HFBoards

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

Why Paul Kelly thinks expansion would help end NHL lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-30-2012, 10:12 AM
  #51
tony d
Honey Nut Cheerios
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,988
vCash: 500
Agree, the NHLPA should have kept this guy. Seems like a good hockey mind. Don't know if the NHL should look at expansion until they get the Phoenix situation cleared up though.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:39 AM
  #52
dougieg93
flip for filip
 
dougieg93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,007
vCash: 500
I see expansion as short term thinking, sure you get 600 Million, but on the other hand you have franchises in poorly selected markets that have less chance in relocating to preferred markets. If the NHL expands to Toronto, Quebec, Seattle then where does this leave Phoenix?

dougieg93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:55 AM
  #53
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougieg93 View Post
I see expansion as short term thinking, sure you get 600 Million, but on the other hand you have franchises in poorly selected markets that have less chance in relocating to preferred markets. If the NHL expands to Toronto, Quebec, Seattle then where does this leave Phoenix?
To go to one of the three you picked for a 2 team expansion?

Morris Wanchuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 12:18 PM
  #54
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
To go to one of the three you picked for a 2 team expansion?
... sure enough. Theoretically just based on whats' been reported in the press, Quebec, Markham, Hamilton & Seattle represent 4 possibilities right there alone, and of course were not privy to expressions of interest from wherever else, the NHL's not talkin, so who really knows? Bettman "claims" that a month doesnt go bye without someone from somewhere making enquiries.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 12:27 PM
  #55
Neely2005
Grey Cup Champions
 
Neely2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
Why expand when you have a perfectly awful market "Phoenix" just waiting to be relocated or contracted?
Expansion fees.

And I agree that if Paul Kelly was still the head of the NHLPA we wouldn't have had a lockout. Donald Fehr is going to do serious damage to the NHL & the NHLPA.

Neely2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 12:48 PM
  #56
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,639
vCash: 500
While Kelly probably shouldn't have been fired, he's not some messiah that some people are making him out to be. Look to his last job with the NCAA, made relations with the NCAA and CHL even worse with his bombastic rhetoric, and he was 'fired' from there as well.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 01:14 PM
  #57
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 9,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonzai12 View Post
Expansion's a terrible option IMO

You already have probably at least 6 teams that are in dire straits money wise. You add 2 teams and bring in more money for the short term, but you'll be in new questionable markets and may have 8 teams in dire straits the next time the CBA comes around. You can't just keep patching league financials with franchise fees. You can only dilute the product so much.
exactly. When you're in trouble, you don't take on even more risk, you should try to minimize your existing risk...

... starting with moving Phx to QC. This single action would help the league immediately.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 01:40 PM
  #58
WaltWhitman
Registered User
 
WaltWhitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
While Kelly probably shouldn't have been fired, he's not some messiah that some people are making him out to be. Look to his last job with the NCAA, made relations with the NCAA and CHL even worse with his bombastic rhetoric, and he was 'fired' from there as well.
All he did was provide kids with information about college hockey. I guess if he made CHL partisans angry, he must've been doing a good job of that.

The reason he was fired was because the smaller schools with less money didn't think they were getting helped as much as the big schools with more money and elite prospects. It wasn't because of his so-called "bombastic rhetoric".

It was a big mistake by College Hockey Inc. to fire him.

WaltWhitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 02:01 PM
  #59
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
I solve problems
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 1,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
While Kelly probably shouldn't have been fired, he's not some messiah that some people are making him out to be.
No one is making him out to be a messiah. He clearly indicated from the onset in 2007 when he was made Executive Director that he intended to create a better dialogue with the League, to seek a partnership and work through any issues well in advance of the expiration of the CBA, and create a culture wthin the PA to repair the whole fissures and cracks left behind with Saskin's departure. That did not sit well with the hardliner's faction within the PA. And certain agents as well.

Don't confuse wishful thoughts of PK still being in charge that there'd be no lockout as annointing him as The Savior. What you're reading here are folks obviously frustrated with the current situation and any breath of change or wishful thinking, even if in speculaion, is an avenue of venting that frustration because, quite simply... we never got a chance to see what the man could have done.

And one thing Paul Kelly had that Fehr did not. He certainly had a better inside track going into the forthcoming negotiations given he had a better pulse on knowing what the League intended this go around and had personnel in place to tackle the HRR and other revenue aspects (namely Bob Lindquist). He had his ducks in a row as far back as Spring 2009.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Look to his last job with the NCAA, made relations with the NCAA and CHL even worse with his bombastic rhetoric, and he was 'fired' from there as well.
Wrong. The issues surrounding College Hockey Inc was he wanted C.H.I. to have a stronger and more meaningful presence in relation to College Hockey as a whole than merely just the "Marketing Arm". Coaches want to see it. Some Athletic Directors did as well. Unfortuntaely, the higher ups didn't and when he began advocating that it needed to be, he was "silenced" (Resign or get the boot).

I'm treading on a slippery slope here, and I have to be very careful about what I say as... I don't want to be labeled by the CHL'ers here that I'm taking a (or his) side on this but... the NCAA is obviously fed up with what it deems "poaching" or "enticements" to kill players NLI's (National Letter of Intent) by some CHL clubs. He obviously was very passionate about that.

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 02:09 PM
  #60
kabbott50
Registered User
 
kabbott50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: St. John's, Newfound
Country: Canada
Posts: 10
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kabbott50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
exactly. When you're in trouble, you don't take on even more risk, you should try to minimize your existing risk...

... starting with moving Phx to QC. This single action would help the league immediately.
^^^
This.

Expansion would water down the product, and give us more teams that eventually need to be moved or contracted. Personally, I think they should move (at least) two teams and contract (at least) two others.

But, nobody wants to take anyone's job away from them, so I doubt contraction will ever be looked it.

kabbott50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 02:55 PM
  #61
tigermask48
Maniacal Laugh
 
tigermask48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: R'Lyeh, Antarctica
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,948
vCash: 500
So I guess we know the "source" of the NHL to expand to Quebec and Toronto2 "rumor" that THN reported a few days ago now huh?

tigermask48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 03:07 PM
  #62
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabbott50 View Post
^^^
This.

Expansion would water down the product,
Not appreciably. You could probably find enough talent stuck at the AHL level behind established veterans to field two teams that win 40% of their games at the NHL level almost immediately. I just don't see the dearth of talent in this league that some people claim to see.

Quote:
and give us more teams that eventually need to be moved or contracted.
Because the NHL is constantly contracting teams.

There's always going to be a pro-contraction lobby, that lobby has an ironic tendency to yearn for the old days when was scoring at its peak -- and there there were 24 NHL teams and only Canada to provide the talent for them.

Talent dilution, if it even exists, isn't NEARLY the problem people are making it out to be. Gretzky and Orr don't put up the totals that make them legends if they don't have a diluted league to play against.

Quote:
Personally, I think they should move (at least) two teams and contract (at least) two others.
As I say to everyone who puts this idea forward: Sure. We'll start with your team. Would you rather move it or contract it?

Quote:
But, nobody wants to take anyone's job away from them, so I doubt contraction will ever be looked it.
Nor should it. Compared to the dimensions of the actual problem, contraction at this point is like punishing littering with the death penalty.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 03:23 PM
  #63
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oshie97 View Post
How would this help the small and medium market teams at all? In fact it would probably hurt them more by raising the cap floor even higher. I have no problem with expansion, and I don't care where, but fix the finanicial situation of the league before adding more teams.
More teams producing profits, means more money available for the RS pool.

__________________
"It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 03:33 PM
  #64
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Which is why I think this lockout is going horribly. Not because the two sides aren't talking, or are far apart. They're not talking and are far about about THE WRONG ISSUE.

It doesn't matter if we have teams in Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle or wherever. Because if they go through with their payroll tied to average revenue plan, PIT, OTT, WIN, MIN, SJ, LA, and EDM are going to join the list of have nots by 2020. We'll have 11 good markets and 19 ones that are struggling to keep up.
Yes, but as we've discussed before, it would mean a shift in HRR to use the median revenue... which means a decrease in HRR, which Fehr would never ever accept. They might have been able to get that initially, but to try to do that now will not work.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 03:34 PM
  #65
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
While Kelly probably shouldn't have been fired, he's not some messiah that some people are making him out to be. Look to his last job with the NCAA, made relations with the NCAA and CHL even worse with his bombastic rhetoric, and he was 'fired' from there as well.
Every guy in a position like that (GM/coaches are the same) are hired to be fired.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 04:11 PM
  #66
tigermask48
Maniacal Laugh
 
tigermask48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: R'Lyeh, Antarctica
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Talent dilution, if it even exists, isn't NEARLY the problem people are making it out to be. Gretzky and Orr don't put up the totals that make them legends if they don't have a diluted league to play against.
Never got this arguement at all. So hockey has since the "golden age" of the NHL grown into an international game with kids growing up the world over (no longer mostly NA) dreaming of playing in the NHL, and yet somehow adding ~50 more spots in the league is going to dilute talent? With modern sports training and coaching, and the ability to select from a larger population of people than ever before in the history of the NHL, how exactly is that going to dilute the talent pool and make the average NHL player less talented? Look how far countries like Sweden and Switzerland have come in the last ten years as far as developing NHL players. I'd say the talent level on a worldwide scale has never been higher than it is now and expanding the NHL is only going help grow the game that much more at an international level.

tigermask48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 05:58 PM
  #67
Hamilton Tigers
Registered User
 
Hamilton Tigers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyShack View Post
Phoenix is the 6th largest us city. You want a hockey team there if you want a large us tv deal
How's that strategy been working out for the NHL for the last 40 or so years.

Phoenix is a hit, and Winnipeg sucks...Not!

The Phantom U.S. national TV deal...

No matter how much the NHL tries to "grow the game", hockey will always be a regional game in the U.S., and football, basketball, and basball will always be national sports played in virtually all schools by most kids.

Nothing wrong with that. The sooner the NHL realizes that, the better it id for the sport and the league.

Hamilton Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 06:06 PM
  #68
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabbott50 View Post
Expansion would water down the product, and give us more teams that eventually need to be moved or contracted. Personally, I think they should move (at least) two teams and contract (at least) two others.
I disagree. What waters down the talent more? Expansion or a salary cap?

You have a finite amount of cap space in the league. The best players get the big contracts, and after that, teams round out their rosters with young (aka CHEAP) players. It squeezes the veteran third-line players out of the league and replaces them with rookies who aren't quite ready for the league.

I think most of the "talent dilution myths" are destroyed by the Islanders. Not that the Islanders are a great team, but they're a great showcase for these concepts.

Guys like Doug Weight, Marty Reasoner and Brian Rolston used to go to better teams giving their grinder lines $2 million. The Islanders never got guys like that. Now, Cup contenders don't have cap space to give their bottom lines $2 million, because their top line, D-pairing and starting goalie is making 70% of their cap space. So they use young guys from the AHL and 35-year olds with playoff experience are out of work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Not appreciably. You could probably find enough talent stuck at the AHL level behind established veterans to field two teams that win 40% of their games at the NHL level almost immediately. I just don't see the dearth of talent in this league that some people claim to see.
The argument goes like this: Fringe NHL players are usually someone who is about 24 or 25, shuffles between AHL/NHL as a depth player, played in about 30 NHL games in his career and scored a handful of goals. Those are not NHL caliber players. Adding two teams to the league means a guy like that is now a significant piece of an NHL team. Who wants to see a team of scrubs like that?

Three years ago, that description fit the Los Angeles Kings' Matt Moulson: 25 years old, 29 career games, 6 goals.
Again, Islanders blow up an expansion dilution myth. Would you say Matt Moulson isn't a capable NHL player? Heck no. They gave him a steady job and he's been a 30-goal scorer all three years on Long Island.

Is he a super-talented, NHL superstar like Ovechkin/Stamkos? Not at all. But not all 700 guys in the league are. There's really not a lot of difference between the 690th-best hockey player in the world and the 736th-best hockey player in the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
More teams producing profits, means more money available for the RS pool.
Yeah, but raising the average revenue, meaning more teams need more money. This is why median needs to be adopted: More teams making profits would mean more revenue sharing dollars that would raise the bottom of the league; with average, more profits = higher cap/floor, more teams further in the red.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Yes, but as we've discussed before, it would mean a shift in HRR to use the median revenue... which means a decrease in HRR, which Fehr would never ever accept. They might have been able to get that initially, but to try to do that now will not work.
I don't get why it's a one-way street: If more profits = more revenue sharing; then going to Median would make for more profitable teams, more revenue sharing dollars, more teams SPENDING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SPEND.

And using median might not actually lower the dollars for the NHLPA. Yeah, it's less dollars using median instead of average if you use the same percentage. But why would you use the same percentage?

It was 57% of HRR. The NHL and NHLPA both seem to okay with 50% as long as other conditions apply.

Using 2011 dollars:
50% of HRR using AVG for midpoint = $1,558.5 million to the players
12 teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay into revenue sharing, 10 teams in the middle.

Using 2011 dollars: 53.6% of Adjusted HRR* using MED for midpoint = $1,559.8 million (About the same money).
SIX teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay a lot into revenue sharing, 7 teams can pay a little into revenue sharing, nine teams in the middle.

It lowers the amount of revenue sharing NEEDED and creates more revenue sharing to bump up spending on players. Mission Accomplished.


Last edited by KevFu: 10-30-2012 at 06:28 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 06:19 PM
  #69
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,269
vCash: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
exactly. When you're in trouble, you don't take on even more risk, you should try to minimize your existing risk...

... starting with moving Phx to QC. This single action would help the league immediately.
And make Shane Doan regret not signing with Canucks.

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 06:47 PM
  #70
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
How's that strategy been working out for the NHL for the last 40 or so years.

Phoenix is a hit, and Winnipeg sucks...Not!

The Phantom U.S. national TV deal...

No matter how much the NHL tries to "grow the game", hockey will always be a regional game in the U.S., and football, basketball, and basball will always be national sports played in virtually all schools by most kids.

Nothing wrong with that. The sooner the NHL realizes that, the better it id for the sport and the league.
did you forget that they were moved before?

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 07:07 PM
  #71
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Yeah, but raising the average revenue, meaning more teams need more money. This is why median needs to be adopted: More teams making profits would mean more revenue sharing dollars that would raise the bottom of the league; with average, more profits = higher cap/floor, more teams further in the red.



I don't get why it's a one-way street: If more profits = more revenue sharing; then going to Median would make for more profitable teams, more revenue sharing dollars, more teams SPENDING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SPEND.

And using median might not actually lower the dollars for the NHLPA. Yeah, it's less dollars using median instead of average if you use the same percentage. But why would you use the same percentage?

It was 57% of HRR. The NHL and NHLPA both seem to okay with 50% as long as other conditions apply.

Using 2011 dollars:
50% of HRR using AVG for midpoint = $1,558.5 million to the players
12 teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay into revenue sharing, 10 teams in the middle.

Using 2011 dollars: 53.6% of Adjusted HRR* using MED for midpoint = $1,559.8 million (About the same money).
SIX teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay a lot into revenue sharing, 7 teams can pay a little into revenue sharing, nine teams in the middle.

It lowers the amount of revenue sharing NEEDED and creates more revenue sharing to bump up spending on players. Mission Accomplished.
Maybe I'm just tired... but if you're using the median to determine HRR - which I think most will agree is one of the very few truly sustainable cap models (long term). The only way it makes a difference/helps is if it's less money going to the players. Otherwise, where is the money coming from?

Change the % any way you want. 50% of average revenue, or 57% of the median revenue... long term the median is not likely to grow at the same rate as the average revenue growth - which is the whole point of using it (to remove the top/bottom teams from the equation).

That still doesn't matter if Fehr will not accept that model. And he doesn't seem inclined to accept anything that might give the players less than fixed amounts with raises... why would he suddenly want to have HRR redefined to the point where they're losing a few hundred million? Even if it's over a long term - say median at 65/70% (or whatever % means the players shouldn't lose anything) that drops yearly over a 10+ year deal until it reaches ~50-55%?

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 08:00 PM
  #72
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Maybe I'm just tired... but if you're using the median to determine HRR - which I think most will agree is one of the very few truly sustainable cap models (long term). The only way it makes a difference/helps is if it's less money going to the players. Otherwise, where is the money coming from?

Change the % any way you want. 50% of average revenue, or 57% of the median revenue... long term the median is not likely to grow at the same rate as the average revenue growth - which is the whole point of using it (to remove the top/bottom teams from the equation).

That still doesn't matter if Fehr will not accept that model. And he doesn't seem inclined to accept anything that might give the players less than fixed amounts with raises... why would he suddenly want to have HRR redefined to the point where they're losing a few hundred million? Even if it's over a long term - say median at 65/70% (or whatever % means the players shouldn't lose anything) that drops yearly over a 10+ year deal until it reaches ~50-55%?
I see what you're saying, which makes complete sense.

I kinda left out the second part: the difference between HRR/Median would be offset by an increased percentage of HRR going into revenue sharing.

Since every single year, 15 teams would be above the median (instead of 10 above the average), you'd have more teams paying in to revenue sharing; and the rich teams would be paying even more into revenue sharing based on the increase in RS%.

Every year you'd have 15 teams below the median (instead of 20 below average). With that larger revenue sharing pool, less teams below the midpoint, and those teams being closer to the midpoint, the revenue sharing payments would allow those bottom 15 to get closer to the MIDPOINT, instead of just getting to the floor.

Ideally for the NHL, everyone's at the cap. This could have 10 at the cap, 15+ at the MIDPOINT and very few only at the floor (rebuilding teams).

Obviously, Median won't grow at the same rate as average. But the revenue sharing pool would grow because it's based on pure HRR, and those funds would go further, so more teams would have money and spend more on players.

The players would be getting back what they allow to run through revenue sharing first. The owners would be able to spend more on players, AFTER they secured their financial stability.

The funding would basically come from a little bit more revenue from teams 1-10 in revenues paying a higher percentage into revenue sharing, teams 11-15 paying into revenue sharing instead of simply being exempt because the revenue average was above them; teams 16-30 needing far less revenue sharing than before to meet their financial obligations.


My logical disconnect is are the players actually GETTING their 57% now? And from whom? Because 12 teams can't afford that. The players are upset about loopholes like the Islanders using bonus money to hit the cap but not paying actual dollars because it's impossible for multiple players on their roster to win the Conn Smythe Award.

I think the answer to your question of "Where is the money coming from?" is this: Right now, it's coming from guys like Charles Wang writing an $8 million personal check to cover expenses because the team loses money. And that's what they're trying to stop.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 08:15 PM
  #73
AlienLanes82
Registered User
 
AlienLanes82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Country: South Africa
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
How's that strategy been working out for the NHL for the last 40 or so years.

Phoenix is a hit, and Winnipeg sucks...Not!

The Phantom U.S. national TV deal...
The strategy's been working pretty well for NHL players, who banked 1.8 billion last year. How much do you think they'd get in salary in a 14 team league made up of solely traditional markets?

AlienLanes82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 08:45 PM
  #74
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 16,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
No one is making him out to be a messiah. He clearly indicated from the onset in 2007 when he was made Executive Director that he intended to create a better dialogue with the League, to seek a partnership and work through any issues well in advance of the expiration of the CBA, and create a culture wthin the PA to repair the whole fissures and cracks left behind with Saskin's departure. That did not sit well with the hardliner's faction within the PA. And certain agents as well.

Don't confuse wishful thoughts of PK still being in charge that there'd be no lockout as annointing him as The Savior. What you're reading here are folks obviously frustrated with the current situation and any breath of change or wishful thinking, even if in speculaion, is an avenue of venting that frustration because, quite simply... we never got a chance to see what the man could have done.

And one thing Paul Kelly had that Fehr did not. He certainly had a better inside track going into the forthcoming negotiations given he had a better pulse on knowing what the League intended this go around and had personnel in place to tackle the HRR and other revenue aspects (namely Bob Lindquist). He had his ducks in a row as far back as Spring 2009.



Wrong. The issues surrounding College Hockey Inc was he wanted C.H.I. to have a stronger and more meaningful presence in relation to College Hockey as a whole than merely just the "Marketing Arm". Coaches want to see it. Some Athletic Directors did as well. Unfortuntaely, the higher ups didn't and when he began advocating that it needed to be, he was "silenced" (Resign or get the boot).

I'm treading on a slippery slope here, and I have to be very caretful about what I say as... I don't want to be labeled by the CHL'ers here that I'm taking a (or his) side on this but... the NCAA is obviously fed up with what it deems "poaching" or "enticements" to kill players NLI's (National Letter of Intent) by some CHL clubs. He obviously was very passionate about that.
I can't agree with that. When people say there wouldn't be a lockout with Kelly, that's saying some pretty ridiculous things. How can you know that? No one can know that, just because he wanted better relations with the league doesn't mean that. Fehr isn't some devil who wants to screw the league.

On the CHL, Kelly only made things worse, and the leagues almost sued over claims Kelly made. College hockey isn't viewed in any better light than it was before. Kelly didn't do anything positive, but he made a lot of people mad.

The issue of "poaching" isn't for this threat but claims he made about that are what Kelly is going to be remembered for, and that's certainly not a positive thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltWhitman View Post
All he did was provide kids with information about college hockey. I guess if he made CHL partisans angry, he must've been doing a good job of that.

The reason he was fired was because the smaller schools with less money didn't think they were getting helped as much as the big schools with more money and elite prospects. It wasn't because of his so-called "bombastic rhetoric".

It was a big mistake by College Hockey Inc. to fire him.
I didn't say that was the reason he was fired, but his speeches about the CHL sure didn't help him or the NCAA, it made him look like an idiot who would say anything.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 09:57 PM
  #75
WaltWhitman
Registered User
 
WaltWhitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
On the CHL, Kelly only made things worse, and the leagues almost sued over claims Kelly made. College hockey isn't viewed in any better light than it was before. Kelly didn't do anything positive, but he made a lot of people mad.

.......................

I didn't say that was the reason he was fired, but his speeches about the CHL sure didn't help him or the NCAA, it made him look like an idiot who would say anything.
Jeez, the big bad CHL is so scared of any criticism or competition.

-

"Mommy, Paul Kelly is looking at us! Make him stop!"


Last edited by WaltWhitman: 10-30-2012 at 10:06 PM.
WaltWhitman 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 03:39 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.