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.

NHL to Expand 2 teams in Canada - THN

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-23-2012, 09:00 PM
  #751
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
As the crow flies, Hamilton and Buffalo are 57 miles apart from city center to city center. But the NHL's "rules" are 50 mile radius from city limit.

You would have to think they did this on purpose, because it's like 47 miles from Hamilton city limit to Buffalo city limit.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:07 PM
  #752
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
As the crow flies, Hamilton and Buffalo are 57 miles apart from city center to city center. But the NHL's "rules" are 50 mile radius from city limit.
... the City Limits of 1917 or the City Limits of 2012? Its arbitrary, ever changing, arguable.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:18 PM
  #753
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... the City Limits of 1917 or the City Limits of 2012? Its arbitrary, ever changing, arguable.
Yep.

But it's the people who had teams already that made the rules. You know that Toronto and Buffalo voted for a distance that included Hamilton within their territories.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:29 PM
  #754
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Yep. But it's the people who had teams already that made the rules. You know that Toronto and Buffalo voted for a distance that included Hamilton within their territories.
... in 1917 only Toronto was around, the Arenas' followed by the St.Pats with Conn Smythe coming on the scene in 1927 & a direct-link back to 17 changing the name to the Leafs while signing on to abide by the Constitution. Buffalo in 1970. So, do we use the 1917 "City Limits", 1927's or 2012's in Toronto's case; in Buffalo's, 1917, 1970 or 2012? I say 1917 for Toronto, 1970 for Buffalo.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 09:52 PM
  #755
HamiltonOHL
BulldogsFan00
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
As the crow flies, Hamilton and Buffalo are 57 miles apart from city center to city center. But the NHL's "rules" are 50 mile radius from city limit.

You would have to think they did this on purpose, because it's like 47 miles from Hamilton city limit to Buffalo city limit.
thanks kev for finding out the correct details

HamiltonOHL is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:28 PM
  #756
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Ultimately, I think the best solution to our TOR/BUF/HAM/Markham problem is a complex four-way split of the Sabres, Hamilton, Markham and Leafs TV rights.

The Sabres could get a cut of any Hamilton second and third-tier TV revenues that exceed their own; Rogers and Bell each get free third tier rights to all three Canadian franchises in Southern Ontario.
Why would the Sabres get a cut of any TV rights? They haven't broadcasted in the area since the 1990's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... the City Limits of 1917 or the City Limits of 2012? Its arbitrary, ever changing, arguable.
I thought it was a 50-mile radius around a city? So, essentially to not overlap territory, a team would have to be placed 100 miles from their nearest competitor. Or am I wrong on that?

htpwn is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:47 PM
  #757
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I thought it was a 50-mile radius around a city? So, essentially to not overlap territory, a team would have to be placed 100 miles from their nearest competitor. Or am I wrong on that?
... I see what your saying, but no, 50 miles from City Limit to City Limit. Not 100 miles with a 50 mile radius border. It just strikes me as being antiquated, a relic. Wouldnt it make more sense to make it 50 miles from the teams arena? City Limits are ever changing, growing & expanding. I cant imagine the authors of the NHL's Constitution in drafting the provision could have even imagined what Toronto's become with its urban sprawl. York & Leaside were Villages, Lawrence Park the suburbs, Hoggs Hollow "up north". The Jolly Miller Tavern and that was it. Fishing for salmon in the Don River. The Sheppard farm, a station at Richmond Hill then nothin but bush & farmland til you hit Holland Marsh, Lake Simcoe & Barrie. A frikin 2 day trip.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 10:59 PM
  #758
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Why would the Sabres get a cut of any TV rights? They haven't broadcasted in the area since the 1990's.
Because unlike one-time payments, it ensures that the success of the new team doesn't come at the expense of the existing one.

The Sabres TV situation was thrown into upheaval when their cable rights holder suddenly went bankrupt and to jail. MSG threw them a bone to try and get their network on in the western part of the state. But they make between $8 million and $10 million annually. So we'll see what they do after 2016-17 when their MSG contract expires.

I'm sure given what happened to Empire Sports, the Sabres would be highly reluctant to start their own RSN, but with Buffalo, Hamilton and Markham sharing a RSN? Low risk, high reward.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:21 PM
  #759
SimplySensational
Heard of Hough
 
SimplySensational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,439
vCash: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I'm sure given what happened to Empire Sports, the Sabres would be highly reluctant to start their own RSN, but with Buffalo, Hamilton and Markham sharing a RSN? Low risk, high reward.
I don't think its possible considering Canada has laws against foreign ownership of media, I don't know if its percentage based someone else could elaborate on this.

SimplySensational is offline  
Old
10-23-2012, 11:45 PM
  #760
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... I see what your saying, but no, 50 miles from City Limit to City Limit. Not 100 miles with a 50 mile radius border.
I think htpwn is right. IIRC, the NHL rules say a franchise's exclusive territory is within a 50 mile radius. so if Hamilton's and Buffalo's overlap, then they are not exclusive.

Quote:
According to Article 4.1 of the league’s constitution, “each member shall have exclusive territorial rights in the city in which it is located and within 50 miles of that city’s corporate limits,” known as the club’s “home territory.”

Section 4.2 of the NHL’s rules sets out an absolute prohibition over the proposed relocation of existing franchises by declaring that “No member shall transfer its club and franchise to a different city or borough.”

Section 4.3 also grants each team exclusive control over its “home territory,” and each club can prohibit hockey games from being played in its “home territory” without their consent.

More importantly, section 4.3 states that “no franchise shall be granted for a home territory within the home territory of a member, without the written consent of such member.” In other words, existing hockey teams have the individual right to veto the relocation of other clubs within an 80-kilometre radius of their own market.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/sto...0e1fa02456&k=0

Hamilton Tigers is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:30 AM
  #761
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Because unlike one-time payments, it ensures that the success of the new team doesn't come at the expense of the existing one.

The Sabres TV situation was thrown into upheaval when their cable rights holder suddenly went bankrupt and to jail. MSG threw them a bone to try and get their network on in the western part of the state. But they make between $8 million and $10 million annually. So we'll see what they do after 2016-17 when their MSG contract expires.

I'm sure given what happened to Empire Sports, the Sabres would be highly reluctant to start their own RSN, but with Buffalo, Hamilton and Markham sharing a RSN? Low risk, high reward.
There's no precedent of such compensation though, especially across a national border.

In the case of the Nationals and Orioles, the former was clearly cutting into the latter's broadcast potential in a significant way. The Orioles had long been broadcasting games in the D.C. area as the lone team in the region and a second team in the region immediately would have taken a large cut of their broadcast revenue.

If anything, that situation may be more comparable to the Leafs-Hamilton/Markham than Buffalo. The Sabres haven't broadcasted in the Niagara Peninsula, let alone up to the GTA, in more than a decade and have done so only sporadically during their 42-year tenure in the NHL. I see no reason why they should be entitled to any split in TV revenue when they clearly have had no interest in the region for much of the last 42 years.

If a team is placed in Hamilton, they'll get their lump sum payment and should be happy they're getting that, as quite frankly they've never had any presence in the city. If a team in placed in Markham, they deserve squat and will get squat.

htpwn is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:27 AM
  #762
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
. I see no reason why they should be entitled to any split in TV revenue when they clearly have had no interest in the region for much of the last 42 years.
So to put that same sentiment another way, you'd have no problem with completely trampling someone else's rights just because they haven't used them recently?

Exclusivity is exclusivity. If the Sabres aren't taking proper advantage of their rights that's a mistake on their part, but it absolutely does not give anyone else the right to take those rights away.

Dojji* is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:38 AM
  #763
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,452
vCash: 50
New team clearly will have to be called the Hamilton Crows now.

No Fun Shogun is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:45 AM
  #764
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
So to put that same sentiment another way, you'd have no problem with completely trampling someone else's rights just because they haven't used them recently?
Use it or lose it.

You can't just neglect a territory that you allegedly "own", then turn around and be the dog in the manger when that territory is threatened.

Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:59 AM
  #765
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
Use it or lose it.

You can't just neglect a territory that you allegedly "own", then turn around and be the dog in the manger when that territory is threatened.
Sure you can. Why can't you?

I mean I can think of several reasons why you shouldn't, but since that's not the word you used, and we're talking about the realm of legal RIGHTS here, sure, they absolutely can.

Dojji* is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 11:09 AM
  #766
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Sure you can. Why can't you?

I mean I can think of several reasons why you shouldn't, but since that's not the word you used, and we're talking about the realm of legal RIGHTS here, sure, they absolutely can.
Fair enough - a Hamilton team can't just show up and say "Well you weren't using this territory anyway, so it's ours now" any more than I can give away my girlfriend's laptop since she never uses the thing. That said, I believe the league would be within its rights to give the Sabres brass a choice:
  • Retain their rights to the Niagara Region, with the condition that they actively market the team and broadcast games there
  • Relinquish their rights to the market, allowing a new team to set up shop without indemnity

If they choose to actively ignore the territory they own, and refuse to allow a team to set up shop in that same territory, I can't imagine their case against a Hamilton team holding any water. It would be like if I fished a TV out of my neighbour's garbage, and she tried to have me arrested for theft.


Last edited by Buck Aki Berg: 10-24-2012 at 11:14 AM.
Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 11:15 AM
  #767
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
It would be like if I fished a TV out of my neighbour's garbage, and she tried to have me arrested for theft.
An odd choice of analogies because technically, she could probably do it, if she was the sort to delight in causing trouble,

Dojji* is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 11:36 AM
  #768
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
An odd choice of analogies because technically, she could probably do it, if she was the sort to delight in causing trouble,
I thought it was a good comparison, and it gives the general idea of what I was going at. I'm no law-talkin' guy, tho

Buck Aki Berg is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 11:55 AM
  #769
paulster2626
Shape up or ship out
 
paulster2626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,105
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
An odd choice of analogies because technically, she could probably do it, if she was the sort to delight in causing trouble,
Nope. Once you put stuff on your curb for garbage removal, it's fair game. Many people have tried to prosecute their neighbors who they didn't like for doing this exact thing.

Totally legal. Great analogy.

paulster2626 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 12:34 PM
  #770
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
So to put that same sentiment another way, you'd have no problem with completely trampling someone else's rights just because they haven't used them recently?

Exclusivity is exclusivity. If the Sabres aren't taking proper advantage of their rights that's a mistake on their part, but it absolutely does not give anyone else the right to take those rights away.
Your misinterpreting the argument at hand. The Sabres absolutely have the right to demand territorial compensation from a team in Hamilton (fair or not, most in the region will say the latter); the NHL has made that much clear.

The question is whether, in addition (or in lieu) of that, they should also be entitled to a portion of Hamilton's TV revenue in perpetuity. There is absolutely no precedent for such a demand in the NHL and little in elsewhere in the Big 4 sports.

One notable exception to that is between the Nationals and Orioles of the MLB. However, as I argued in my last post, it was a very different situation than what a team entering Hamilton would be facing. The Orioles had long broadcasted in the District of Columbia and had a stranglehold on the market. A team in Washington was clearly going to take a large cut of their TV revenue, hence the need to work out an agreement on that. Conversely, Buffalo has not been broadcasting in Southern Ontario for over a decade and have only done so sporadically in their 42-year history.

When the Rangers don't get a portion of the Islanders and Devils TV revenue and the Kings don't get a portion of the Ducks' despite both teams actually broadcasting in those areas before the arrival of their competitors, what makes you think the Sabres would have any leg to stand on in making such a demand?

htpwn is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 07:52 PM
  #771
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Your misinterpreting the argument at hand. The Sabres absolutely have the right to demand territorial compensation from a team in Hamilton (fair or not, most in the region will say the latter); the NHL has made that much clear.

The question is whether, in addition (or in lieu) of that, they should also be entitled to a portion of Hamilton's TV revenue in perpetuity. There is absolutely no precedent for such a demand in the NHL and little in elsewhere in the Big 4 sports.

One notable exception to that is between the Nationals and Orioles of the MLB. However, as I argued in my last post, it was a very different situation than what a team entering Hamilton would be facing. The Orioles had long broadcasted in the District of Columbia and had a stranglehold on the market. A team in Washington was clearly going to take a large cut of their TV revenue, hence the need to work out an agreement on that. Conversely, Buffalo has not been broadcasting in Southern Ontario for over a decade and have only done so sporadically in their 42-year history.

When the Rangers don't get a portion of the Islanders and Devils TV revenue and the Kings don't get a portion of the Ducks' despite both teams actually broadcasting in those areas before the arrival of their competitors, what makes you think the Sabres would have any leg to stand on in making such a demand?
Can't see the Sabres getting any of Hamiton's broadcast money unless they broadcast into western New York. Sabres don't broadcast into southern Ontario because the CRTC hasn't let them. So how do they lose anything?

Not that Hamilton will ever get a team anyway.....

Confucius is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 08:16 PM
  #772
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
An odd choice of analogies because technically, she could probably do it, if she was the sort to delight in causing trouble,
... appears to me you'd take considerable delight in such an eventuality Lick the Toad. Yes?

Killion is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 08:22 PM
  #773
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Can't see the Sabres getting any of Hamiton's broadcast money unless they broadcast into western New York. Sabres don't broadcast into southern Ontario because the CRTC hasn't let them. So how do they lose anything?
That's not the point. The point is protection for Buffalo with a new team in the market. A one-time payment provides no protection. The owner just pockets it (if he was smart, he'd cash out after the check clears and sell the team).

Media rights is simply the easiest way of ensuring that a successful Hamilton franchise doesn't deprive the Sabres of revenues, but ADDS to it.

What's funny is that everyone in the pro-Hamilton crowd here on BOH says "the Sabres are lying, Hamilton would be BENEFICIAL to the Sabres!" and then argues against a concept that would ENSURE that statement be true.

KevFu is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:32 PM
  #774
HamiltonOHL
BulldogsFan00
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,805
vCash: 500
My question is about the revenue... If people mention this whole tv thing, to be honest the only time i have ever seen Buffalo Sabres games on tv where I am in Hamilton, is either on TSN when they play Leafs in Toronto's region or on cbc on saturdays, or tsn2 (which carries versus..) other then that i hardly ever see Buffalo Sabres games on tv in Hamilton...

HamiltonOHL is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:54 PM
  #775
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,543
vCash: 500
What's the distance from downtown Ottawa to Scotiabank place? What, about 20-25km?

Distance from
London to Woodstock (401/403 Intersection) = 45km
Kitchener to Woodstock (401/403 Intersection) = 38km
Hamilton to Woodstock (401/403 Intersection) = 72km
Brantford to Woodstock (401/403 Intersection) = 36km

Seems very centrally located for all of the southern tip of Ontario.

Woodstock to Toronto = 121km
Woodstock to Buffalo = 156km
Woodstock to Detroit = 210km

Toronto to Buffalo = 96km


Last edited by MoreOrr: 10-24-2012 at 10:00 PM.
MoreOrr 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 10:20 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.