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.

An interesting idea for the NHL (MOD: relegation)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2011, 12:31 AM
  #51
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
The current trajectory is increasing revenues by almost double-digit growth since the lockout. There hasn't been a franchise that has folded in thirty-plus years. Movement has occured because a group of trained monkeys could have done a better job than the former owners of the Atlanta Thrashers."NFL-style" is a truly centralized league; your idea is about as far away from it as possible.Yet I can guarantee you it won't be an "open" league with promotion and relegation.
1. Double-digit growth...for whom? For Columbus? For New Jersey? For Phoenix? For Florida? For the Islanders? For Nashville?

2. So, by your logic the fact that a franchise hasn't folded in thirty-plus years means it can't ever happen again? You're right, a group of trained monkeys could have run the Thrashers better, the same can be said for the entire league. Do we need another labour impasse next year or the year after? No. Why is it happening? Because donkeys are running the league. Lockouts, strikes, work stoppages, impasses...they don't happen in places where smart business decisions are made.

3. The goal for the NHL should not be to copy the NFL because it's a completely different product. It's great that the NFL has reached dominance in the U.S. with it's closed system. The reality is, that same closed system will not allow the NHL similar success in those US markets. So what is the league to do? Force a situation that will never work, and isn't working? Or try something new that could actually work at winning over fans who, for decades now, have not bought into what the NHL has been trying to sell? The answer is obvious.

4. You can't guarantee anything in this environment, nor in the one I'm proposing. But I'll you what. With the idea I'm putting forward the NHL product becomes a heck of lot more enticing to folks who could give two ***** about the league today. And if that isn't the goal, then I don't know what is.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 12:39 AM
  #52
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 24,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
It's only "madness" until it is tried, and it works. Every idea under the sun began with naysayers proclaiming "madness". Luckily that didn't stop the mad from touting their ideas anyway.
If the best argument for doing something is that "historically, there have on occasion been some crazy ideas that worked", then it's probably not a great idea.

Come up with a business case that doesn't rely on "one time a crazy idea worked", and then you might have something that's defensible.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 12:48 AM
  #53
GreatStateofHockey
Registered User
 
GreatStateofHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 1,127
vCash: 500
Would spell doom for the NHL.

In My opinion, 30 teams is still too many.

GreatStateofHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 12:59 AM
  #54
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Every idea under the sun began with naysayers proclaiming "madness".
You are of course familiar with the fable of Icarus?.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Because donkeys are running the league. Lockouts, strikes, work stoppages, impasses...they don't happen in places where smart business decisions are made.
The NHL is hardly headed by Eeyore' & Heffalumps kward. All of those cities & locations you cite have challenging & unique problems that can be & or either have been or are being straightened out. You are apparently convinced as well that theres going to be a work stoppage when in fact most forward thinking prognosticators suggest the reverse. Look, the NHL isnt pretending its the NFL, they dont have the benefit of those billions and never will. Hockey, the NHL brand, is an acquired taste. Overall, under Gary Bettman, Id say they've done a pretty decent job of it. Far from perfect, and Im incensed by some of the moves, but on the whole?. On balance?. Not shabby. Not shabby at all.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 01:12 AM
  #55
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ok. How much do they pay, the AHL & ECHL teams, maybe even some places sans any team at all, like Vegas or Atlanta?. With the former the difference between an AHL & NHL franchise?. You think St.Johns is gonna cough up $180M (based on todays franchise avg. of $200M)?. Abbotsford?. They dont have that kind of money, the buildings to make it in, the fan base, sponsors etc. So what happens to them?.

2) The NHL isnt "inferior" to the NFL. Its a totally different game, riff. Some people like RadioHead, some people like Lady Gaga. Its not a case of one being superior to the other & never the twain shall meet. Most people like both. Some dont. Good music is good music regardless of the genre'. Same thing applies to sports.

3) Thats the AHL's problem. If the Montreal Canadiens' are stupid enough to plant there farm team smack dab in the middle of whats Leafs territory then dont be surprised if attendance is anemic. Why bother with the AHL at all when you live in a major market & have big league tastes?. People in Southern Ontario brought up with the NHL. Ask the Marlies about that one?. The only reason the Chicago Wolves were successful was because of Wirtz blacking out the Hawks for decades & Chicagolanders like there TV hockey fix. The Phantoms moved on, most do that share a market with the NHL and for very good reason. How long Abbottsford survives is anyones guess.

4) People "climb mountains", go heli-skiing, base-jump, para-glide, golf, whatever because there participatory sports, some pushing the envelope so they can push themselves, adrenalin junkies. Comparing those activities to spectator sports is night & day. You dont generally have 18,500 clapping & going nuts when youve just skied a solid ice 90 degree pitch, taken 5 strokes off your golf game, bested your mile run average in competing in a triathalon. The only one who knows about it or cares is you, your friends & family, and depending on whatever your doing, they could well think your just nuts with the usual "WOW, your a God!" tossed atcha like a Milkbone.

5) NCAA is popular because a lot of folks went to the Universities & Colleges or know people who did, a touchstone to their pasts, a source of pride to their regions. Professional sports cannot replicate the decidedly amateur status of NCAA or CIAU, College or High School sports. Its an entirely different different animal. There is no "yet" about it, ever, and plenty of "nyet's"...

And yes kward, if this was 1926 and you were a member of the ownership groups in the old NHA looking at dropping a bomb on Eddie Livingstone, busting loose & forming a new pre-eminent pro hockey league then sure, perhaps we could look at a fully integrated system of relegation & promotion, but probably NOT. In business, theres no room for benevolence and magnanimity. You win or lose and want matters expedited quickly, efficiently, ruthlessly if necessary. Im all for teams in Birmingham, returns to Atlanta & Hartford, QC, Hamilton especially, Seattle & Portland. Through Expansion and if necessary, Relocation. Absorption, relegation & promotion is simply not a practicable option.
1. You have to stop thinking about franchise valuations as they currently exist in the backwards system the pro leagues currently operate under. What I am suggesting is not to have teams in BF Nowhere pay NHL roster fees, and try and compete with the current economic condition.

What I have said, time and again, is make the NHL the over-arching umbrella and allow any and all teams to enter, competing at whatever payroll they can afford, whatever building they can afford, whatever model they can implement that allows them to operate in the black.

Of course expecting every team to be folded into the current NHL way of doing things would be crazy, so that's why I am not suggesting that. The NHL product as of today is broken, that's why I advocate a free market approach that lets places like Phoenix and Florida price their tickets, buildings, etc etc at prices their local market will bear.

I do not advocate the NHL rolling into St. John's and do its current dance of forcing new markets to adhere to ridiculous corporate box requirements, and arena requirements and and and. No. That model clearly doesn't work as we're seeing.

Every market competes at the financial reality they find themselves in, they don't force a over-expensive model on an unwilling fan-base. They price their product at whatever their local market will bear and compete against other teams that are competing at similar price points.

2. If you're talking about from an emotional standpoint, sure the NHL and NFL exist in harmony, and each has their fans. However, this forum is about the business that tangibly exists, and in business terms the NFL is much healthier than the NHL. Does that mean the NHL ought to copy what the NFL is doing? No, because they are very different products. But can the NHL reach the same level of economic dominance as the NFL? Yes, if they figure out a way to grow the game across all of the US. The ideas I am proposing are toward that end, and a better idea than the status quo.

3. The AHL's problem? I'm talking about doing away with the AHL entirely, and if teams fold, they fold, others will fill the void left by failed business models.

4. You missed my point entirely. The reason people climb mountains? The old saying...because they are there.

5. Of course the pro leagues can't replicate the college game, it is a different animal. So does that mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater, and toss away things like a 64 team tournament because college does it? That answer makes no sense.

I'm not expecting people to feel the same way about pro sports as they do about college, I'm saying the NCAA has hit upon a very marketable method of drawing fans even outside their alumnus to their sports teams. This is about business, not emotion.

I grew up in Canada, and never went to an NCAA school, but I love March Madness. Many people who did not go to an NCAA school find the March Madness tourney to be great entertainment value. It will take a splash like that for the NHL to win over all the markets necessary to reach the level of cultural significance it supposedly wants in the southern United States.

6. The system of tiers and promotion and relegation are not practicable in the current climate. You are correct. That is why I also advocate the adoption of free market economics by the NHL and allow any and all market places to compete under the NHL umbrella. Yes, that umbrella can include teams that charge $80 for nosebleeds, and teams that charge $8 for premium seats. Will they play in the same tier, no? But will they operate in a system that allows them to customize their business model for the market place they inhabit? Absolutely.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 01:32 AM
  #56
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
If the best argument for doing something is that "historically, there have on occasion been some crazy ideas that worked", then it's probably not a great idea.

Come up with a business case that doesn't rely on "one time a crazy idea worked", and then you might have something that's defensible.
I have come up with a "business case", I have spelled it all out. It is defensible, I have defended at great length in these forums. It remains a great idea. But instead of debating its relative merits some would rather put up their hand and call it "madness". I responded in kind, which does not mean said response is my sole selling point. If you've read any of my other posts you'll see what the key selling points are, in my opinion.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 01:45 AM
  #57
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheZibanejad View Post
Would spell doom for the NHL.

In My opinion, 30 teams is still too many.
The NHL in its current iteration is doomed anyway. I am proposing an idea that not only would turn things around, but would allow for immeasurable growth in markets that haven't been cracked in decades of blood, sweat, tears, and dollars.

You're right, 30 teams is too many in the context of the current system. I am asking that you change your paradigm and think outside the current NHL box.

There is room for expansion into any and all markets for hockey if you price it right for the local markets you enter.

30 teams is too many when you run a league with top-down decision making, and caps, floors, revenue sharing, etc. The reason it isn't working in all 30 markets is because it requires pretty much every franchise to practice the same economics regardless of the realities of each local market.

Hockey thrives in places where hockey is culturally relevant. That isn't news.

So what do you do? Do you try and force cultural relevance by jamming in a corporate friendly product in hopes of landing broadcast partners that will make the game culturally relevant into non-hockey markets?

No.

You turn non-hockey markets into hockey markets by listening to what the customers in that area are telling you, and by responding to that. Not by arrogantly insisting that you are relevant when you're not.

If the people of Phoenix are not filling their barn because the product is priced too high in relation to what else they deem important for their entertainment buck, then you meet the fans in the middle, and you start selling your tickets for prices that fill the empty seats.

If the lower ticket prices mean you cannot afford your current building, or location. You move to a building that you can afford based upon your revenue. If you still can't make money because your salaries are too high, you cut salaries to a level you can afford. If you still can't make money because of travel expenses, you cut spending to a level you can afford and yet still allows you to compete. If you can't cut spending to a level that allows you to turn a profit and compete, you fold, and someone else can rise in your place, and take a crack themselves.

Basically, you allow natural selection to work as it should. Hockey will grow by leaps and bounds with that approach combined with the other suggestions I've had, such as promotion and relegation, and the 64 team big dance at the end of the year.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 01:53 AM
  #58
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
I have come up with a "business case", I have spelled it all out. It is defensible, I have defended at great length in these forums.
Respectfully - no you have not, and no it is not.

All you have done is spewed a libertarian utopia, completely divorced from reality.

To which I am called to add:
Quote:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish 14-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
― John Rogers
You have given no rationale why the current NHL ownership, who are the only relevant parties here, would have any incentive to adopt such a structure.


Quote:
It remains a great idea. But instead of debating its relative merits some would rather put up their hand and call it "madness". I responded in kind, which does not mean said response is my sole selling point. If you've read any of my other posts you'll see what the key selling points are, in my opinion.
If it is such a great idea - why has no competing league sprung up based on it, and why has no pro sports league in NA ever adopted such a model.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 01:58 AM
  #59
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
The NHL is hardly headed by Eeyore' & Heffalumps kward. All of those cities & locations you cite have challenging & unique problems that can be & or either have been or are being straightened out. You are apparently convinced as well that theres going to be a work stoppage when in fact most forward thinking prognosticators suggest the reverse. Look, the NHL isnt pretending its the NFL, they dont have the benefit of those billions and never will. Hockey, the NHL brand, is an acquired taste. Overall, under Gary Bettman, Id say they've done a pretty decent job of it. Far from perfect, and Im incensed by some of the moves, but on the whole?. On balance?. Not shabby. Not shabby at all.
All "challenging & unique" problems go away when you start making money, operating in the black.

I am not saying the NHL is pretending it's the NFL. I am saying it arrogantly thinks its playing in the same ballpark, when it can't even get into the NFL or MLB's parking lot.

I'm not convinced there's going to be a work stoppage, I am saying negotiations will take place, and sabres will be rattled (insert Ryan Miller joke here). I am saying there is more than a few franchises in trouble because the league continues to promote a broken model. Even if they can get all 30 franchises healthy...huge IF...but even then, we as fans are missing out on an opportunity to bring the game to an even higher plane.

The NHL might be an acquired taste, but there are markets that can support teams, but don't have one because Bettman insists on forcing the same corporate model down the throats of every market. The NFL can get away with that for a host of reasons that deal with cultural relevance in many US markets. The NHL does not have that luxury in many US markets, and if they really want to crack that nut they need a fresh approach.

Atlanta can have a hockey team that will make money. But Bettman's idea of what an NHL city must have is what keeps hockey out of reach there. Same story for all the places Bettman claims he would like to see hockey thrive in. Again, price the product right, and no matter where it is...people will come.

Where you see a league and commissioner who is "not too shabby", I see a dog riddled with fleas.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 02:06 AM
  #60
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
Respectfully - no you have not, and no it is not.

All you have done is spewed a libertarian utopia, completely divorced from reality.

To which I am called to add:

You have given no rationale why the current NHL ownership, who are the only relevant parties here, would have any incentive to adopt such a structure.



If it is such a great idea - why has no competing league sprung up based on it, and why has no pro sports league in NA ever adopted such a model.
1. What are you talking about? I have defended my idea to the hilt. It's a great idea, but it does require outside the box thinking.

2. Libertarian utopia? Completely divorced from reality? Why, because "John Rogers" says so?

Do you know what reality is? It's the way things are...for now. Change is inevitable. The NHL must make changes or face marginalization. What I have proposed is bold, but that doesn't make it any less viable.

Instead of just calling my idea unrealistic, why don't you explain why this is so, and we can go from there?

The current NHL ownership? Some of them will want to protect the current model because they're making a killing while others falter. The owners who can't make money in the current system might be more amenable, especially if what I propose means they get to operate their team based on the economic conditions of the market place they inhabit, instead of based on what the dunderheads in an office tower in New York decree to be the case.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 08:31 AM
  #61
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
1. The "fringe markets" will support any team where an owner makes it cost effective enough for fans to do so. There is always a market, it's just a matter of figuring out what people will pay for your product, and going from there.

2. The NHL wouldn't be operating 60 or however many teams, they would simply be the league that contains the the tiers all the teams compete in. Each of those teams would be private businesses run by their respective owners. The league wouldn't own the teams. The AHL would be folded into the NHL umbrella, and its teams would be divided and slotted into Tier or Div 1, 2, 3, 4, whatever.

3. I fully understand the current problems. That's why I've been making the suggestions I have. I actually want to grow the game, as opposed to the NHL who just pays lip service to that idea. And revenue sharing is not growing the game, it is just diluting the profit pool. I'm saying don't share revenue with businesses that are in the red because it's an act that rewards bad management. If a team is in the red it's because donkeys are running it. Let the team fail if that's what needs to happen, and allow it to be bought up by someone who knows how to run a business. Even if that means changing the economics from Bettman's idiotic ideas of controlling venue, salary floors, etc.

4. Yes, what I am proposing is similar to English soccer. The amount of different champions in the Premier League means nothing to what I am proposing because since when does the EPL seed the top 64 teams in England and play them off in the span of a few weeks for the Championship trophy?

In the EPL you are the champion when you finish first in the league. I proposing each tier has it's own playoffs to determine that tier's champion. Then seed the best 64 teams on the continent and play single elimination knockout in April for the Stanley Cup. Will you always end up with the richest teams winning Stanley's mug? Maybe, but it'd be friggin' exciting as hell, and if NCAA basketball has taught us anything...anyone has a chance in a once gamer.

Follow that idea, and just watch the U.S. media go..."whoa...where did this come from"? They already love the NCAA Frozen Four in some media markets...this would be taking that idea to a whole other level. Talk about growing the game.
1. The fringe markets may support any team, it doesn't mean that they'll support a team enough for the League to get the TV deal it needs.

2. What's the point of this? Why would the NHL devalue it's teams by adding 30 more to it's umbrella?

3. Yeah -- let's look at the current problem -- sunbelt teams that still aren't able to draw fans. There's 2 reasons this is happening -- one is the cap circumventing deals, two is the lack of revenue sharing. Both can be fixed pretty easily. The NHL's idea of trying to grow the game is a lot better than yours, and they're putting their millions where their mouths are. You share revenue with businesses that are in the red, because they bring value to you by being in the league -- simple as that.

4. Essentially 3 champions in 20 years is NOT how you grow a league / interest in the game...

seanlinden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 10:14 AM
  #62
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Instead of just calling my idea unrealistic, why don't you explain why this is so, and we can go from there?
Because a change to include 64 teams in the Stanley Cup playoffs would require every single owner to approve that change...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The current NHL ownership? Some of them will want to protect the current model because they're making a killing while others falter.
Some? All owners, a unanimous vote, is required for this type of change
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The owners who can't make money in the current system might be more amenable, especially if what I propose means they get to operate their team based on the economic conditions of the market place they inhabit, instead of based on what the dunderheads in an office tower in New York decree to be the case.
It is the teams with less revenue that helped to cause a lockout. This is the system the lesser-revenue teams wanted: cost containment with revenue sharing.

What I don't get is "based on what the dunderheads in an office tower in New York decree to be the case". Almost every team that has entered every top-tier league over the past 30 years has had a requirement for both sponsorship dollars as well as a drive for season ticket holders. In your proposal, you want the NHL to neglect that requirement but still think that would elevate the NHL over the other three major leagues which would still hold that requirement?

I also don't understand why you think the NHL is dictating the economic conditions of the teams. If you are talking about the payroll cap and floor, then you have to directly review the vote that ratified the CBA back in 2005. It was the NHL's membership as well as the Players' Association that implemented this model.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2011, 01:17 PM
  #63
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
But instead of debating its relative merits some would rather put up their hand and call it "madness".
I'm not calling it "Madness", its an interesting & creative idea worthy of debate. The difference between an Armchair General and a real one is the guy in the chair thinks conceptually, the real one thinks conceptually & logistically, and unfortunately, conceptually, logistically, legally & practically youve thus far been unable to convince anyone of its viability. But I tip my hat to your passion and creativity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
The NHL in its current iteration is doomed anyway.
Ya, ya see kward?. Statements like this do nothing to bolster your credibility. Why is the NHL "doomed"?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
Where you see a league and commissioner who is "not too shabby", I see a dog riddled with fleas.
Obviously.... The NHL is far from perfect and I too have a shopping list of complaints, first & foremost in that they have been absolutely negligent in working cooperatively with expansion & relo'd franchises when it comes to fostering real growth of the game at the amateur entry levels, supplying financial & administrative assistance with individual ownership groups and community organizations in building arenas', setting up leagues, enjoining their official equipment sponsors in providing gear, working with the NHLPA and its Dreams & Goals campaign etc. A lot more munificence & benevolence, a lot less hubris & arrogance would be nice, but it is afterall a business, and unfortunately when left to the devices of miscreant ownership, some of the failures & flame-outs are to be expected, and it happens in all levels, all leagues. If a form of relegation & promotion were implemented, you'd see it a lot more often as the conditions in such a scenario would be absolutely supercharged, irresistible to every Rounder from Taos New Mexico to Portland Maine.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2011, 11:25 PM
  #64
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post
1. The fringe markets may support any team, it doesn't mean that they'll support a team enough for the League to get the TV deal it needs.

2. What's the point of this? Why would the NHL devalue it's teams by adding 30 more to it's umbrella?

3. Yeah -- let's look at the current problem -- sunbelt teams that still aren't able to draw fans. There's 2 reasons this is happening -- one is the cap circumventing deals, two is the lack of revenue sharing. Both can be fixed pretty easily. The NHL's idea of trying to grow the game is a lot better than yours, and they're putting their millions where their mouths are. You share revenue with businesses that are in the red, because they bring value to you by being in the league -- simple as that.

4. Essentially 3 champions in 20 years is NOT how you grow a league / interest in the game...
1. You have to stop thinking in terms of the state of the league now in relation to what it can or cannot attract for TV deals right now. Of course this is all hypothetical, but I'm saying if you put teams in many markets across all regions of the United States, and the game grows in popularity, TV deals will follow.

2. How would adopting a free market approach, and allowing new teams to enter at will going to weaken other teams?

3. You can't force a team into growth. You start the culture of subsidizing failure it never ends. You've misdiagnosed the real problems. I'll tell you the reason the sunbelt teams aren't making money...it's because they're trying to force a product that is too big, and too expensive into a market that either does not want to pay that much for it, or does not have the money to do so. Those teams can make money if you price the product right for the market they're in.

4. Are you psychic? You've decided that with my idea you'd wind up with 3 champions in 20 years? When I've advocated taking the top 64 pro teams and playing them off in a single elimination tournament for the cup? And you think that method will garner 3 different winners in 20 years? I hope you're not a math major.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2011, 11:37 PM
  #65
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grudy0 View Post
Because a change to include 64 teams in the Stanley Cup playoffs would require every single owner to approve that change...Some? All owners, a unanimous vote, is required for this type of changeIt is the teams with less revenue that helped to cause a lockout. This is the system the lesser-revenue teams wanted: cost containment with revenue sharing.

What I don't get is "based on what the dunderheads in an office tower in New York decree to be the case". Almost every team that has entered every top-tier league over the past 30 years has had a requirement for both sponsorship dollars as well as a drive for season ticket holders. In your proposal, you want the NHL to neglect that requirement but still think that would elevate the NHL over the other three major leagues which would still hold that requirement?

I also don't understand why you think the NHL is dictating the economic conditions of the teams. If you are talking about the payroll cap and floor, then you have to directly review the vote that ratified the CBA back in 2005. It was the NHL's membership as well as the Players' Association that implemented this model.
1. Yes, the changes I am proposing would require widespread support, dinosaurs included. I didn't say it will happen, I said it should. Revenue-sharing for this league is a dead end because hockey does not have the cultural significance required in too many markets to compete free of said sharing. The only way to build that significance is to start small...NOT start with a huge arena you can't fill, and million dollar salaries you can't pay since no one in that market cares to go see games.

2. Great, so there's been a requirement for new teams to have both sponsorship dollars, and season ticket holders. What if the teams entering came up with $50 in sponsors, and sold 4,900 season tickets in a 5,000 seat arena? Would you let them in? I would. Should the NHL lift such a requirement? Not necessarily. But if it did, would it mean the NHL could not ever hope to surpass the NFL, MLB, or NBA in total revenue? Yes. You seem to think the NHL has to follow the same closed business model as the other leagues in order to surpass them...I think otherwise.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2011, 11:52 PM
  #66
kward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
I'm not calling it "Madness", its an interesting & creative idea worthy of debate. The difference between an Armchair General and a real one is the guy in the chair thinks conceptually, the real one thinks conceptually & logistically, and unfortunately, conceptually, logistically, legally & practically youve thus far been unable to convince anyone of its viability. But I tip my hat to your passion and creativity.

Ya, ya see kward?. Statements like this do nothing to bolster your credibility. Why is the NHL "doomed"?...

Obviously.... The NHL is far from perfect and I too have a shopping list of complaints, first & foremost in that they have been absolutely negligent in working cooperatively with expansion & relo'd franchises when it comes to fostering real growth of the game at the amateur entry levels, supplying financial & administrative assistance with individual ownership groups and community organizations in building arenas', setting up leagues, enjoining their official equipment sponsors in providing gear, working with the NHLPA and its Dreams & Goals campaign etc. A lot more munificence & benevolence, a lot less hubris & arrogance would be nice, but it is afterall a business, and unfortunately when left to the devices of miscreant ownership, some of the failures & flame-outs are to be expected, and it happens in all levels, all leagues. If a form of relegation & promotion were implemented, you'd see it a lot more often as the conditions in such a scenario would be absolutely supercharged, irresistible to every Rounder from Taos New Mexico to Portland Maine.
1. Thanks, but I think you ought to admit one of the main reasons I can't convince anyone here is because once a debate ensues admitting the other person's idea could work is tantamount to admitting defeat for whatever stupid reason. I don't think my idea is great, I know it is. The fact I can't convince anyone here that it'd be a welcome change does not mean it's a bad idea, it means there are some posters here who need to think more outside the closed off 30 team cartel currently operating.

2. The "doomed" statement may sound melodramatic, but I believe a system that rewards mediocrity and bad business decisions is ultimately doomed to fail.

3. We may not agree on the result of adopting a promotion and relegation system, but I'll tell you, all of the things you listed that you wished NHL management would get more involved with are all things that in my opinion should be handled by people who live in those markets that need the kind of support you've talked about. Those people who are able to do that haven't been tapped as resources yet because the game remains under their radar in those outpost markets. Once you grow the game at the grassroots level, and yet under the NHL umbrella, you will get the game to the point where its reached the same cultural significance (even in southern markets) as baseball, football, and basketball. Impossible? I say no.

kward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2011, 01:01 AM
  #67
Grudy0
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kward View Post
You can't force a team into growth. You start the culture of subsidizing failure it never ends. You've misdiagnosed the real problems. I'll tell you the reason the sunbelt teams aren't making money...it's because they're trying to force a product that is too big, and too expensive into a market that either does not want to pay that much for it, or does not have the money to do so. Those teams can make money if you price the product right for the market they're in.
Ouch. I won't respond to other points...

It's been about 18 years since the evil NHL hired the equally evil Gary Bettman, who presided over the greatest southern migration since Canadian geese. Misdiagnosed the real problems? The Canadian teams from the start of Mr Bettman's term were showing the same apathy and revenue problems that one can see now in the NHL from the sunbelt teams. Franchises were lost in cities such as Winnpeg and Quebec, as well as from hockey-crazed Minnesota and Connecticut. Edmonton was darn near on the hit list. Imagine the horror when the Canadian teams were receiving money from the league in the form of the Canadian Assistance Plan. By 2001, every Canadian team other than Toronto and Montreal were having serious financial issues.

It's easy to sit high and mighty and wax poetic about how bad the state of the league is now because of a handful of teams.

It's always been that way.

Grudy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2011, 01:28 AM
  #68
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,263
vCash: 500
As much as I'd love Ann Arbor to have a pro hockey club that could one day surprise and win the cup, it's just a bizarre proposition, it wouldn't work, many hockey fans here are perfectly fine with the Wings and people in the deep south like Alabama just end up adopting Canadian teams. It's a cult sport followed by certain people and the number of small town squads, although perhaps a dream for us it is not economically feasible. The small town teams may win the cup once sure, but the odds of promotion thereafter are small because the markets are too small.

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:25 AM.

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.