HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

The NHL should disband, start anew smaller

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2004, 11:58 PM
  #26
Reilly311
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
Didn't the Sens actually give their players IOU's one week during the season? Didn't they have to "Save the Sens" in Ottawa? The owner was begging people to go to games.


Anyway, if the NHL were to disband and owners wanted to start a new league, there wouldn't be any canadian teams in it cause well, the the money is worthless.


Even if canada started it own league and it only had Canadian teams in the league, it coudln't compete financially with the American teams and all the good players would play in the states cause of the money.

Reilly311 is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 01:57 AM
  #27
Jets4Life
Registered User
 
Jets4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 647
vCash: 500
The NHL could take drastic measures if the lockoout is not resolved by next summer. Shutting down the league, and opening say...the NHA (National Hockey Association) is looking like a much better idea as time passes. This has happened before.

In my city, one of the leading trucking companies had their workers go on strike. For days, workers picketed. Then one fateful day when the workers showed up to picket, the place was closed down. the next day, the trucks were repainted to read the new name of the company. The company had ceased operations for a day, then reopened as a entirely new company.

The employees lost their jobs for good, since the company they worked for no longer existed. If a business is losing tons of money, and the workers are not willing to agree to paycuts, or layoffs, why not take drastic measures? it may be the only way pro hockey will resume!

Jets4Life is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 12:29 PM
  #28
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reilly311
Didn't the Sens actually give their players IOU's one week during the season? Didn't they have to "Save the Sens" in Ottawa? The owner was begging people to go to games.


Anyway, if the NHL were to disband and owners wanted to start a new league, there wouldn't be any canadian teams in it cause well, the the money is worthless.


Even if canada started it own league and it only had Canadian teams in the league, it coudln't compete financially with the American teams and all the good players would play in the states cause of the money.
I hate to admit it, but you are probably right! Realistically many top Europeans would have left the NHL years ago to play back in their homeland, but the money just doesn't cut it there. The saddest part of what you said is that all the good players would go to the States where yes there is more money, but the game by and large is lost on the American people.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 12:32 PM
  #29
JV
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: na
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,482
vCash: 500
Most of the essential facts are no longer in dispute. The most important of these is that rapid expansion into soft hockey markets in the US did not pay off in national (US) television exposure and money. There was the optimistic bump from ABC/ESPN, and now reality has reared its ugly head. There are two main sources of income that teams have to depend on: gate receipts and regional cable revenues. Teams without both of these generating significant amounts of money will always be on the verge of insolvency. Accordingly, if the goal is to have a league where every franchise is a healthy one, the NHL should contract to approximately 20 teams. If the lockout is a lengthy one, no less than two and perhaps as many as four to fold without the league "doing" anything. In the four year period thereafter, another four to six teams will drop off. There's no deal that both the owners and the NHLPA will agree to that will prevent this from happening.

The likely victims? Between four and six of the following: Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Tampa or Florida, NY isles, Atlanta, Nashville, Calgary, perhaps Ottawa, Washington and Buffalo.

JV is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 12:46 PM
  #30
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life
The NHL could take drastic measures if the lockoout is not resolved by next summer. Shutting down the league, and opening say...the NHA (National Hockey Association) is looking like a much better idea as time passes. This has happened before.

In my city, one of the leading trucking companies had their workers go on strike. For days, workers picketed. Then one fateful day when the workers showed up to picket, the place was closed down. the next day, the trucks were repainted to read the new name of the company. The company had ceased operations for a day, then reopened as a entirely new company.

The employees lost their jobs for good, since the company they worked for no longer existed. If a business is losing tons of money, and the workers are not willing to agree to paycuts, or layoffs, why not take drastic measures? it may be the only way pro hockey will resume!

The main problem with this idea is that the NHL is not a trucking company. It is a professional sports league and thus they have to operate like one. Doing something like that would kill any credibility that the league has left and would spell the end of any major sponsorship deals or even a potential deal with a major TV network. I know it seems cut and dry, but they have to work out this mess in the boardrooms. The owners are the ones who are taking all the risks, and yet the players are the game itself. A league simply cannot exist without both these two on the same side.

You don't have to look back that far, to see that the players were getting screwed with their contracts even up to the mid 80's. Now it has completely reversed itself. Early 80's a top goalie could expect $150,000 - $200,000 a year. Now they can expect $6-$9 million per year. Don't bother with the " yeah but it was all relative the cost of living in those days " post, because it simply is not true. Today the greedy owners are Dr. Fankenstein and the players are the monster he created. Any way you choose to look at it the monster is out of control and even the Dr. can't stop it. Now they are headed in opposite directions from one another and yet they say that the game cannot afford a work stoppage and that concessions have to be made for the good of the game. That is true, as long as neither side has to make those concessions. It's unfortunate that the game we all love, is ruled by lawyers and businessmen who see only the bottom line, but not where that money comes from...Us the FANS!

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 01:17 PM
  #31
The Kitner Boy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
Hm, I notice you finger Anaheim to be removed, but not LA. One team recently made it to the finals, the other can't even get into the playoffs. Interesting.

I'm seeing a pretty common mistake being made over and over in this thread: people equating attendance with financial stability. Just because a team has a loyal fanbase doesn't mean a damned thing, and if the current state of the NHL isn't fixed...sure, teams like Carolina and Florida will feel the pain..but you know who will feel it even worse? Edmonton. Calgary. Ottawa. Don't assume for one second that a lockout will cure the nasty expansion virus while allowing some sort of NHL-Darwinism to set in, making all the tried-and-trues happy. That's a nice dream, but a dream just the same. As a Nashville fan, I'm praying there's no lockout(for a variety of reasons,) but as small-market Canadian fans...I hope you're praying just as hard.
You just don't get it, do you? "The Canadian teams will be supported during a lockout."

I have no idea what that means, but that is what you see on this board constantly. Apparently fans in "hockey markets" will still go to the arenas and spend money even though there is just an empty sheet of ice.

__________________
I donít know whatís worse; that I dreamed about putting my ex-girlfriend in a woodchipper, or that I woke up with an erection. - Jim Norton
The Kitner Boy is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 01:19 PM
  #32
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JV
Most of the essential facts are no longer in dispute. The most important of these is that rapid expansion into soft hockey markets in the US did not pay off in national (US) television exposure and money. There was the optimistic bump from ABC/ESPN, and now reality has reared its ugly head. There are two main sources of income that teams have to depend on: gate receipts and regional cable revenues. Teams without both of these generating significant amounts of money will always be on the verge of insolvency. Accordingly, if the goal is to have a league where every franchise is a healthy one, the NHL should contract to approximately 20 teams. If the lockout is a lengthy one, no less than two and perhaps as many as four to fold without the league "doing" anything. In the four year period thereafter, another four to six teams will drop off. There's no deal that both the owners and the NHLPA will agree to that will prevent this from happening.

The likely victims? Between four and six of the following: Pittsburgh, Anaheim, Tampa or Florida, NY isles, Atlanta, Nashville, Calgary, perhaps Ottawa, Washington and Buffalo.
JV you are so right! I posted something similar yesterday on this thread. I was suggesting that certain changes are inevitable. There is a not a lack of talent in the league, but there is far to much non talent, which hurts the stars and ultimately the game. Those teams that are in non hockey markets have proven that they can make a run at the cup, and in Tampa's case they won the whole thing. The problem is that over time these markets cannot hold on. They do not have the local cable deals, they are not drawing enough fans, because in most of those markets, hockey is not even the fouth major sport, therefor they are not getting the gate receipts they need to keep the teams afloat.

Baseball has rebounded incredibly well since their labour dispute, that lost the season and the World Series. They went through some lean years, lost a lot of fans, and in doing so they realized that something had to change. Now you see that the last few teams that have opened new ball parks are making them smaller, making it more quaint, instead of those large cavernous buildings which are half empty most of the time. Smaller ball parks means more home runs, which equates directly to more fan interest and thus more gate receipts. I don't mean to go off on a baseball tangent here, but the reality is the same for all sports. Give the fans what they want and they will show up. Today sports teams mean big business, but in a lot of ways some real bonehead ideas, like how expanding into markets that are oblivious to hockey backfired, and set the league back 10 years. For the game to thrive there must be healthy franchises. Things need to change now.

The players are offering a luxury tax, well woop dee doo da! The teams that spend over a certain amount will be taxed, with the money going to the lesser lights as a form of revenue sharing to help keep them alive. Did you get that last part? ALIVE! Because there are 8-10 teams that are on life support and for the good of the rest of the league, someone has got to pull the plug! Those 10 teams constitute 1/3 of the NHL, so rather than make the teams viable, this luxury tax will just keep the teams afloat, and obviously the NHLPA will be happy because no jobs will be lost. If you cut out those teams, that means 30 players lose their jobs x 10 and those are numbers the PA cannot swallow. On the flip side, those are numbers the would make this a much better league and would make the most sense.


Last edited by Puckhead: 09-11-2004 at 07:47 AM.
Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 02:00 PM
  #33
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life
The NHL could take drastic measures if the lockoout is not resolved by next summer. Shutting down the league, and opening say...the NHA (National Hockey Association) is looking like a much better idea as time passes. This has happened before.

In my city, one of the leading trucking companies had their workers go on strike. For days, workers picketed. Then one fateful day when the workers showed up to picket, the place was closed down. the next day, the trucks were repainted to read the new name of the company. The company had ceased operations for a day, then reopened as a entirely new company.

The employees lost their jobs for good, since the company they worked for no longer existed. If a business is losing tons of money, and the workers are not willing to agree to paycuts, or layoffs, why not take drastic measures? it may be the only way pro hockey will resume!
Because there isn't a huge supply of equivalent hockey players like there are truckers. For the customers of that new trucking company there would be little difference in the product.

If the NHL were to do that, there would be a massive difference in the quality of the product. They'd be selling a Kia quality product at a Rolls Royce price.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 03:17 PM
  #34
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
Those teams that are in non hockey markets have proven that they can make a run at the cup, and in Tampa's run the won the whole thing. The problem is that over time these markets cannot hold on. They do not have the local cable deals, they are not drawing enough fans, because in most of those markets, hockey is not even the fouth major sport, therefor they are not getting the gate receipts they need to keep the teams afloat.
How can you judge a market's long term viability when a team has only been there a dozen or so years? You need to read cw7's post above about patience. Everyone wants to use the "oh, it's a failure" excuse for southern teams when most haven't had a chance yet to succeed. Here's a good article about the possible impact of a lockout on newer teams. It's from February, but still makes some good points:

Quote:
For these teams to take hold, they need time to develop traditions, which in sports is associated with competing and ultimately winning.

That's why you can't measure the impact and viability of such an aggressive expansion program in a mere six-to-12-year time span. It is all still too new. The Lightning experience in Tampa has proven that organizations have to be given time to mature -- which includes enduring lean years competitively and management missteps.
Fans of older teams need to remember, the owners of those teams were quick enough to grab the expansion fees which helped cover their own expenses. I don't think any of them said no to their share of $50 mil for each new team, it's up to ALL of them to make things viable now.

And what team doesn't have a local cable deal?

Sotnos is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:02 AM
  #35
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos
How can you judge a market's long term viability when a team has only been there a dozen or so years? You need to read cw7's post above about patience. Everyone wants to use the "oh, it's a failure" excuse for southern teams when most haven't had a chance yet to succeed. Here's a good article about the possible impact of a lockout on newer teams. It's from February, but still makes some good points:



Fans of older teams need to remember, the owners of those teams were quick enough to grab the expansion fees which helped cover their own expenses. I don't think any of them said no to their share of $50 mil for each new team, it's up to ALL of them to make things viable now.

And what team doesn't have a local cable deal?

How much time is enough in your estimation? Are we supposed to sit here as hockey fans and hope and pray that the fans in these cities just wake up to Hockey one morning? Frankly, I am not interested in making everybody happy, all I want is a healthy league, and a good product to watch. The people in charge have bastardized much of what hockey was, just to try a get people in the States to take notice of the sport. Again, I do not want to stereotype, but by and large the American fan knows nothing about Hockey and rather than learn about the sport, they want to change it into something else.

"I can't follow the puck" - Oh you mean that black thing on the white ice.

"I know, lets make cool laser beams follow the puck around, that would be cool" - This is not a video game, this is part of the fabric of our country.

I do not mean to sound condescending, that is not my intention, but I can't tell you how frustrating it is to hear things like this. Furthermore we have make exceptions for them because without the States the game would be lost. That is a painful reality that regardless of what may be said to the contrary, it cannot be denied. I understand things have to change with time, but the people in charge...NO! not the board of governors or Gary Bettman, or Bob Goodenow, I mean ESPN, want to change the game into a novelty item, so that they can attract a few fans. They take for granted that the sport is heaped in traditon and that maybe we don't want these changes, which may not even work by the way. They use hockey as if it were a practice sport, to test their theories on how to attract fans or widen their viewership. I liken it to the plot from Eddie Murphy's "Trading places" where two all powerful brothers make a bet for $1 to test a theory, with no regard for the disaster it may cause to those involved. Jim Kelly, a prominent hockey writer from Buffalo has always maintained that "the game is wasted south of the border", because not enough people care. He is American, he is not commenting against the people of the United States, but rather is just stating the facts. If that can be said about some so called hockey markets, what does it say about the non-hockey markets? I would love nothing more than for this great game to flourish all across North America, but not at the price of losing what they game was built on.


Last edited by Puckhead: 09-11-2004 at 08:40 AM.
Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 01:27 PM
  #36
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
"I can't follow the puck" - Oh you mean that black thing on the white ice.
Real hockey fans can follow the puck on the radio.

I think worrying about the southern markets is shortsighted. The billionaires who invested a hundred million dollars for a team in those markets think they can reproduce Colorados success if they develop a winner. Me too. I dont think fans of southern teams should be at all worried about attendance while they are developing. Even here in Ottawa, Hockey Country, we had the same problems. I think you can overcome them just as we did if you are patient and do it right. Pay no heed to those calling for contraction. Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota are great markets on the right path.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 10:40 PM
  #37
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
I think instead the NHL should fold and then restart as a 45+ team league. Have a European conference or something. Put a salary cap at $15 million so every team can afford it.

I want the NHL in more markets, not less.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 01:44 PM
  #38
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Real hockey fans can follow the puck on the radio.

I think worrying about the southern markets is shortsighted. The billionaires who invested a hundred million dollars for a team in those markets think they can reproduce Colorados success if they develop a winner. Me too. I dont think fans of southern teams should be at all worried about attendance while they are developing. Even here in Ottawa, Hockey Country, we had the same problems. I think you can overcome them just as we did if you are patient and do it right. Pay no heed to those calling for contraction. Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota are great markets on the right path.
I think not worrying about the southern markets, is short sighted. Gary Bettman says lets not worry about how we got to this point ( the labour problems ), lets just concentrate on fixing the game now. Well Gary, if a little more thought was given before handing out a franchise to every city with beach front property, yeah we wouldn't have to worry about how we got here, because we may have averted the current problems. The real problem with the States in general, and more specifically the southern states, is that the NHL has not given those fans the chance to grasp the sport. It trickles down from the teams themselves. Rather than teach the game to these new fans, they just give them enough to like their team. Being a fan means more than watching your team, it means learning the game, knowing the players, and being aware of other teams aroung the league. The Broadcasters are lacking, as are the colour man, the beat writers, many of these people don't know enough about the sport to be in a position to comment. The American people are not stupid, nor is the sport of Hockey to complex. You need to teach the game and get them to buy into the NHL, before they truly buy into the Blue Jackets, or the Thrashers.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 02:12 PM
  #39
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
I think not worrying about the southern markets, is short sighted. Gary Bettman says lets not worry about how we got to this point ( the labour problems ), lets just concentrate on fixing the game now. Well Gary, if a little more thought was given before handing out a franchise to every city with beach front property, yeah we wouldn't have to worry about how we got here, because we may have averted the current problems. The real problem with the States in general, and more specifically the southern states, is that the NHL has not given those fans the chance to grasp the sport. It trickles down from the teams themselves. Rather than teach the game to these new fans, they just give them enough to like their team. Being a fan means more than watching your team, it means learning the game, knowing the players, and being aware of other teams aroung the league. The Broadcasters are lacking, as are the colour man, the beat writers, many of these people don't know enough about the sport to be in a position to comment. The American people are not stupid, nor is the sport of Hockey to complex. You need to teach the game and get them to buy into the NHL, before they truly buy into the Blue Jackets, or the Thrashers.

I think you're asserting things without really knowing the background, though. A lot of the markets that people are quick to write off...have only had hockey for a shade over five years! Having spent a large chunk of my life in Nashville, and coming up through the Nashville hockey program...I can honestly say that since the Predators came to town, hockey is up BIG TIME in the youth. When I started playing in Nashville at the age of nine(after having played for 3 years in my previous home in upstate New York,) the youth hockey program existed only due to the affluence of the sport and the fact that the Saturn plant had transplanted a great many midwesterners to the area. By the time I was playing high school hockey(the Predators came to town my junior year), it had grown..but not substantially. However..in the six years since...I'd say the youth hockey(both ice and in-line) has more than quadrupled. The younger kids had a team to follow and players to emulate. For a while, you couldn't go in a sporting good store without seeing toddler-sized Ronning and Walker jersies..and even now, there's a popular season ticket holder who is no more than six..and wears a Sully(from monsters inc) costume to every game with his Sullivan jersey over it. That's the key. Expecting a bunch of never-been-exposed to hockeys to convert overnight is unrealistic. However..reaching the youth..getting them to love\understand\play hockey is not only realistic but it's the current situation. And what happens then? Their parents get into watching them play..and end up taking them to more hockey games. And from there? Their friends and THEIR parents get into it, as well. At the rate that kids are starting to play hockey in the Nashville area at all ages...some patience is due to Nashville..because if the current labor situation straightens itself out...in another 5-6 years..you could see hockey as second only to football in Nashville. And while I speak of Nashville, since it's what I know..I'm sure the situation is similar in other "non-traditional" markets. People are quick to write these markets off...but there was a time when cities like Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary and even Detroit that attendance was pretty dismal, as well. The on-ice product is improving..fans are being won...and in time, the results will be obvious.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 04:35 PM
  #40
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
I can grant you that the newer franchises do atleast deserve a chance, but the L.A Kings, Anaheim, Sharks, Panthers, etc...Have had their chance. Tampa, yes they won the Cup, and that is no small feat, and look poised to be a threat again, but for the betterment of the league, how can so many teams be just holding on? Is it worth it for the rest of the teams to have to agree to a revenue sharing option that will only keep these teams afloat? and not make them stable. The league needs to take steps, however harsh they may be if it helps the sport.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 04:39 PM
  #41
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
I can grant you that the newer franchises do atleast deserve a chance, but the L.A Kings, Anaheim, Sharks, Panthers, etc...Have had their chance. Tampa, yes they won the Cup, and that is no small feat, and look poised to be a threat again, but for the betterment of the league, how can so many teams be just holding on? Is it worth it for the rest of the teams to have to agree to a revenue sharing option that will only keep these teams afloat? and not make them stable. The league needs to take steps, however harsh they may be if it helps the sport.

but that's the point i keep making...you're under the illusion that it's JUST the southern\western teams that need revenue sharing. The Canadian teams that aren't called the Maple Leafs need it JUST as bad, if not more.

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 12:02 AM
  #42
Puckhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Behind you!!!
Country: Italy
Posts: 703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
but that's the point i keep making...you're under the illusion that it's JUST the southern\western teams that need revenue sharing. The Canadian teams that aren't called the Maple Leafs need it JUST as bad, if not more.
I understand that, and I agree with you. However, what the Canadian teams have that those aforementioned teams don't is a following, and an understanding of the game. Do you honestly believe that people in these American cities will actually be bothered by a work stoppage. They have so many other sports teams to watch, whereas in Canada, hockey is #1 regardless of what else is going on in that city.

Puckhead is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 07:46 AM
  #43
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
I can grant you that the newer franchises do atleast deserve a chance, but the L.A Kings, Anaheim, Sharks, Panthers, etc...Have had their chance. Tampa, yes they won the Cup, and that is no small feat, and look poised to be a threat again, but for the betterment of the league, how can so many teams be just holding on? Is it worth it for the rest of the teams to have to agree to a revenue sharing option that will only keep these teams afloat? and not make them stable. The league needs to take steps, however harsh they may be if it helps the sport.
Closing teams achieves two things

1. puts players out of work.

2. With more stars and good players to go around, and teams only having the same budgets, each teams players are going to have to share their pie with other talent players. This forces player salaries down.

Contraction: lower salaries and jobs out of work.
Cap/luxury tax: lower salaries and no job losses.

Which looks more logical for the NHLPA? Contraction is double lose-lose scenario for the NLPHA/players. And they know it. Its no coincidence that salary escalation and expansion happened at the same times.


Last edited by me2: 09-13-2004 at 07:50 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 05:21 PM
  #44
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Real hockey fans can follow the puck on the radio.

I think worrying about the southern markets is shortsighted. The billionaires who invested a hundred million dollars for a team in those markets think they can reproduce Colorados success if they develop a winner. Me too. I dont think fans of southern teams should be at all worried about attendance while they are developing. Even here in Ottawa, Hockey Country, we had the same problems. I think you can overcome them just as we did if you are patient and do it right. Pay no heed to those calling for contraction. Atlanta, Florida, Tampa Bay, Nashville, Columbus, Minnesota are great markets on the right path.
Well said, and thank you.

I love the assumption flying around in this thread that one must be born in Canada to understand hockey. Don't mean to be condescending, eh? Sure.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 07:42 PM
  #45
sabresfan65
Vote for Teppo!
 
sabresfan65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vegas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckhead
Jim Kelly, a prominent hockey writer from Buffalo has always maintained that "the game is wasted south of the border", because not enough people care. He is American, he is not commenting against the people of the United States, but rather is just stating the facts.
Not to be overly critical but his name is Jim Kelley, not to be confused with the former Buffalo Bills Quarterback named Jim Kelly. Just a small point that may have confused some people.

sabresfan65 is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 07:45 PM
  #46
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfan65
Not to be overly critical but his name is Jim Kelley, not to be confused with the former Buffalo Bills Quarterback named Jim Kelly. Just a small point that may have confused some people.

I was just wondering if he did a "Point\Counterpoint" with Scott "Norwide" Norwood

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
09-13-2004, 11:03 PM
  #47
capman29
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
vCash: 500
The owners cannot not just shut down the league and start a new one because to do that they have to file for bankruptcy and all records then become public and they must convince a judge and that would be next to imposible to do. Also if th bankruptcy was not chapter 7 then law suits would tie the owners up for years and they stll lose because all assets they have will be taken and sld tosatisfy tecreditors and others . So stop dreaming and go to spectors.net click on soapbox to have your eyes opened to what the real problem is .

capman29 is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 05:05 AM
  #48
Jets4Life
Registered User
 
Jets4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 647
vCash: 500
That website does not exist !!! :mad:

Jets4Life is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 09:21 AM
  #49
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,750
vCash: 500
Why is it that teams like Nashville is a bad market but Chicago, Boston, New York Islanders and New Jersey are good markets?

triggrman 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 03:50 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.