubut would not have been interested in making a $57 million capital gain. In another life. In Idiot's cove on Fantasy Island.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 05:47 PM
  #55
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Norm Green and Harold Baldwin got the North Stars for $50 million in 1990 and sold it to Tom Hicks about five years later for $84 million. In Quebec Aubut bought the team in 1988 for $18 million and sold it seven years later for $75 million. In Winnipeg, Shenkarow got the team for a song, sold it for a huge profit to Burke and then Burke realized another huge gain by moving the team.
What does selling at team for a profit have to do with operating a team at a loss?

Is it not fair to say that if the teams were profitable in their original locations, with their original owners then it is likely that the teams would never have been sold or relocated in the first place?

copperandblue is offline  
Old
03-16-2004, 06:24 PM
  #56
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Is it not fair to say that if the teams were profitable in their original locations, with their original owners then it is likely that the teams would never have been sold or relocated in the first place?
What does selling a team at a profit have to do with an operating loss? Well, the first question is "How can a business that does not make a profit on operations sell for 5 times the purchase price?" The whopping capital gains should signal skepticism about the alleged operating losses, should they not?

Is it fair to say that if the team was profitable it would not have moved? Not if it could be more profitable elsewhere. That's why businesses move.

Give Aubut a great return on his money in Quebec, say 15% a year. Would you rather work and make $2.5 million a year or sell out for a capital gain of $57 million and not have to work for your millions?

Better yet, why not have a team that "loses" money despite a positive cash flow because there juicy non-cash expenses like player depreciation. The business returns a positive cash flow - the wallet gets fatter - and you have a big tax loss to offset income in another business making the wallet even fatter yet. Plus, you get the capital gains. That's win-win-win.

If you don't think that is possible, you have never worked for Arthur Anderson.

Tom


Last edited by Tom_Benjamin: 03-16-2004 at 06:29 PM.
Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
03-17-2004, 09:20 AM
  #57
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
What does selling a team at a profit have to do with an operating loss? Well, the first question is "How can a business that does not make a profit on operations sell for 5 times the purchase price?" The whopping capital gains should signal skepticism about the alleged operating losses, should they not?
It sells for 5 times the purchase price because a sports franchise is essentially a part of a larger whole.

If 5 times the purchase price is the going rate for a franchise in the NHL then that is the price. Irregardless of whether it was making money in Quebec or not.

I understand what your saying but the argument would only apply to a franchise that is sold but remains in the same market.

Even then you could ask if it is a case where the team was losing money but a new owner felt that he could simply do better. How many owners have Tampa Bay had? Or on a smaller scale, how many owners have the BC Lions or Toronto Argonauts gone through?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Give Aubut a great return on his money in Quebec, say 15% a year. Would you rather work and make $2.5 million a year or sell out for a capital gain of $57 million and not have to work for your millions?
If your franchise is making money and the franchise worth has increased 5 fold, then why not continue to make your money and sell your franchise 10 years later when the franchise has increased in value even more?

Then you have an additional 25 mil in profits to go along with your additional 30 mil in sale revenue. Potentially that 57 mil that was just made could have been 112 mil.

I don't buy it.

copperandblue is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.