The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners
Your suggestion, then, is...what? Remove the cap, and allow the NHL to revert back to what it was in the 1990s with half the league acting as a feeder system for the other half?
The cap isn't the problem. The rapid acceleration of mandatory payrolls is a big problem, and the inability to offset that is a bigger one. The unwillingness of certain owners (read: "traditional markets") to adopt an NFL-style system of revenue sharing directly relates to that.
Also, ASG didn't "give up". They admitted to trying to dump the Thrashers less than six months after taking over the team, which is hardly indicative of actually exerting any effort.
Im suggesting you let each team operate how they see fit. If a team can generate top of the league revenue, then they can afford to spend a lot of money.
The big market teams will spend. Some will spend wisely, others will spend poorly.
You will have mid market teams that will spend some, but not go over the top.
And you will have a bunch of teams spending very little, but possibly doing it by making a tiny profit, or losing a little. Either way, it would be more profitable than the current system or anything currently on the table.
All comparisons to the NFL model are absurd until you figure out how to get the NHL National TV deals like the NFL has. Its important to play in the real world, not some make believe land.
Are you saying ASG bought the team to what? Just throw money away? They tried to make it work. Failed, and then gave up. They threw in the towel.
Hey, I would love to pay Kia prices and get a Jaguar, but I realize thats unrealistic. Apparently you dont agree. You think a market like Florida should get the same type of team the Rangers have while Florida fans pay $4 for 4 tickets, 4 beers, 4 dogs, 4 dollar bills, while the Rangers fans have to pay $800 for 4 tickets.
If you want to be a top notch franchise, you should pay top dollar. If you cant, you should put in an application for an AHL franchise.
No, the owners (including the owner of your team) wanted a 30 team league. They made that decision when they accepted the expansion fee from each of the new teams. If you want these teams gone then your owner will have to participate in buying those franchises and then folding them.
The teams that are "hardliners", and we really don't know who they are, because Snider has been a hawk in the past as has Jacobs, and even Ilitch to some extent, are not all failures. Most likely they understand the economic reality of the situation.
Thankfully, fans from big market teams, that for some reason love to pay top dollar for the crap sandwich their GM serves up year after year, don't have much of a say in all this.
I agree, which is why the league is headed down the toilet.
Once they wake up and realize they should create a system that benefits the haves and not the have nots, they will have a more profitable league.
Im suggesting you let each team operate how they see fit. If a team can generate top of the league revenue, then they can afford to spend a lot of money.
The big market teams will spend. Some will spend wisely, others will spend poorly.
You will have mid market teams that will spend some, but not go over the top.
And you will have a bunch of teams spending very little, but possibly doing it by making a tiny profit, or losing a little. Either way, it would be more profitable than the current system or anything currently on the table.
All comparisons to the NFL model are absurd until you figure out how to get the NHL National TV deals like the NFL has. Its important to play in the real world, not some make believe land.
Are you saying ASG bought the team to what? Just throw money away? They tried to make it work. Failed, and then gave up. They threw in the towel.
It's not absurd to look at the NFL model and make an assessment on why it is the most popular pro sports league in North America. Parity is promoted in the NFL via a salary cap and revenue sharing. That model obviously works.
Or very fortunately if you look at the last lockout, since it was done in a large part to save Canadian franchises. I guess we forgot about that in 8 short years.
100% BS When you can tell me how much RS Canadian teams have received since the last lockout then I'll listen.
RS has helped small market teams in areas not in Canada.
oh and the salary cap helped all teams...just in case you bring that up
It's not absurd to look at the NFL model and make an assessment on why it is the most popular pro sports league in North America. Parity is promoted in the NFL via a salary cap and revenue sharing. That model obviously works.
The popularity of MLB is falling.
Agree with pretty much all of this with one addition, marketing of the NFL and tv exposure skyrocketed in the mid to late 90s. Probably one of the most brilliant strategies that I've seen in a long time.
I'll go a step further too. As much parity as there is the NHL, that which is in the NFL is even more abundant. Teams struggling to make the playoffs in the NFL don't suprise me at all when they come close to going on deep post season runs. The league is more balanced as a whole in the NFL.
Agree with pretty much all of this with one addition, marketing of the NFL and tv exposure skyrocketed in the mid to late 90s. Probably one of the most brilliant strategies that I've seen in a long time.
I'll go a step further too. As much parity as there is the NHL, that which is in the NFL is even more abundant. Teams struggling to make the playoffs in the NFL don't suprise me at all when they come close to going on deep post season runs. The league is more balanced as a whole in the NFL.
I think the parity is due to the nature of the game and the fact that players can step in and make an impact so much faster (rookies and 2nd year players) and not so much the CBA.
It's not absurd to look at the NFL model and make an assessment on why it is the most popular pro sports league in North America. Parity is promoted in the NFL via a salary cap and revenue sharing. That model obviously works.
The popularity of MLB is falling.
So you are assuming the success of the NFL is only due to the salary cap and revenue sharing?
If ever cool story bro applied, it would be here.
The popularity of the EPL is growing in the US. It has no cap or anything. It even has relegation. Must mean relegation is the way to go.
NFL is popular because Americans like football a lot more than anything else. I think the parity helps, but the main issue is just that Americans really, really love football.
NBA has been doing well in recent years without parity. Either Kobe Bryant or LeBron James have been in the NBA Finals each of the last 6 years. Imagine if either Crosby or Ovechkin had been in the Stanley Cup Finals for 6 straight years.
The problem MLB and NHL are having is difficulty creating stars. National stars draw a national audience. NFL creates stars easily due to its popularity. NBA creates stars easily due to the nature of the game. A dominant individual player has more impact in basketball than the other pro sports. So the best player ends up winning championships, usually multiple times.
But the success of the NFL is not due to parity. It's due to football being football. And America loves football.
I think the parity is due to the nature of the game and the fact that players can step in and make an impact so much faster (rookies and 2nd year players) and not so much the CBA.
They also can jettison players at any time in the NFL, can't they? No guaranteed contracts that make you keep a player around for years even if he's a bust?
Hey wow, a few teams out of 30 are making money. WOOHOO. Meanwhile the others are losing huge sums.
In a perfect world Id love to see full revenue sharing among owners. But that isnt going to happen.
BTW MLSE owns alot more than just the Leafs
I'm aware MLSE owns a lot more than the Leafs. The point I was trying to get across was that a single isolated example, say Dallas or Toronto, does not provide an accurate depiction of the fiscal state of the league. We simply do not know what teams are making or losing aside from a select group of articles written on information from unnamed sources who may or may not reliable and may or may not have an agenda. The best solution would be for the NHL to open their books, prove to fans that their struggling and need concessions. They've have so far refused to do any such thing. Thus, we're left with conjecture. You and several others believe many NHL teams are losing significant sums of money; I believe that only a very small minority of clubs are losing significant amounts of money and the rest of the league is close to breaking even or profitable.
Quote:
The fact is, the players make WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much money. NHL players should NOT be making 4,5,6,8,9 million a year. Its ludicrous.
This is like saying if McDonalds in Beverly Hills makes millions pays their employees 20 bucks an hour that the McDonalds everywhere else should also.
NHL players are the best in the world at what they do and therefore are handsomely compensated for it. It is no different than a company going out and paying through the nose for the top executives possible.
Do players, like high-ranking executives, deserve the salaries they get when compared to the salaries of doctors and police personnel? Probably not, but if that is what the market is paying, then that is what they'll get.
I love this "speculation" by Friedman....basically took the Forbes list and grouped them into his top/middle/bottom...Genius!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick
So you are assuming the success of the NFL is only due to the salary cap and revenue sharing?
If ever cool story bro applied, it would be here.
The popularity of the EPL is growing in the US. It has no cap or anything. It even has relegation. Must mean relegation is the way to go.
Except no American has a local team in the EPL so nobody has to drop $60 to watch a team that can never win anything. You'll notice 95% of American "fans" are fans of 4/5 teams in England....the ones that win everything. If they had a local team to support (and watch fail every year) there wouldn't be near the support.
Funny thing about being the minority when a vote is taken, you lose. They can't just stop revenue sharing if there are enough owners who think revenue sharing should continue - and there always will be.
Just think, the other 25 owners could push through a CBA where the top 5 revenue teams have to put in 40% towards revenue sharing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick
Im suggesting you let each team operate how they see fit. If a team can generate top of the league revenue, then they can afford to spend a lot of money.
Which is how we lost WIN, MIN, QUE and HART the first time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick
And you will have a bunch of teams spending very little, but possibly doing it by making a tiny profit, or losing a little. Either way, it would be more profitable than the current system or anything currently on the table.
Which lowers interest in NHL hockey around the continent. Which lowers TV ratings around the continent. Which lowers advertising and TV deals around the continent, and everyone loses money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick
All comparisons to the NFL model are absurd until you figure out how to get the NHL National TV deals like the NFL has. Its important to play in the real world, not some make believe land.
The dollar values do not matter. The percentages do. The NFL shares 41% of LOCAL revenues and the NHL shares 4.5%. The other leagues believe parity is beneficial for a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17
It's not absurd to look at the NFL model and make an assessment on why it is the most popular pro sports league in North America. Parity is promoted in the NFL via a salary cap and revenue sharing. That model obviously works. The popularity of MLB is falling.
Hey, MLB even shares more local revenue than the NHL by a lot: 39%
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchex
NFL is popular because Americans like football a lot more than anything else. I think the parity helps, but the main issue is just that Americans really, really love football.
NBA has been doing well in recent years without parity. Either Kobe Bryant or LeBron James have been in the NBA Finals each of the last 6 years. Imagine if either Crosby or Ovechkin had been in the Stanley Cup Finals for 6 straight years.
That's a cute stat, but doesn't really say anything about parity. Jeff Carter and Marian Hossa have combined for five Finals appearances in the last six seasons, one less than Kobe/LeBron.
Nine different teams have made the NBA finals in the last six years and ten different NHL teams have made the finals in the last six years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchex
The problem MLB and NHL are having is difficulty creating stars. National stars draw a national audience. NFL creates stars easily due to its popularity. NBA creates stars easily due to the nature of the game. A dominant individual player has more impact in basketball than the other pro sports. So the best player ends up winning championships, usually multiple times.
But the success of the NFL is not due to parity. It's due to football being football. And America loves football.
I think that's moving away from the point: It's not about "parity" it's quite simply: Being competitive sells tickets.
Another thing I'd like to address about the article is just general stupidity.
"Thought for sure Minnesota would be in the hardline group with Wild owner Craig Leipold on the negotiating committee. But a few sources said they think he wants to play, eventually. Too much momentum to lose."
Life isn't Black or White. Life is shades of grey. Every owner WANTS to play, but wants to play with an economic system that they feel is (a) fair, and (b) brings in the most dollars for their franchise. It's not as simple as "The rich guys want to play, it's the poor guys who don't."
It's the poor guys who want to play, but want a CBA they can compete in and not have to pay out of pocket to run their franchise.
It's the rich guys who want to play, but want a CBA where they can spend on players what they can afford and not have to hand over millions to poor teams.
It's the middle guys who want to play, but want a CBA where everyone's on an even playing field because they'll never be rich, but might be poor.
And getting a CBA that works for all 30 owners AND the players is really hard.
One franchise doesn't have enough clout? They have 1/30th share in the owners decision, no different than anyone else. If someone feels they should have more clout, be mad at the guys who voted to add more owners in the owners room. All of the hate towards "new" franchise is stupid, because it's self inflicted. These teams didn't storm the NHL HQ, hold guns to the heads of traditional hockey teams and demand franchises. The old 23 wanted the new seven in the league. Blame doesn't bring solution. There's a time and a place for blame: and that is after solution. The arson investigators come in AFTER the fire is put out.
I'll save Friedman the time -- every team that lost money last year is one of the "hardliners".
If I was an owner losing money, I wouldn't accept anything less than a true 50-50 split in a very timely fashion and I would let that be known to Bettman.
If you're losing money anyway, what's the huge rush to get back on the ice? You've already lost the first two months of the season and probably the Winter Classic too, might as well get a proper deal done that sees you through the next 8+ years of business at this point.
My guess is to prevent losing more money. The have not teams are in trouble because they can't put butts in the seats. People always say that MLb cost them one in 5 fans. This might happen to the have not teams but as soon as hockey starts back up people in Toronto, mtl and NYC will be back in droves. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, isn't that what got us into this mess?
They are in a hard place, it seems they can't keep the current course but if they hold out for what they need in markets that cant or won't meet those needs, then we aren't arguing about saving or propping up teams but merely how much we can delay their ultimate demise ( or relocation)
I think the parity is due to the nature of the game and the fact that players can step in and make an impact so much faster (rookies and 2nd year players) and not so much the CBA.
I disagree but thats ok, the cap ceilings and floors in football can be utilized by GMs to build teams to such a degree they can get immediate results or long term results based on what they see fit.
Why should the teams that aren't really losing money annually have the power to decide how to handle a situation where many teams ARE losing money annually?
Without those teams,the NHL is not a $3.3B business. Those are the teams which will be forking over more of THEIR money into the expanded revenue sharing program. Those teams shouldn't have a major voice in the NHL debacle? Really? The maximum contribution/deduction of revenue sharing was $14M in the 2005 CBA. Some teams will be asked to fork over $10M more in top of the $14M. Those teams losing money will benefit from that money. What do teams such as the Rangers,Habs and Leafs which will be forking over $24M annually into revenue sharing get for their money? Those teams are making the money. Just hand over $24M and shut up? Think again.
Imagine if it came out that the Canadian owners were the hard-liners...we'd have the evil Canadian owners to go with the evil Canadian media.
Elliotte Friedman was on TSN 690 Montreal yesterday and said at least one Canadian team is a hardliner, and that several large market teams are also hardliners. He is working to verify the additional teams. There are a lot more hardliners than in the post.
I'm guessing at least Edmonton and probably Calgary are in this group.
Elliotte Friedman was on TSN 690 Montreal yesterday and said at least one Canadian team is a hardliner, and that several large market teams are also hardliners. He is working to verify the additional teams. There are a lot more hardliners than in the post.
I'm guessing at least Edmonton and probably Calgary are in this group.
I doubt Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg or for that matter Ottawa are part of this group.
Last lockout, I recall the Leafs were on the outside of the majority.
As for Montreal and Vancouver I have no idea where they stand.....in fact none of us know where any of them stand.
The one area where there's a huge discrepancy is TV revenue. All TV revenue including local should be shared.
