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, 10:28 PM
  #76
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 500
We do seem to be a hearing a lot from Kelly lately. Seems a bit strange. Is he getting set up to play the Ted Saskin role?

About his idea of using expansion money to bridge the gaps, as if that is plausible that the owners are about to forgo on that capital stream, Fehr claims he asked owners about expansion and they claimed it wasnt on the calendar. We know it was on Boots' calendar. We also know the owners asked for a two asterisk years of realignment ostensibly to allow them to change things a 2nd time when 2 expansion teams came in and they wanted to ensure there was maximum marketing opportunities around realignment perhaps so they hoped to change things twice, once to realign to prepare for the expansion teams and a 2nd time to receive them, instead of just once when the expansion teams entered the league? Doing it just once would take away one of the greatest fan enjoyments - asterisk years.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:39 PM
  #77
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 Krishna View Post
did you forget that they were moved before?
Point is, Winnipeg was moved as soon as it was determined it couldn't work. An outdated arena and ownership were a major problem. Problem solved, go back to Winnipeg.

Even in Atlanta the NHL tried twice.

Why stick with such a dismal 10 year failure in Phoenix? What exactly has the Phoenix franchise done for attracting U.S. TV viewership?

Guess they're counting on the new CBA to attract an owner and make the franchise viable.

Seems to me Paul Kelly's strategy is more sound.

Hamilton Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:49 PM
  #78
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 AlienLanes82 View Post
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?
Who said anything about a 14 team league in strictly traditional markets?

And why exactly are the players not playing right now? The owners can't afford to pay them, what they have been willing to pay them in the past.

The owners need more revenue (lucrative markets), or reduce costs (pay players less, get out of major money losing markets)

Hamilton Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 10:52 PM
  #79
bishop12
Ovyously
 
bishop12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsBtn View Post
What were the players thinking firing this guy?

He's all about creative solutions to grow the game that will help both sides.

A pox on the NHLPA.
+1

Great piece. This sounds like a legitimate solution.

bishop12 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2012, 11:12 PM
  #80
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienLanes82 View Post
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?
1.8 B is the revenue of the league. Guess what 40% of that was from 7 Canadian teams. How much do you think the "tv deals" (if it exists) of these "large markets" (not large HOCKEY markets) earn since they expanded to the south since 10 years ago? You talk about money, when majority of it was from traditional markets.

JetsFlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 10:31 AM
  #81
Master Shake
Registered User
 
Master Shake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kazakhstan
Posts: 1,765
vCash: 500
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=4433555

Master Shake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 11:08 AM
  #82
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Winnipeg and Phoenix are currently tied at one for having franchises fail out from under them.

At least Phoenix has a chance to be a big market if the ownership can get its crap together.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 11:18 AM
  #83
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFlyHigh View Post
1.8 B is the revenue of the league. Guess what 40% of that was from 7 Canadian teams.
Of which 80% of that was from 2 of those Canadian teams.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 12:06 PM
  #84
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,849
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Shake View Post
Key passage from 2009:

Another former executive committee member was concerned that Kelly's dismissal would signal a return to the "tragic days" of the past that saw the sport lose an entire season (the 2004-05 lockout) because owners and players were at such odds. He told ESPN.com that reports of Kelly being too close to the NHL made no sense given that the players and league share in league revenues.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 12:28 PM
  #85
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 Dojji View Post
Winnipeg and Phoenix are currently tied at one for having franchises fail out from under them.

At least Phoenix has a chance to be a big market if the ownership can get its crap together.
Phoenix is big market for many things, but a big market for hockey? Not so sure.

As for Winnipeg, I would say it is not a big market for many things, but it is a "big" hockey market (top half, no?)

Hamilton Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 07:25 PM
  #86
Major4Boarding
Global Moderator
I solve problems
 
Major4Boarding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of Heaven
Country: Scotland
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
Give a listen

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockeynight...medium=twitter

Major4Boarding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 07:43 PM
  #87
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 16,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Of which 80% of that was from 2 of those Canadian teams.
You mean that doesn't prove that the NHL needs like 12 Canadian teams?

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:10 PM
  #88
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Explorer View Post
Expansion? Are you crazy? The league is water downed enough as it is. They should be talking contraction if anything! If we didn't have the bottom feeder teams, we wouldn't be in this mess every 8 years!
#1 - I'm not crazy, it's not my idea. Published report about the NHL using expansion as a CBA tactic here:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1269991

And this very thread.

#2 - "Watered down" is a myth. Quality hockey is about balance and style of play. A league of super sound technical players with all the fringe NHL players removed… might be boring as hell. Everyone would be in position, no one makes a mistake, and system would be more important than talent, so every team becomes a lock/trap team. We don't know. Maybe mistakes being made, and having a 6th D-man on team #30 allow the superstars to impress us.

#3 - There's really not a lot of difference between players #644 (28 teams) and #690 (30 teams); nor a big difference between #690 and #736 (32 teams)

#4 - The cap squeezes veterans out of the league (payroll inflexibility leads to teams using young, inexperienced - aka CHEAP - players for their role players instead of veteran depth guys) more than expansion. Some of these players would stick around longer with two more teams.

#5 - The current system of tying payroll to league average HRR ensures we will always be in this mess, unless all the teams have similar revenues and grow them at equal rates. The current situation is that the league average revenue is between the #10 and #11 revenue teams, making 10 teams too poor to keep up financially. Eliminating those 10 poor teams raises the average revenue, and CREATES NEW POOR TEAMS. If you simply axe the bottom every CBA, you'd ultimately end up in a situation where TOR is a "have" and one other team (NYR or MON) is a "have not" and everyone else folded.

In other words: "If we didn't have bottom feeder teams we wouldn't be in this mess" is a load of crap. If we didn't have THOSE bottom feeder teams, the next poorest would become the bottom feeder teams. It's a curve, someone has to be at the bottom. Be happy it's PHX, FLA, CBJ, NASH who lack history, and not BUF, OTT, PIT, WIN, EDM, MIN who've been NHL markets for a long time.


Last edited by KevFu: 11-01-2012 at 08:39 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 08:43 PM
  #89
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
#1 - I'm not crazy, it's not my idea. Published report about the NHL using expansion as a CBA tactic here:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1269991

And this very thread.

#2 - "Watered down" is a myth. Quality hockey is about balance and style of play. A league of super sound technical players with all the fringe NHL players removed… might be boring as hell. Everyone would be in position, no one makes a mistake, and system would be more important than talent, so every team becomes a lock/trap team.
LOL! Yeah, and NHL hockey is more entartaining than Olympic Hockey.
Quote:
#3 - There's really not a lot of difference between players #644 (28 teams) and #690 (30 teams); nor a big difference between #690 and #736 (32 teams)

#4 - The cap squeezes veterans out of the league (payroll inflexibility leads to teams using young, inexperienced - aka CHEAP - players for their role players instead of veteran depth guys) more than expansion. Some of these players would stick around longer with two more teams.

#5 - The current system of tying payroll to league average HRR ensures we will always be in this mess, unless all the teams have similar revenues and grow them at equal rates. The current situation is that the league average revenue is between the #10 and #11 revenue teams, making 10 teams too poor to keep up financially. Eliminating those 10 poor teams raises the average revenue, and CREATES NEW POOR TEAMS. If you simply axe the bottom every CBA, you'd ultimately end up in a situation where TOR is a "have" and one other team (NYR or MON) is a "have not" and everyone else folded.

In other words: "If we didn't have bottom feeder teams we wouldn't be in this mess" is a load of crap. If we didn't have THOSE bottom feeder teams, the next poorest would become the bottom feeder teams. It's a curve, someone has to be at the bottom. Be happy it's PHX, FLA, CBJ, NASH who lack history, and not BUF, OTT, PIT, WIN, EDM, MIN who've been NHL markets for a long time.
Define "bottom feeder teams": Of course (technically) there are always going to be teams on the bottom and teams on the top in terms of revenue, but that doesn't mean the league should keep the bottom teams because of that. If that's the case why doesn't the league just get rid of Toronto: Revenues will plummet (as will the cap) and the great hockey markets of Florida and Phoenix will thrive! Then we'll have the joy of another lockout as "NHL players' salaries take-up too much of the league's revenues".

Greedy players.


Last edited by DyerMaker66: 11-01-2012 at 09:21 PM.
DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:42 PM
  #90
um
Registered User
 
um's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuklaNation View Post
Expansion would just exacerbate the current financial problems. Please could these people just read some economics 101 textbooks in their spare time.
not if the locations are hamilton/ markham and quebec city

um is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:45 PM
  #91
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Define "bottom feeder teams": Of course (technically) there are always going to be teams on the bottom and teams on the top in terms of revenue, but that doesn't mean the league should keep the bottom teams because of that. If that's the case why doesn't the league just get rid of Toronto: Revenues wil plummet (as will the cap) and the great hockey markets of Florida and Phoenix will thrive! Then we'll have the joy of another lockout as "NHL players' salaries take-up too much of the league's revenues".

Greedy players.
But that's my point: If the system actually operates better when you remove TOR, MON and NYR than if you remove NYI, PHX, CBJ, doesn't that mean the problem is the SYSTEM and not the TEAMS?

While the league is long-term better off with better markets and no teams "being a drain," the goal is to get as many teams as possible within the salary range with 50-57% of their HRR going to the players.

Let's say everyone in the league was making at least $90 million in revenues (and everyone else is unchanged). That adds $114 million to the revenues of the bottom 11 teams. You would think this would make the league better: No more "bottom feeders."

And it would, but not by much. Instead of 11 teams with 57% of HRR a combined $64.76 million below the floor, you'd have 12 teams a combined $61.39 million below the floor. So you need $114 million in revenues to cover $3.45 million in increased player costs. That is a broken model.

To solve the league's woes, you simply set up the system to be based on "THE MIDDLE TEAMS" instead of the "AVERAGE TEAM."

Using the MEDIAN of league revenue as your baseline for the the payroll midpoint, five teams move from below average to above average (and can pay small amounts into revenue sharing).

21 teams would be in the payroll range. The "bottom feeders" are a combined $10.3 million below the floor. And there's only two of them: NYI and PHX. NYI has a new building coming, so don't worry about them. Make the eligible for revenue sharing for a couple years (plenty to go around now: fewer teams need less money to hit the midpoint or floor)

Let's say NYI moving to Brooklyn gives them $98 million 2011 revenue dollars.
If you moved PHX to QUE and they matched OTT's revenues, the AVERAGE revenue would go up $8.3 million (and the midpoint $4.73 million). But based on MEDIAN, the midpoint only goes up $1.5 million with those two franchise moves.

All 30 teams would be either "within the payroll range" or (six teams) comfortably spending to the cap (based on 2011 dollars).


Of course, that works using 2011 dollars. The problem is you need the growth rate of the median and the bottom to be as close to the same as possible going forward. But it is a lot easier to keep up with the median growth rate (about 27%) than it is to keep up with the average growth rate (38%).

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:47 PM
  #92
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by um View Post
not if the locations are hamilton/ markham and quebec city
With expansion in those cities, the revenue would increase.

This increase would make the cap rise.

Cap rise would make teams make less money or start to drift into the red

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:50 PM
  #93
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by um View Post
not if the locations are hamilton/ markham and quebec city
Actually, he's right. Adding more slam-dunk rich market teams in Canada makes things worse for more teams under the current system.

UNLESS sharing the market slows down the Leafs' growth. But sharing NYC with TWO TEAMS hasn't prevented the Rangers from growing at a very similar clip to TOR (55% to 62%), so that probably won't slow them down.

If HRR/Payroll linkage is a chain that ties all 30 teams, the problem isn't the weight at the end of the chain slowing down everyone; it's the speed at the front causing the chain to snap, leaving the last 20 teams behind.

You have to find a way to prevent large amounts of revenue at the top of the league from being a BAD THING. It's a very good thing.

You have to make TOR, NYR, MON be outliers. Make THEM the exceptions.
The teams at the top should have more money than they can spend; not the teams at the bottom spending more money than they have.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 01:45 AM
  #94
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 Krishna View Post
With expansion in those cities, the revenue would increase.

This increase would make the cap rise.

Cap rise would make teams make less money or start to drift into the red
Got it. Increased revenue is bad, so forget about teams that can make a healthy profit.

Marginally profitable or break even teams are more desirable.

Phoenix's soultion? Move the Leafs to Atlanta. Cap will decrease, all problems solved.

Hamilton Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 02:18 AM
  #95
Lobotomizer*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Winnipeg and Phoenix are currently tied at one for having franchises fail out from under them.

At least Phoenix has a chance to be a big market if the ownership can get its crap together.
Phoenix has only one way of being big - accepting the most revenue sharing.

Lobotomizer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:03 AM
  #96
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 9,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
Who said anything about a 14 team league in strictly traditional markets?
several HF posters.

(I know, not a scientific study, but it has been mentioned. and I'm pretty sure most of the posts had the word "Phoenix" in it)

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 11:12 AM
  #97
Slot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
Got it. Increased revenue is bad, so forget about teams that can make a healthy profit.

Marginally profitable or break even teams are more desirable.

Phoenix's soultion? Move the Leafs to Atlanta. Cap will decrease, all problems solved.
Perversely, under the current way of arriving at the % of HRR which is to take the mean of the HRR number, yes. Markets that make far more money than they can spend under the cap are bad for teams that struggle with making payroll. There are many more teams near the bottom of the revenue barrel than teams at the top. Less revenue from two or three teams at the top actually becomes profit for more teams in the middle because with linked salaries it means that every team will spend less and they can turn a, small, profit on their income. Changing to a median figure means that the salary figures will move with the middle of the league rather than being tied to TOR, MTL and NYR making 80% (or there about) of the profit of the entire league and skewing the mean revenue figures up.

Slot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:01 PM
  #98
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton Tigers View Post
Got it. Increased revenue is bad, so forget about teams that can make a healthy profit.

Marginally profitable or break even teams are more desirable.

Phoenix's soultion? Move the Leafs to Atlanta. Cap will decrease, all problems solved.
No one really disputes that the Coyotes will be better off somewhere else, or that the league's configuration wouldn't be better if they moved; or that they would be more profitable in Quebec or elsewhere.

We're merely stating that moving Phoenix doesn't solve the economic issue that has us bogged down in a lockout.


It's really easy to scapegoat the teams losing money, but the fact is: The system is WHY they're losing money.

The league had a lockout because the players were getting 70% of HRR, and the owners all said "We can only go as high as 57%"

But 57% of HRR for someone like NYI, PHX, STL, CBJ, etc is only $44 million and the floor was slated to be at $62.4 million. That's like 80% of HRR for someone like NYI.


Another CBA solution would be to make an option for the floor be:
$8 million less than 57% of Average HRR (current floor) OR 57% of your team's HRR, whichever is lower.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 12:45 AM
  #99
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,307
vCash: 500
I respect Kelly and I even mentioned him as the ideal guy to replace Gary but I am completly against expansion. This team needs to relocate and contracts teams left and right. It needs a drastic solution to fix it and go for broke.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 03:37 PM
  #100
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major4Boarding View Post
That was interesting. Kelly says he is still in contact with a lot of players.

He also mentioned that if the owners were truly sincere about this grand sales pitch of 50/50, that they wouldnt create some artificial subset of revenues, subtract some costs, and maintain control over all the levers that can further manipulate those revenues that is allocated as HRR for sharing. They would just share 50% of all revenues. Otherwise, there is no real grand moral principle behind the number.

Baseball is said to spend a smaller percentage of revenues on salaries than the other leagues, but then MLB has no reason to create some artificial construct like BRI or HRR to use as their revenue figure. They just use baseball revenue.


He also said that anyone who thinks he would have been a pushover in these negotiations is sadly mistaken. He would have tried the good cop routine, but really, up against bettman, batterman, entire law firms with armies of lawyers forging new sports realities throughout the continent, this is not a time when many believe that an accommodating response is going to work best.

The owners disingenuous and poorly conceived idea for realignment they tried to shove through was allegedly based on the idea that there would soon be two new expansion franchises that would make the realignment fit best for them to move into.

So to take a portion of that money and set it aside for making the player contracts whole is an interesting thought, but it seems as likely the owners would set down that slippery slope as they would give up cost certainty. But who knows i guess, desperate times call for desperate measures perhaps.

thinkwild 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 02:45 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.