HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2012, 08:57 AM
  #901
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers16 View Post
I think this talk of the well off teams supporting the weaker ones is looking at it all wrong. The NFL has the most revenue sharing possible(pretty much all of it is added up and divided equally). There isn't a team in that league that doesn't make money, and every single franchise has gained value over the last 10 years. The only way that's been possible is with revenue sharing. Sure, some teams generate more, others generate less. But EVERY team gains value that way, and everyone wins.

This can work in the NHL as well.
You can't compare American Football to hockey in North America. You just can't.

And Bettman is off his rocker by continually comparing hockey to baseball.

This sport will NEVER be on their level. Its unfortunate, but thats just the reality. Hockey can not support 30 major professional teams in North America.

The league grew from 24 teams in 92-93 to 30. One of those six new teams already relocated.

There doesn't need to be 30 teams in this league. Especially not when several of them are barely surviving and either have no ownership, have an expiring arena lease and can't get a vote for a new one, are so far in debt is ridiculous, can't fill an arena while giving away free tickets.

So naturally they cry about not getting revenue sharing.

Again, why should teams that generate revenue and attendance and merchandise sales, and tv ratings on their own merit, have to fork over a percentage of their earnings to keep teams that have no interest from their local public alive.

No CBA is going to save the Coyotes. No CBA. No revenue sharing. No new ownership group. There is not enough interest in hockey there to support a major professional team. A junior team? Yes. An AHL team? Probably. An NHL team? Apparently not.

Same with the Panthers and several others.

Playoffs generate false attention for these clubs. Its not long lived. The Coyotes just got to the Western Conference Final. Will they be selling out games now? Especially after a lockout?

The league can support 24 teams successfully. Increasing chances of playoff births, increasing the level of talent on each team. Teams won't have to waste 4 million on Brandon Prust to fill a roster.

I know what about the players who don't make it. Thats why im not a huge fan of Junior hockey. Get a college education and a degree and have a career path to fall back on. Go look at other hockey leagues in Europe to further your playing career. Or lower level such as the AHL and ECHL.

For real hockey fans i never wish their team taken from them. But facing reality there is not enough interest in the sport or the teams in some places.

Those places should have lower level teams. AHL. ECHL.

If Atlanta had instead been awarded an AHL club, would that club still be there?

If Glendale had an AHL affiliate rather than the Coyotes, would there be such an issue?

If the Panthers were instead an AHL club would there be an attendance problem?

Smaller NHL. Larger AHL and ECHL?

Whatever. The new CBA and revenue sharing and division realignment are not going to solve the real issue: Theres not enough money and not enough interest and not enough real talent to support a 30 team league.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 11:39 AM
  #902
kovazub94
Enigmatic
 
kovazub94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
SSM, seriously do you think either side at this point would be interested in pursuing contraction? NHLPA definitely not as it would eliminate 300 professional contacts - players jobs at all levels - which means current and potential future members. Owners? Do you think remaining "surviving" 24 owners will be willing to fork out $800 m or so of cash or more than $30 m per to settle with the departing owners?

You have to accept that this is a 30 team league now.

kovazub94 is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 01:15 PM
  #903
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
When a thing can't continue....it won't.

Pizza is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 01:40 PM
  #904
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
SSM, seriously do you think either side at this point would be interested in pursuing contraction? NHLPA definitely not as it would eliminate 300 professional contacts - players jobs at all levels - which means current and potential future members. Owners? Do you think remaining "surviving" 24 owners will be willing to fork out $800 m or so of cash or more than $30 m per to settle with the departing owners?

You have to accept that this is a 30 team league now.
And he's going to have to accept that it will be a 32 team league in the future.

All this bs about North America not being able to support that many major pro teams is beyond ridiculous. What, exactly, makes Dallas a better place to support a hockey team than Phoenix? And how exactly does Dallas being able to support a team have any affect on whether or not Phoenix can?

The problems with almost every team in trouble have little to do with location and the ones that do have to do with location are not recent expansion teams. These teams are not victims of market. Every market needs to be handled differently, to be sure. But Florida is not naturally a worse market than San Jose.

Columbus is a victim of poor on-ice management. Even a marginally successful team in that market would have no problems.

Phoenix is a victim of a bad lease.

Florida is a victim of poor management, both on and off the ice (off-ice meaning things like promotions and marketing). Hopefully that's changing.

The two teams that I think might be victims of location are the Islanders and the Devils, although more so the Islanders. In the 70s, the economic atmosphere may have been conducive to a suburban hockey team in a market like NY. In modern times, who knows if that's really the case. I have doubts

And the Atlanta Thrashers were victims of a management group who didn't understand how to run a hockey team and, quite frankly, didn't care that much.

And you won't be able to name another team in trouble.

There are natural challenges to overcome in "non-traditional" markets, there isn't any doubt of that. But San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Dallas, St Louis, often Tampa Bay and more recently Nashville have all shown it can be done. So why not Florida, Atlanta or Phoenix? The whole premise is flawed.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 02:42 PM
  #905
NYRangers16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Westchester
Posts: 1,047
vCash: 500
And my point is that even if there were market issues that prevented a team from making enough to spend to the cap, revenue sharing really does fix this entirely. With enough revenue sharing, every team in the league should be able to make a profit. The NFL model works because guaranteed profits increase franchise values. That's the beauty of it.

Say Columbus only makes 30m through ticket sales/mechandise, etc. Even with bad management, if they get another 30m in revenue sharing, and the cap is 60m, they cut even. And if they do better at drawing crowds and on the ice then they can make a profit. Even the worst off NHL franchise can not only support spending to the cap this way, but can thrive if they are well managed. So the increased revenue sharing is key to the growth of hockey in the future(th same way it has been for the NFL). Now I'm not saying the NHL will ever have 7b in revenue but with enough revenuesharing they can stablize the bad markets and create an even financial playing field - and that's all you can ask for. Even a Florida, or a Columbus, or a Dallas can make enough, where with revenue sharing they should be able to spend to the cap. And then it just comes down to good management.

NYRangers16 is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 02:55 PM
  #906
StaalWars
TeaOrrCoffey
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,185
vCash: 500
I know this might sound ridiculous but I still remember exactly where I was when I first learned that the entire season would be cancelled back in the last lockout. I was in high school and I kept running to the computer center and checking espn.com between periods and I remember opening up the website and there was a tombstone on the front page with the words "NHL 04-05 season".

Still can't believe we might be going down that road again.

StaalWars is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 03:05 PM
  #907
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
And he's going to have to accept that it will be a 32 team league in the future.

All this bs about North America not being able to support that many major pro teams is beyond ridiculous. What, exactly, makes Dallas a better place to support a hockey team than Phoenix? And how exactly does Dallas being able to support a team have any affect on whether or not Phoenix can?

The problems with almost every team in trouble have little to do with location and the ones that do have to do with location are not recent expansion teams. These teams are not victims of market. Every market needs to be handled differently, to be sure. But Florida is not naturally a worse market than San Jose.

Columbus is a victim of poor on-ice management. Even a marginally successful team in that market would have no problems.

Phoenix is a victim of a bad lease.

Florida is a victim of poor management, both on and off the ice (off-ice meaning things like promotions and marketing). Hopefully that's changing.

The two teams that I think might be victims of location are the Islanders and the Devils, although more so the Islanders. In the 70s, the economic atmosphere may have been conducive to a suburban hockey team in a market like NY. In modern times, who knows if that's really the case. I have doubts

And the Atlanta Thrashers were victims of a management group who didn't understand how to run a hockey team and, quite frankly, didn't care that much.

And you won't be able to name another team in trouble.

There are natural challenges to overcome in "non-traditional" markets, there isn't any doubt of that. But San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Dallas, St Louis, often Tampa Bay and more recently Nashville have all shown it can be done. So why not Florida, Atlanta or Phoenix? The whole premise is flawed.

Don't you understand that the problem is that marginal markets don't or can't support teams in bad times? Is this rocket science? Right after expansion or when a team is going well is not the right time to judge if the city can support a team. Anyone can support a winning team. But with 30 teams each team only wins an average of once every 30 years. 54 year droughts will become commonplace. Hockey is far less popular than other sports in most of the US. Only the most stalwart cities can last. Less than 15 years ago people were crowing about how good of a franchise Dallas was. Now they had a hard time giving the team away.

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 03:18 PM
  #908
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
Don't you understand that the problem is that marginal markets don't or can't support teams in bad times? Is this rocket science? Right after expansion or when a team is going well is not the right time to judge if the city can support a team. Anyone can support a winning team. But with 30 teams each team only wins an average of once every 30 years. 54 year droughts will become commonplace. Hockey is far less popular than other sports in most of the US. Only the most stalwart cities can last. Less than 15 years ago people were crowing about how good of a franchise Dallas was. Now they had a hard time giving the team away.
Most cities don't support losing teams, financially, whether they are large market, traditional markets or not. Do you remember what Boston was like for the NHL just a few years ago? What about Chicago? Pittsburgh? Buffalo? Any of the small market Canadian teams when their dollar wasn't as high as it is now? It's a fair bit of revisionist history to saying that Dallas struggled to find an owner. What Dallas struggled to do was find an owner that past the far more discriminating and restrictive standards of the NHL BoG compared to previous eras. You can't blame the BoG, but Dallas was never really in danger.

What it sounds like you want is a group of teams that are like the Red Wings, Rangers, Leafs or Canadiens. Teams that make a boatload of money no matter the circumstance. That's simply not going to happen. Ever.

Besides, rocket science is actually quite a bit more straight forward than the business practices of large companies, which includes major professional sports teams.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 04:28 PM
  #909
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalGodAOD View Post
In 8 more years who knows, maybe the Flyers and Rangers will be in a dark time and need support from a market like Anaheim who became a contender and is experiencing high revenue. Fix the system, not the symptoms.
The Rangers missed the playoffs for seven straight seasons and sold out MSG throughout them. The Flyers had the worst record in the league in 06-07 and were seventh in total attendance and sold 98.9 percent of tickets that season.

It's a 30 team league. About 10 or more teams a season always need to be in or around the basement. Too many teams exist who can't be economically viable while they're not good. Trying to cater to them by cutting the cap way down just hobbles the league.

Like I said before, jack up the revenue sharing and leave the cap more or less alone. You're never going to see much in the way of profits outside of the big markets. You're never going to see the Panthers and the Coyotes generating lots of cash. It's not going to happen. If they want to ride the Rangers' economic coattails, then fine. Just don't try and drag the big markets down with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers16 View Post
I think this talk of the well off teams supporting the weaker ones is looking at it all wrong. The NFL has the most revenue sharing possible(pretty much all of it is added up and divided equally). There isn't a team in that league that doesn't make money, and every single franchise has gained value over the last 10 years. The only way that's been possible is with revenue sharing. Sure, some teams generate more, others generate less. But EVERY team gains value that way, and everyone wins.

This can work in the NHL as well.
You're way offbase. The NFL can afford to do that because the NFL generates a massive amount of money that dwarfs the other three big U.S. sports. They generate so much cash that they can share ALL revenue equally. Plus, you have smaller market teams with gigantic fanbases likes the Packers. You're not going to see that in hockey. At best, you'll see something similar to the revenue sharing systems in MLB or the NBA.


Last edited by Zil: 09-02-2012 at 04:33 PM.
Zil is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 07:03 PM
  #910
NYRangers16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Westchester
Posts: 1,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
The Rangers missed the playoffs for seven straight seasons and sold out MSG throughout them. The Flyers had the worst record in the league in 06-07 and were seventh in total attendance and sold 98.9 percent of tickets that season.

It's a 30 team league. About 10 or more teams a season always need to be in or around the basement. Too many teams exist who can't be economically viable while they're not good. Trying to cater to them by cutting the cap way down just hobbles the league.

Like I said before, jack up the revenue sharing and leave the cap more or less alone. You're never going to see much in the way of profits outside of the big markets. You're never going to see the Panthers and the Coyotes generating lots of cash. It's not going to happen. If they want to ride the Rangers' economic coattails, then fine. Just don't try and drag the big markets down with you.



You're way offbase. The NFL can afford to do that because the NFL generates a massive amount of money that dwarfs the other three big U.S. sports. They generate so much cash that they can share ALL revenue equally. Plus, you have smaller market teams with gigantic fanbases likes the Packers. You're not going to see that in hockey. At best, you'll see something similar to the revenue sharing systems in MLB or the NBA.
It's the same thing, on a smaller scale. The NHL made 3.3b last year. If you split that evenly each team would get 100m. A cap in the 60-70m range guarantees each team a minimum of 30m in profit.

The NFL has double the revenue and double the cap. But it's th same thing.

NYRangers16 is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 08:09 PM
  #911
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers16 View Post
It's the same thing, on a smaller scale. The NHL made 3.3b last year. If you split that evenly each team would get 100m. A cap in the 60-70m range guarantees each team a minimum of 30m in profit.

The NFL has double the revenue and double the cap. But it's th same thing.
its not the same thing...

first off the nfl has TRIPLE the revenue and its misleading to say that the cap is double cause nfl teams have 2.4 times as many players. nfl cap is $120 mil/55 players on the team ~ $2.2 mil/player. nhl cap of $64 mil/23 players = $2.8 mil/player. you can spend more per player in the nhl.

and your scenario would work if every team in the nhl made the same revenue. you are assuming $100 mil in revenue for every team. but the rangers and leafs made like $160 mil while the islanders made like $68 mil

the nfl tv deal is for $3.1 bil/year so every team gets about $97 mil just from the national tv deal, so before they sell a single ticket, merchandise, additional revenue sharing etc they have already covered 80% of their player cost if they spend to the cap...meanwhile the nhl tv deal pays each team $6.7 mil or 10% of their player cost if they spend to the cap. to make it the 'same' but on a 'smaller scale' that would mean the nhl cap should be like $9 mil so the tv deal covers 80% of it

the 2 are light years apart...

that said the mistake is trying to compare the nfl in 2012 to the nhl in 2012. what you need to do is compare where the nhl is now to WHERE the nfl WAS back when they put all the revenue sharing in place and all the things that they did to grow franchise values and get the tv deal they have. the nfl didn't make $9 billion in revenue overnight. the focus should be on the sacrifices that teams like the giants made years ago and how much that has paid off for them in the long run

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 08:44 PM
  #912
NYRangers16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Westchester
Posts: 1,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
and your scenario would work if every team in the nhl made the same revenue. you are assuming $100 mil in revenue for every team. but the rangers and leafs made like $160 mil while the islanders made like $68 mil
No, I'm taking total revenue of 3.3b and dividing it by 30 teams. That comes out to each team making 100m once divided up.

The reason why it works is that every team makes different amounts, this combines it all together. I know different teams made different amounts...in the NFL the Cowboys I'm sure made more than the Seahawks or Bucs. But the key is that every franchise is strong because every franchise gets an equal share.

Quote:
that said the mistake is trying to compare the nfl in 2012 to the nhl in 2012. what you need to do is compare where the nhl is now to WHERE the nfl WAS back when they put all the revenue sharing in place and all the things that they did to grow franchise values and get the tv deal they have. the nfl didn't make $9 billion in revenue overnight. the focus should be on the sacrifices that teams like the giants made years ago and how much that has paid off for them in the long run
That's exactly what I'm saying. The NFL has grown tremendously over the last decade due to this arrangement. If they didn't have 100% revenue sharing plenty of their franchises would have been in trouble(like the NHL has now). The NFL, by agreeing to evenly split revenue among all 32 teams ensured that each one turned a profit and also ensured future growth of the sport.

So we agree on this...I don't know how you missed that this is exactly what I'm saying.

But the key is for the NHLclubs to adopt the same model, because that is a big part of the NFL's success.

NYRangers16 is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 09:46 PM
  #913
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovazub94 View Post
SSM, seriously do you think either side at this point would be interested in pursuing contraction? NHLPA definitely not as it would eliminate 300 professional contacts - players jobs at all levels - which means current and potential future members. Owners? Do you think remaining "surviving" 24 owners will be willing to fork out $800 m or so of cash or more than $30 m per to settle with the departing owners?

You have to accept that this is a 30 team league now.
Thank you. Contraction isnt even a remote possibility, at all. You think the NHLPA would be OK with LESS NHL jobs? Please.

So many posts lately about contracting the league and dealing just with the "teams that matter" whatever that means. Talk about not getting it.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 10:11 PM
  #914
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
that said the mistake is trying to compare the nfl in 2012 to the nhl in 2012. what you need to do is compare where the nhl is now to WHERE the nfl WAS back when they put all the revenue sharing in place and all the things that they did to grow franchise values and get the tv deal they have. the nfl didn't make $9 billion in revenue overnight. the focus should be on the sacrifices that teams like the giants made years ago and how much that has paid off for them in the long run
It doesn't matter what time period you use. The NHL will never be able to challenge the NBA or MLB popularity and revenue generating wise, let alone the freaking NFL.

The fact of the matter is that the league over-expanded because the owners are greedy and wanted expansion fees. Now you have too many teams in weak markets and things are out of wack. Obviously, you'll never have either side going to contraction, but the league needs to play to its strengths as much as possible. Its strengths are the big Northeastern and Mid-Western markets (along with Canada).

By all means amp revenue sharing up to Fehr's proposed levels if it begets labor peace and lets the small market owners grab their cash (or try and compete if they're so inclined). The NBA just amped up their revenue sharing. It's Bettman's obsession with parity as the way toward league success that has to go. The NBA has a cap, but it has never had anything resembling parity and the league is generating tons upon tons of cash. They succeed by leaning on their flagship franchises and their big star players. Marketing wise, the NHL should follow suit.

Zil is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 11:31 PM
  #915
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
I have to accept it? I personally don't care either way.

I don't care either way because MY team will be fine no matter what.

The only reason i care is because it prevents MY team from playing due to these lockouts.

This econony can not support 30+ teams long-term. There was no recession in 92-93 when the league started really growing. Six teams joined the league since 92-93.

This is not the same economic land scape.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:38 AM
  #916
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Most cities don't support losing teams, financially, whether they are large market, traditional markets or not. Do you remember what Boston was like for the NHL just a few years ago? What about Chicago? Pittsburgh? Buffalo? Any of the small market Canadian teams when their dollar wasn't as high as it is now? It's a fair bit of revisionist history to saying that Dallas struggled to find an owner. What Dallas struggled to do was find an owner that past the far more discriminating and restrictive standards of the NHL BoG compared to previous eras. You can't blame the BoG, but Dallas was never really in danger.

What it sounds like you want is a group of teams that are like the Red Wings, Rangers, Leafs or Canadiens. Teams that make a boatload of money no matter the circumstance. That's simply not going to happen. Ever.

Besides, rocket science is actually quite a bit more straight forward than the business practices of large companies, which includes major professional sports teams.

The Bruins and Blackhawks were losing teams but never in danger of folding. Even though the Blackhawks were a debacle the franchise wasn't going anywhere. Same with the Rangers and Flyers. The Penguins on the other hand were figuratively skating on thin ice so long that the conspiracy theory that the NHL cheated to allow them to win the lottery exists to this day.

The NHL has expanded beyond all reason. The economics dictate that the NHL can't have 30 teams and thrive because there aren't 30 markets that can support them. If the islanders and devils weren't lucky enough to be good early in their tenure they'd be gone by now. A never ending merry-go-round of owners looking to cash in on municipalities with politicians desperate to further their own careers by bringing major league sports to their city.

Mr Atoz* is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 07:52 AM
  #917
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
The Bruins and Blackhawks were losing teams but never in danger of folding. Even though the Blackhawks were a debacle the franchise wasn't going anywhere. Same with the Rangers and Flyers. The Penguins on the other hand were figuratively skating on thin ice so long that the conspiracy theory that the NHL cheated to allow them to win the lottery exists to this day.

The NHL has expanded beyond all reason. The economics dictate that the NHL can't have 30 teams and thrive because there aren't 30 markets that can support them. If the islanders and devils weren't lucky enough to be good early in their tenure they'd be gone by now. A never ending merry-go-round of owners looking to cash in on municipalities with politicians desperate to further their own careers by bringing major league sports to their city.
The Blackhawks and Bruins were never in danger of folding due to two factors. The franchise values that came from longevity and the owners that had deep pockets, even though they weren't willing to open up to help the team. Both teams were money losers. Very similar to the situation the Sabres are in right now. This is why simply looking at the money situation as laid out by Forbes isn't enough in most cases.

You obviously have your opinion on this and I have mine. I just don't think you can blanket say that there aren't enough markets to support 30 teams when none of the teams that are in trouble are that way because of their market.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 08:22 AM
  #918
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
The Rangers missed the playoffs for seven straight seasons and sold out MSG throughout them. The Flyers had the worst record in the league in 06-07 and were seventh in total attendance and sold 98.9 percent of tickets that season.

It's a 30 team league. About 10 or more teams a season always need to be in or around the basement. Too many teams exist who can't be economically viable while they're not good. Trying to cater to them by cutting the cap way down just hobbles the league.

Like I said before, jack up the revenue sharing and leave the cap more or less alone. You're never going to see much in the way of profits outside of the big markets. You're never going to see the Panthers and the Coyotes generating lots of cash. It's not going to happen. If they want to ride the Rangers' economic coattails, then fine. Just don't try and drag the big markets down with you.



You're way offbase. The NFL can afford to do that because the NFL generates a massive amount of money that dwarfs the other three big U.S. sports. They generate so much cash that they can share ALL revenue equally. Plus, you have smaller market teams with gigantic fanbases likes the Packers. You're not going to see that in hockey. At best, you'll see something similar to the revenue sharing systems in MLB or the NBA.
I went to two rangers-flyers games in philly that year, place wasn't even half-filled. I had extra tickets for one of the games and got $10 for both outside. The attendance numbers were based on tickets sold, and all the tickets were sold before the season began. The Rangers were not selling out through the whole 7 years. After the first 3 seasons, most games were not sold out and certainly there were plenty of no-shows.

patnyrnyg is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 08:52 AM
  #919
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
I went to two rangers-flyers games in philly that year, place wasn't even half-filled. I had extra tickets for one of the games and got $10 for both outside. The attendance numbers were based on tickets sold, and all the tickets were sold before the season began. The Rangers were not selling out through the whole 7 years. After the first 3 seasons, most games were not sold out and certainly there were plenty of no-shows.
Um, if the tickets were sold... it was a sell-out. The owner made his gate... concessions / merchandise maybe not as much as they'd like, but the seats were sold.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 08:55 AM
  #920
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,371
vCash: 500
I guess what bothers me most about the players side of things is that they want 50-57%, or whatever %, of the revenue but they don't share any of the risk. The owners can get x% of the revenue and still not make any money or even lose money. I think that if the partnership between the players and the owners is equitable than there has to be some assumption of risk on the players side otherwise them receiving half, or more, of the total HRR is just simply unfair to me.

haohmaru is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 08:55 AM
  #921
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Um, if the tickets were sold... it was a sell-out. The owner made his gate... concessions / merchandise maybe not as much as they'd like, but the seats were sold.
His point (as far as I can tell) was that all markets start to wane on support during bad seasons or stretches of seasons. Places like Philadelphia and NY sell out regardless, but that doesn't mean team support is still there. There will always be more teams in the category of not selling out when they're bad than teams selling out no matter what.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 09:00 AM
  #922
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
I guess what bothers me most about the players side of thing is that they want 50-57%, or whatever %, of the revenue but they don't share any of the risk. The owners can get x% of the revenue and still not make any money or even lose money. I think that if the partnership between the players and the owners is equitable than there has to be some assumption of risk on the players side otherwise them receiving half, or more, of the total HRR is just simply unfair to me.
The players don't share any of the risk? How about being retired by the time they're 40? How about the risk of being injured and forced into retirement earlier than that? The players risk is that they'll lose out on the opportunity they've been working towards their entire lives to have a chance at setting themselves up for good. They owe it to themselves and their families to pad those numbers as much as possible.

And besides, risk is not the only thing here. Unlike a job where you deliver a product/service to a customer or design a product/service for a customer, the players ARE the product. That should mitigate some of the risk factor involved for the owners.

Now, I'm not saying "poor players" or anything like that. Obviously, they make massive amounts of money. But to say there is no risk just isn't true. They're human beings, just like us. They're going to jump at the chance and then try to protect any assets they can.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 09:04 AM
  #923
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
His point (as far as I can tell) was that all markets start to wane on support during bad seasons or stretches of seasons. Places like Philadelphia and NY sell out regardless, but that doesn't mean team support is still there. There will always be more teams in the category of not selling out when they're bad than teams selling out no matter what.
Yes, but the owner could care less as long as tickets are sold. Again, he/she would like to make more in beer, dogs, jerseys and hats... but the seats are sold, the TV rights are negotiated (unless it's a contract year, or in the case of Dolan and Shero, he owns his own cable company/regional sports network) and the team is making viable money.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 09:05 AM
  #924
jdsrangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Lets play hockey = my solution

This lockout is all about the owners. Rich teams vs Poor teams!

The rich owners will sit back and let the small markets teams speak thru Bettman. If the poorer teams plan works the richer teams just make more $$$!

I have a very simple solution. Are you ready....

50%/50% revenue split. Based off additional or a decrease in revenue numbers will be adjusted.

Make an initial soft salary cap of $60mm.

Have a revenue penalty tax for money over the cap of 100%. Example if the Rangers team payroll is $70mm they would pay a $10mm tax to the NHL.

Next step - a Win/Win for both sides....split all the penalty tax 50%/50% for the teams that need money to survive and to the NHL PA for medical benefits & pensions for retired players!

If they can agree on my play the rest will be easy!!

Your thoughts on my solution!

jdsrangers is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 09:16 AM
  #925
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Really, those people don't "get it"...

Let's put it this way:

-A team in NJ 20+ million in debt despite a finals appearance.

-A team on Long Island that won't have an arena in a couple of years and couldn't convince the county to vote in favor for a new one.

-A team in Florida that can't draw and are only safe because of their lease with the city of Sun Rise.

-A team in Columbus that has been to the playoffs once in its existance.

-A team in Glendale that can't draw, can't fill an arena while giving away free tickets, can't land a new owner.

For starters.

"Teams that matter". When not enough people in their own city/state care about the team enough to show up, watch on tv, buy merchandise, sponsor, or buy the team.

Will the league contract? No. Will the union allow it. No. But that doesn't change the fact that this is the reason the league has it's problems and its a discussion worth having.

Don't like it, don't read it.

SupersonicMonkey* 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 02:01 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.