HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Are Fans of Big Market Teams Annoyed At the Money-Losing Teams?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2012, 06:42 PM
  #476
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Quit writing the eulogy. Columbus isn't going anywhere.

I'm curious to see if the a la carte cable packaging gains traction. The importance of that in sports broadcasting will have monumental and historical fallout if it ends up being enacted, and would put the NHL on nearly equal footing as every other league.
TRy to read what is written.

I never suggested CLB gets moved.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:14 PM
  #477
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
I haven't noticed anyone in Toronto holding the Leafs in reverence, but then again I've only been here for 32 years. In the case of the Leafs that might be too short a time to pass judgment because they haven't been to a Stanley Cup final in 45 years or won any individual awards other than the first overall draft pick in that time either.
Well Mork, I was raised in Toronto when they were winning cups, to this day amongst the older generations names like Bower, Baun, Horton & Armstrong etc misting the eyes whimsically. The city was a far different place back then of course, the past being a strange country, they do things differently there. The 60's & the Leafs success a result of what Conn Smythe had built, from the Gardens to the farm system. Ballard of course spent nearly 20years trying remove every vestige of pride in the Blue&White. Didnt succeed, crotchety old reprobate that he was.

Once loyalties are established in ones formative years, impossible to replace. Sons & daughters more likely than not will subscribe to their parents loyalties. So the Leafs sell their past, be it the Sundin, Gilmour/Clarke, Sittler or Armstrong years. Quite a fascinating study really. Transcends the team, the league, gets into the territory of place & perception within the province, country, continent, globe. A sort of in-bred arrogance to wit I personally subscribe just naturally, as in doesnt really matter what you do, if we lose on the ice, mathematically eliminated by Valentines Day, were still better than any of you can ever hope to be, and ya, thats snooty, but in the nicest of ways. Tomorrows Another Day. Never-ending optimism. A sunny disposition.

Sure we have our hard core rabid deconstructionists within the fanbase who wanna see a 12 or less team league, complete freedom of movement, no cap, but I like most of my fellow Leaf fans do understand & appreciate the fact that the game transcends borders, regions, locales, race & creed. And most of us have absolutely no problem with revenue sharing per se', propping up the additions from 67-68 on. No problem. Good for the game. Share & share alike I say.


Last edited by Killion: 10-10-2012 at 07:19 PM.
Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:17 PM
  #478
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well Mork, I was raised in Toronto when they were winning cups, to this day amongst the older generations names like Bower, Baun, Horton & Armstrong etc misting the eyes whimsically. The city was a far different place back then of course, the past being a strange country, they do things differently there. The 60's & the Leafs success a result of what Conn Smythe had built, from the Gardens to the farm system. Ballard of course spent nearly 20years trying remove every vestige of pride in the Blue&White. Didnt succeed, crotchety old reprobate that he was.

Once loyalties are established in ones formative years, impossible to replace. Sons & daughters more likely than not will subscribe to their parents loyalties. So the Leafs sell their past, be it the Sundin, Gilmour/Clarke, Sittler or Armstrong years. Quite a fascinating study really. Transcends the team, the league, gets into the territory of place & perception within the province, country, continent, globe. A sort of in-bred arrogance to wit I personally subscribe just naturally, as in doesnt really matter what you do, if we lose on the ice, mathematically eliminated by Valentines Day, were still better than any of you can ever hope to be, and ya, thats snooty, but in the nicest of ways.

Sure we have our rabid deconstructionists who wanna see a 12 or less team league, complete freedom of movement, no cap, but I like most of my fellow Leaf fans do understand & appreciate the fact that the game transcends borders, regions, locales, race & creed. And most of us have absolutely no problem with revenue sharing per se', propping up the additions from 67-68 on. No problem. Good for the game. Share & share alike.
If they had karma here I'd green you! Great post

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:29 PM
  #479
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
If they had karma here I'd green you! Great post
... youd' "green" me?. I smoke, drink, drive an overpowered vehicle that destroys the forests in the Amazonian Basin and I dont care. Ive been slimed by ectoplasm, torn apart in the press, shredded & scratched by the living & the dead, but I dont think ever Ive been "greened"... unless it was that dealeo with Billy Waterhouse in grade 4 after he'd stuck his finger up his nose & decided my shirt made for a convenient hanky when he thought I wasnt watching.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:33 PM
  #480
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... youd' "green" me?. I smoke, drink, drive an overpowered vehicle that destroys the forests in the Amazonian Basin and I dont care. Ive been slimed by ectoplasm, torn apart in the press, shredded & scratched by the living & the dead, but I dont think ever Ive been "greened"... unless it was that dealeo with Billy Waterhouse in grade 4 after he'd stuck his finger up his nose & decided my shirt made for a convenient hanky when he thought I wasnt watching.
"Green K" is simply slang for "good karma" (as opposed to "Red K" or "bad karma") on sites that allow for it. It's a way of showing approval or appreciation for a post

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 07:46 PM
  #481
RaiderDoug
Registered User
 
RaiderDoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Knoxville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,801
vCash: 500
Actually, the small market teams should be mad at the big market teams.

Perhaps the PA's proposal with the increased revenue sharing is actually quite palatable for the smaller markets. I can speculate that maybe, if it wasn't for the big markets insistence to not share any revenue, the smaller markets would be perfectly fine playing hockey under the PA's proposal.

So there, everyone get mad at Toronto (or big market team of your choice), as it's clear that they're the reason we don't have hockey right now.



What a stupid thread.

RaiderDoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 11:03 PM
  #482
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaiderDoug View Post
Actually, the small market teams should be mad at the big market teams.

Perhaps the PA's proposal with the increased revenue sharing is actually quite palatable for the smaller markets. I can speculate that maybe, if it wasn't for the big markets insistence to not share any revenue, the smaller markets would be perfectly fine playing hockey under the PA's proposal.

So there, everyone get mad at Toronto (or big market team of your choice), as it's clear that they're the reason we don't have hockey right now.



What a stupid thread.
Here's a theoretical question. Let's say that the NHL had intra-league loans and.or a primitive revenue sharing when the NFL first started on it.

How much different would history look if the NHL, starting in the late-1920s, had the following teams:
Ottawa (Senators)
Montreal (Maroons and Canadiens)
Pittsburgh (Pirates)
Boston (Bruins)
New York (Americans and Rangers)
Toronto (St. Pats)
Detroit (Cougars)
Chicago (Black Hawks)

This is the NHL of 1926-27 through 1929-30. Pittsburgh was ultimately undone by the stock market crash (their owners were heavily involved in Wall Street), and moved to Philly for one year as the Quakers. Ottawa was undone for financial reasons, which began in 1927. The NY Americans and Montreal Maroons were all undone for financial reasons.

The reason I ask this is because, in the cases of Detroit, Boston, and New York, all of these teams pre-dated the arrival of the NFL. I believe that a big part of the reason why these three have such a massive amount of support isn't simply based on duration of service, but because the NHL was able to weave itself into the local fabric earlier than the NFL. Chicago was there after the NFL arrived, but before the NFL was considered "respectable".

In addition, Philadelphia and St. Louis both accepted teams that were lost for financial reasons. Pittsburgh's support was massive for the Pirates (and also pre-dated the NFL), and St. Louis supported the Eagles (relocated Senators, and also pre-dated the NFL). Years down the road, the suspended Maroons were purchased in an attempt to put a team in Philadelphia for the 1946-47 season, so Philly was a hotspot anyway. When the Maroons were initially looking at folding, St. Louis was a possible destination.

Now, a big part of the St. Louis Eagles only lasting a single season was because the NHL refused realignment. They were stuck in a division with Toronto, both Montreal teams, and the NY Americans (rather than the division with the Rangers, Detroit, and Chicago), so the travel costs were immense.

So let's say that the NHL of the late-1920s (as above) was able to stabilize and weather the Depression. Although St. Louis and Philadelphia would not have received relocated teams, the interest from various groups was clearly there to have a team in those cities. The league could have looked like this:
Western Division - Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Toronto
Eastern Division - Montreal M, Montreal C, Boston, Ottawa, New York A, New York R

Of course, Philadelphia is an outlier in the West. But when the Cleveland Barons tried to jump to the NHL in the late-1930s, it would have been an opportunity to push Philly to the East, and another team could have been added to balance it out further. Indianapolis? Milwaukee? Cincinnati? Maybe even Minneapolis?

As would be the case outlined above, these teams would still pre-date the NFL. How much different would the NHL look?

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 11:41 PM
  #483
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,760
vCash: 500
So, you're saying if the NHL had revenue sharing from day one, we might have:

Adams: Ottawa Senators, Montreal Maroons, Montreal Canadiens, Quebec Nordiques, Boston Bruins, Hartford Whalers, Toronto Maple Leafs*, Hamilton Tigers
Patrick: New York Americans, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, Washington Capitals, Buffalo Sabres, Pittsburgh Pirates, Detroit Red Wings*, Tampa Bay Lightning
Norris: Winnipeg Jets, Minnesota North Stars, Chicago Black Hawks, St. Louis Blues, Kansas City Scouts, Indianapolis Racers, Dallas Texans, Houston Aeros
Smythe: Vancouver Canucks, Calgary Flames**, Edmonton Oilers, Seattle Millionaires, Bay Area Seals, Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Ducks, Colorado Rockies

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:14 AM
  #484
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
How much different would the NHL look?
... okay, impressive body of knowledge, historically speaking.
If I was sober, cared, might take issue with some of it. Whats your point?

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:14 AM
  #485
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
So, you're saying if the NHL had revenue sharing from day one, we might have:

Adams: Ottawa Senators, Montreal Maroons, Montreal Canadiens, Quebec Nordiques, Boston Bruins, Hartford Whalers, Toronto Maple Leafs*, Hamilton Tigers
Patrick: New York Americans, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, Washington Capitals, Buffalo Sabres, Pittsburgh Pirates, Detroit Red Wings*, Tampa Bay Lightning
Norris: Winnipeg Jets, Minnesota North Stars, Chicago Black Hawks, St. Louis Blues, Kansas City Scouts, Indianapolis Racers, Dallas Texans, Houston Aeros
Smythe: Vancouver Canucks, Calgary Flames**, Edmonton Oilers, Seattle Millionaires, Bay Area Seals, Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Ducks, Colorado Rockies
It's not outside the realm of possibility. For what it's worth, here's what I think would have happened.

With a 14-team league through WWII, the NHL would have:
Montreal (2), Toronto, New York (2), Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Boston, and probably Milwaukee (rather than Indianapolis or Minneapolis).

- One of the Montreal teams (either the Maroons or Canadiens) would eventually concede the market and head up the road to Quebec, immediately adding a geographic element to an already-ferocious rivalry.

- With New York having two thriving teams and Boston having the Bruins, Hartford is never considered for anything beyond the AHL or IHL. The Whalers never come into existence.

- Concerned over Washington, DC not having the passion for the NHL (or any sport), the NHL decides to instead look to Baltimore down the road. Needing more balance out west, a team is also added in Minneapolis. It's now a 16-team league.

- As Toronto consolidates its market, the outcry for a Montreal or New York type of rivalry becomes too much to bear. The NHL decides that, next time around, a team will go into one of Buffalo or Hamilton, but not both. And to consolidate the American Midwest, Cincinnati joins on, pushing the league to 18 teams.

- As the NFL begins to absorb and MLB begins to relocate, the NHL decides to cut them off wherever possible. Teams are hastily places in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Vancouver. This creates a four-team westernmost division, and the NHL's 22-team league splits into an unwieldy four divisions. Plans are drawn up for the addition of two more teams to alleviate this, and before long, Houston and Denver join on.

By now, we'd only be to about 1967. With most major cities on board, a WHA could not open for business since there wouldn't be enough underserved markets. Winnipeg never signs on, and the NHL would look to only one of Edmonton or Calgary (the thinking being that, with that proximity, they can have a provincial team rather than a city-specific one). A potential second league would be localized primarily in the American South, with Dallas, Atlanta, Memphis, Tampa Bay, Miami, Charlotte, Richmond, Nashville, Birmingham, and New Orleans. Lacking the interest in a massive bidding war, they eventually become a regional league that serves as a farm system, and the largest cities eventually become home to the NHL.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:18 AM
  #486
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
It's not outside the realm of possibility. For what it's worth, here's what I think would have happened.

With a 14-team league through WWII, the NHL would have:
Montreal (2), Toronto, New York (2), Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Boston, and probably Milwaukee (rather than Indianapolis or Minneapolis).

- One of the Montreal teams (either the Maroons or Canadiens) would eventually concede the market and head up the road to Quebec, immediately adding a geographic element to an already-ferocious rivalry.

- With New York having two thriving teams and Boston having the Bruins, Hartford is never considered for anything beyond the AHL or IHL. The Whalers never come into existence.

- Concerned over Washington, DC not having the passion for the NHL (or any sport), the NHL decides to instead look to Baltimore down the road. Needing more balance out west, a team is also added in Minneapolis. It's now a 16-team league.

- As Toronto consolidates its market, the outcry for a Montreal or New York type of rivalry becomes too much to bear. The NHL decides that, next time around, a team will go into one of Buffalo or Hamilton, but not both. And to consolidate the American Midwest, Cincinnati joins on, pushing the league to 18 teams.

- As the NFL begins to absorb and MLB begins to relocate, the NHL decides to cut them off wherever possible. Teams are hastily places in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Vancouver. This creates a four-team westernmost division, and the NHL's 22-team league splits into an unwieldy four divisions. Plans are drawn up for the addition of two more teams to alleviate this, and before long, Houston and Denver join on.

By now, we'd only be to about 1967. With most major cities on board, a WHA could not open for business since there wouldn't be enough underserved markets. Winnipeg never signs on, and the NHL would look to only one of Edmonton or Calgary (the thinking being that, with that proximity, they can have a provincial team rather than a city-specific one). A potential second league would be localized primarily in the American South, with Dallas, Atlanta, Memphis, Tampa Bay, Miami, Charlotte, Richmond, Nashville, Birmingham, and New Orleans. Lacking the interest in a massive bidding war, they eventually become a regional league that serves as a farm system, and the largest cities eventually become home to the NHL.
Great story..too bad the teams you eliminate in Canada repeatedly provide income to the NHL.

Lobotomizer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:22 AM
  #487
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
For what it's worth, here's what I think would have happened.
If you were a Governor within the sanctum of the NHL's halls, would you have deliberately persecuted Eddie Livingstone, blackballed the man from hockey, sued his heiny for over 20yrs & poured his ashes into a cats litterbox MayorBee?.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:25 AM
  #488
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... okay, impressive body of knowledge, historically speaking. If I was sober, cared, might take issue with some of it. Whats your point?
The former head of Intel, Andy Grove, used to talk about pivotal moments in the life of a business (and therefore an industry) being made up a series of crisis points. The problem was recognizing the importance of the moment, and being willing to go in a new direction despite the chance of failure.

I'll refer back to the NFL, since it is the gold standard for business models in sports. The early giants of the game recognized the importance of major cities in establishing the credibility of professional football, which was thought to be a game of ruffians and criminals. When Red Grange signed on with the Chicago Bears, the first thing George Halas did was go on a massive barnstorming tour around the United States. The NY Giants were on the verge of failure, and 73,000 people showed up to see the Bears come in with the great Grange. When Philadelphia was floundering and running the risk of becoming a doormat, the NFL instituted the draft to ensure competitive balance. When Pittsburgh was twice looking at folding during WWII, they were twice merged with another team in trouble to stave off bankruptcy.

Every one of these moves was made because the NFL recognized that stability was vital, and that the fortunes of teams and businesses are cyclical. If losing the Steelers in 1942 meant losing Pittsburgh forever, how could the NFL not do something unprecedented? If Philadelphia folding due to poor play and lagging gate receipts meant that Philadelphia would be gone forever, how could steps not be taken to alleviate this?

And now, look at the NHL. The risk is very real that any team that goes away will mean that that market lies barren forever. The shortsighted decisions that kept Cleveland out of the league, that kept Philadelphia and Pittsburgh away for 40 years, that forever allowed the NFL, MLB, and NBA to be the first into major cities when opportunities presented themselves...THAT is why we're in this very situation.

The NHL and its fans need to recognize the importance of a league that spans two countries. Look at the California kids who are emerging as top-flight prospects, or the ones who never would have started playing at all if not for the widespread exposure to the game, or the ones who will emerge from these very areas in the next few years. An NHL without a wide draw is a lot like Don Cherry's IceDogs, which shut off a massive supply of talent and potential talent due to stubbornness and a complete lack of foresight.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:40 AM
  #489
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The problem was recognizing the importance of the moment, and being willing to go in a new direction despite the chance of failure.
This I see. Totally agree with. Seize the moment. Yet here we have a professional sports league which since the days of Red Dutton as President has been nothing short of a joke. I work in the entertainment field Mayor; can you imagine hiring someone named "Red" to represent your interests, unless looking for a job with Barnum & Bailey as a High Wire Artist or worse, Clown? Employing Clarence Campbell because "he does what he's told"? Bearfoot loafer wearing Playboy John Ziegler followed by the pensive little soldier in Gary Bettman? This is a mess Man.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:41 AM
  #490
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobotomizer View Post
Great story..too bad the teams you eliminate in Canada repeatedly provide income to the NHL.
I also don't include my own hometown, judging that the leap of the Cleveland Barons from the AHL to the NHL and the later expansion to Cincinnati would have prevented Columbus from ever being considered. No Washington, DC either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
If you were a Governor within the sanctum of the NHL's halls, would you have deliberately persecuted Eddie Livingstone, blackballed the man from hockey, sued his heiny for over 20yrs & poured his ashes into a cats litterbox MayorBee?.
I'll recognize my own limitations here. My knowledge of the legal ins and outs of pro sports of the era from 1912-20 is in baseball and football, not hockey. I could certainly research it a good deal more, but not quickly enough to give a satisfactory answer.

(Although pouring ashes into a litterbox strikes me as a quite theatrical way to disgrace someone further, possibly more than the way that the English used to exhume bodies to mutilate and burn them before dumping the ashes into a river)

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:48 AM
  #491
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
pouring ashes into a litterbox strikes me as a quite theatrical way to disgrace someone further...
Must have been the Season of the Witch.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 01:23 AM
  #492
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where the vote for a lockout was 8 in favor and 22 against, with smaller-market teams composing that vote of 8.
What the hell are you talking about?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 03:12 AM
  #493
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,760
vCash: 500
So, if you have a league of 30 franchises, and you want to continue to grow revenues, what's the balance of "new, experimental markets" you can take on at one time?

And what role to regional rivalries play into it? Should each team have a reasonable regional rival?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 03:19 AM
  #494
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Hell, it's not even just in the US.....let them try selling that "special" tag in BC or Alberta. I have a bunch of friends living in those provinces and they all have one thing in common: They'll get pissed if you accuse them of being a Habs or Leafs fan. They aren't. They couldn't care less about the Habs and the Leafs. They're fans of the Canucks, Oilers, and Flames respectively.
Yup. Sounds like Western Canada. They hate the Leafs and Habs with a passion but yet claim to not care about them.

Also, I think you would be surprised at the amount of Leafs and Habs fans across Canada (/North America/the World). Here's a clip from Edmonton last year:



You see the same thing in Vancouver and Calgary. Not so much Winnipeg yet but we'll see what happens when tickets become a little more attainable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
That's absolutely asinine from start to finish.

Revenue sharing in the NFL grew out of intra-league loans. It's from a period of extreme instability, when a lawsuit, a local factory closing, or the owner having money troubles would result in the loss of the team for good. The NFL owners recognized the cyclical nature of economies, and built around a system of "today you, tomorrow me". Owners said, "MY team may be fine today, but tomorrow we might be in trouble. I'm willing to share what I have today, knowing that i might need assistance tomorrow."

Nearly every team in the NHL has had trouble at some point in the last 30 years, so revenue sharing very much applies. Today's trouble teams weren't in trouble less than 10 years ago, and the teams that were in trouble 10 years ago are fine today. We saw what Darwinist economics brought the NHL: the loss of Quebec, Minnesota, Winnipeg, and Hartford. Revenue sharing at an earlier point undoubtedly would have made a difference.

Your anti-American rant at the end is ridiculous. I'm very much in love with history and tradition, but I don't believe in being permanently anchored to it. The idea that a life jacket for one is actually a straitjacket on everyone else is crazy talk.
I'm not saying there should be no revenue sharing. I'm arguing that revenue sharing to the extent that was suggested several pages back (pooling all TV revenues) is not possible in today's league and may not be desirable.

As for the issue on history and tradition, let ask you: If you had the option to reorganize teams from the beginning, how many teams would be in Canada by 2012? Because your last post gave the implication that many small market Canadians would have to be eventually moved to larger US markets 'for the good of the game,' which was the same B.S. rhetoric we heard in the 1990's.


Last edited by htpwn: 10-11-2012 at 03:24 AM.
htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 10:53 AM
  #495
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,170
vCash: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Hell, it's not even just in the US.....let them try selling that "special" tag in BC or Alberta. I have a bunch of friends living in those provinces and they all have one thing in common: They'll get pissed if you accuse them of being a Habs or Leafs fan. They aren't. They couldn't care less about the Habs and the Leafs. They're fans of the Canucks, Oilers, and Flames respectively.
I bet you aren't a fan of Canucks, or any West coast team. It was also pretty annoying during 2010-2011 when people were claiming Canucks were Canada's team. They are not. They are BC's team. Most fans in other provinces hate Canucks with a passion, even though we haven't won a cup yet. Can't wait to get that cup... fire Bettman!

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 12:39 PM
  #496
buggs
Registered User
 
buggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: flatlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,721
vCash: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Not so much Winnipeg yet but we'll see what happens when tickets become a little more attainable.
Naw, you see it here in the Peg already. New Year's Eve game maybe 25% wearing the wrong blue sweaters. When the Jets left in 1996 the local rag (Sun) ran a poll to see who we should adopt. Not that I agree, but it was the Leafs with the Habs at number two. There are lots and lots of Leaf fans here and I'd say losing the Jets boosted the number, though Van/Cal/Edm probably got a bigger boost than the Eastern Canadian teams.

Quote:
With most major cities on board, a WHA could not open for business since there wouldn't be enough underserved markets. Winnipeg never signs on,
Mayor Bee,
I was under the impression that Winnipeg tried but failed to get into the NHL back prior to 1972. I don't think the issue was Winnipeg not signing on, rather that the league wouldn't let them in. NHL has never really had much love for the Peg it would seem.

buggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 01:01 PM
  #497
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by buggs View Post
NHL has never really had much love for the Peg it would seem.
The NHL has really never had much love for QC, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver or Ottawa either. The only two Canadian teams it appears to care about are Montreal and Toronto, lilkely because they are part of the origional six with deep-seeded history. Hell, we were essentially threatened by lil' gary on National TV to make sure we didn't mess up on this second time around, or else. Would he ever do that to TO, MTL or any American city? Probably not. Meanwhile, he is bening over backwards to save the worst market in NHL history (Phoenix) from relocation. I'd bet he would likely do the same for other poor American markets (ie Columbus). And I'll say this again; I'll be so bold as to guarantee he would have done the same for Atlanta had there been another arena to play out of besides Phillips. I actually believe there were other owners wanting the to buy the team and keep it in Altanta, despite their abysmal attendance at games during the majority of their tenure in Atlanta, but because ASG held all the cards, there was no real choice in the matter but to move the team to Winnipeg, and that I feel is the ONLY reason why we got a team in the first place; luck.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 01:53 PM
  #498
JerseyGuy276
An American Outlaw
 
JerseyGuy276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A Flood Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 8,943
vCash: 500
Why do people keep trying to move Florida? Despite their low ticket prices, people show up to their games, and I'm pretty sure that I read an article where their arena makes plenty of money from the shows it hosts to cover the Panthers deficit and that owning the team is just an added benefit.

JerseyGuy276 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 02:19 PM
  #499
Gormo
Holupchi
 
Gormo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
To me it's more like the guy (NHL) who thought he got "lucky" because a girl (expansion market) said yes to him (as her 4th choice). They both get drunk, she gets pregnant, and they realize that they're a horrible match for each other. It's basically the plot to this movie:



Except it's not funny
Huh.

Ill be damned, that really is an accurate and funny analogy.

Gormo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 02:29 PM
  #500
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGuy276 View Post
Why do people keep trying to move Florida? Despite their low ticket prices, people show up to their games, and I'm pretty sure that I read an article where their arena makes plenty of money from the shows it hosts to cover the Panthers deficit and that owning the team is just an added benefit.
Yeah, I don't get it either. The Panthers haven't harmed anyone by their existence. Either this is a league of 30 franchises who should all swim or sink together, or it's a league of a half-dozen titans and their serfs who exist solely at the pleasure of the titans.

I don't like the latter view, not one bit, and I'm as die-hard a Habs fan as they come. The O-6 days are gone, as are the days of 21 teams in the 80s. The NHL is 30 teams now and they ought to pull together to make this league work. Start dividing the league up into "who can exist" and "who ought not to exist" and you may not like which side your team ends up on down the road. That kind of attitude also exposes a conveniently short memory, because it wasn't that long ago that the Jets & Nordiques vanished, the Oilers were hanging by a thread, the Senators & Sabres were bankrupt, and the Penguins were in dire straits.

So to directly answer the thread's question, no I'm not annoyed at the money-losing teams, not one bit. I am outright pissed off at the hardliners at NHL HQ who are putting us through another lockout for such a flimsy pretext.

optimus2861 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 05:46 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.