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.
Who here would like to see the NHL completely dissolve?
View Poll Results: Would you like to see the NHL crumble and see a new league created?
a lot of people on here don't understand the concept of branding. Like or not, teams are tied as much to the league they play in as well as to the cities they play in. This is why the NHL can go to a network & get X amount of dollars vs a non-entity like the AHL or the USHL. This is a foolish idea to get rid of a league that has decades of operations behind it all for 2 months of non-play....
Actually - you're the one with the problems understanding here. The Habs were formed before the NHL - they can exist afterwards. So can most of the teams.
I root for the Habs - not the frigging nhl. The owners had better get off of their arse and solve this soon, or their only profitable teams are going bye-bye.
Do I want to say goodbye to every franchise's name, jersey, logo, history etc, especially that of the Rangers, who I grew up following and being entertained by, because two months of hockey have been cancelled? No. No I don't.
If the NHL dissolves, the Montreal Canadiens will be playing in a new league (KHL NA, the North American Hockey League, the Canadian Major Hockey League, whatever) in a cocaine heartbeat. And the Leafs will probably be with them.
This. The NHL doesn't make the teams...the teams make the NHL. If the league were to dissolve, there'd be another league that popped up in a heartbeat taht would follow similar structure as the NHL.
Good luck creating this new league. If the players and owners can't get on the same page in an existing league where there are only a few points of difference, how are they supposed to hash out an entirely new set of rules and financial platforms that make both parties happy?
Good luck creating this new league. If the players and owners can't get on the same page in an existing league where there are only a few points of difference, how are they supposed to hash out an entirely new set of rules and financial platforms that make both parties happy?
Easy. They wouldn't.
The financially viable teams would just begin operating under the old free market.
If Toronto wants to spend a billion dollars a year, they would be free to do so.
If St. Louis wanted to spend 15 million in order to be a stable franchise, they would be free to do so.
You seem to be inferring that convoluted financial and roster regulations must go hand in hand with any form of professional sports.
Look at Elliotte Friedman's list of hardline franchises. All sad-sack US teams except for the Bruins and the Caps (who certainly can be a sad sack team when they aren't qualifying for the playoffs).
Anaheim's not bringing anything to a league except its very presence, those guys can go jump off a bridge for all I care. In a cutthroat world where NHL armageddon happens they either play by the big boy's rules or they're left holding a worthless business that only exists on paper. Jeremy Jacobs doesn't marshal 10 teams, he marshals his own. He's the old man yelling at the sky in a dog-eat-dog North American hockey picture.
The owners with the biggest clubs are left with the power and they can bargain with the players in a more sensible fashion. Other than Jacobs this lockout isn't being pushed by the rich teams, it's being pushed by the 13 teams that don't make money and the 7-8 teams that can very easily imagine not making money in the next 5 years. AKA the deadwood.
So you are one of those that would like to have a 10 team NHL. You are in the minority.
Sort of like the minority of eight NHL owners who hold the rest of the league, the players, the fans, and the dependent businesses hostage because they don't care about the game.
Sort of like the minority of eight NHL owners who hold the rest of the league, the players, the fans, and the dependent businesses hostage because they don't care about the game.
You could also say, like the top 25-50 earners on the PA side holding the other 650 union guys at bay...? Same thing...
You could also say, like the top 25-50 earners on the PA side holding the other 650 union guys at bay...? Same thing...
Same thing.
Eliminate the cap and all of these problems instantly go away.
Players and owners wouldnt be fighting over percentages, and salary floors wouldn't be killing weak markets that can't afford to rise along with the tide of the Canadian dollar.
Eliminate the cap and all of these problems instantly go away.
Players and owners wouldnt be fighting over percentages, and salary floors wouldn't be killing weak markets that can't afford to rise along with the tide of the Canadian dollar.
No, but non-competition would kill the weak markets. That's the reason to cap was put in place.
Eliminate the cap and all of these problems instantly go away.
Players and owners wouldnt be fighting over percentages, and salary floors wouldn't be killing weak markets that can't afford to rise along with the tide of the Canadian dollar.
The problem of 20 teams folding outweighs the desire of big markets to spend as much as they want.
Your philosophy simply doesn't fly among most hockey fans. Nobody is interested in an NHL that resembles the EPL. That kind of league would be garbage.
In the early 1900's dozens of teams competed for Stanley Cup and many in competing leagues yes I would prefer the Nhl stay together but would like changes in transfering teams to hockey markets.
No, but non-competition would kill the weak markets. That's the reason to cap was put in place.
Would it?
I seem to recall small/non-traditional markets like Dallas, Tampa and Carolina competing just fine under the old system (while the Leafs and Rangers blew their brains out while accomplishing nothing, I might add).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
The problem of 20 teams folding outweighs the desire of big markets to spend as much as they want.
Your philosophy simply doesn't fly among most hockey fans. Nobody is interested in an NHL that resembles the EPL. That kind of league would be garbage.
Why would 20 teams have to fold if the cap were eliminated and all of a sudden they were allowed to cut costs and build their organization in a prudent, fiscally responsible fashion, that would allow them to consider the context and circumstances of their own unique situation when making decision about spending?
Again, I cite the pre salary cap NHL and it's Carolina, Dallas, Tampa Bay, New Jersey champions (along with Buffalo, Dallas, Anaheim, Florida, Washington as finalists) as pretty good evidence that not having a salary cap doesn't guarantee big spenders anything.
Hell, if the league went back to that old system, eliminating the salary cap in exchange for a 31 year old UFA age, it would be the best thing possible for the struggling clubs. They get to return to the fiscally reponsible, build through the draft mentality where they get the best ten years of a draftee's career, and then either trade them at 30 years of age, or let them walk as a UFA and have the Leafs or Rangers pay for the next ten years of mediocrity and medical costs.
There would be a ton, I mean a ton of Eric Lindros's after the draft, if they ever went back to that old system...no one would want to be drafted by those small markets...and the small guys would never be able to keep the kids they draft after an ELC deal if they did report to their respective small market teams....
That old system also had alot of flaws, but who cares as long as the players get their money, right?
I seem to recall small/non-traditional markets like Dallas, Tampa and Carolina competing just fine under the old system (while the Leafs and Rangers blew their brains out while accomplishing nothing, I might add).
Why would 20 teams have to fold if the cap were eliminated and all of a sudden they were allowed to cut costs and build their organization in a prudent, fiscally responsible fashion, that would allow them to consider the context and circumstances of their own unique situation when making decision about spending?
Again, I cite the pre salary cap NHL and it's Carolina, Dallas, Tampa Bay, New Jersey champions (along with Buffalo, Dallas, Anaheim, Florida, Washington as finalists) as pretty good evidence that not having a salary cap doesn't guarantee big spenders anything.
Hell, if the league went back to that old system, eliminating the salary cap in exchange for a 31 year old UFA age, it would be the best thing possible for the struggling clubs. They get to return to the fiscally reponsible, build through the draft mentality where they get the best ten years of a draftee's career, and then either trade them at 30 years of age, or let them walk as a UFA and have the Leafs or Rangers pay for the next ten years of mediocrity and medical costs.
How in the world could a franchise ice a competitive team if they have a $15 or $20 million payroll? They can't. The team loses, the people stop coming and the franchise is gone.
Only the top 10 or 12 teams will continue to make a go of it. You know that is true, you are just trying to find a way for the Leafs to actually win. They can't do it with smart management so spending like the Yankees must be the answer.
No league with financial disparity in spending - when gate receipts are the major source of revenue - can flourish long term.
When player salaries are about 25% of revenues, everyone competes fine. In today's NHL, there is no way that is possible.
How in the world could a franchise ice a competitive team if they have a $15 or $20 million payroll? They can't. The team loses, the people stop coming and the franchise is gone.
Only the top 10 or 12 teams will continue to make a go of it. You know that is true, you are just trying to find a way for the Leafs to actually win. They can't do it with smart management so spending like the Yankees must be the answer.
No league with financial disparity in spending - when gate receipts are the major source of revenue - can flourish long term.
When player salaries are about 25% of revenues, everyone competes fine. In today's NHL, there is no way that is possible.
Yankees are good for baseball or so I'm told, I don't follow baseball.
Actually - you're the one with the problems understanding here. The Habs were formed before the NHL - they can exist afterwards. So can most of the teams.
I root for the Habs - not the frigging nhl. The owners had better get off of their arse and solve this soon, or their only profitable teams are going bye-bye.
not in this day & age. You can deride the league all you want, but the fact remains these teams wouldn't have achieved the level they currently enjoy without being part of the NHL. The Habs have a great history, but the vast majority of it was made while being an NHL team....one brand doesn't exist without the other. The whole flare up a few years back between the Rangers & the NHL is a classic example.
who are they going to play? What overall entity is going to ensure contracts? Ensure leases in arenas? While it is true these are stand-alone businesses, they are backed by a bigger entity known as the NHL. The fact is, a credible professional league gives teams like the Leafs the ability to be who they are. The NHL brand is recognized throughout the world as the premiere hockey league. Without that branding in place, even historical teams like the Leafs & Habs don't exist. One side feeds the other. Think of it another way, without the NFL, how long do you think the Green Bay Packers would last?
It's time for a new WHA-style threat to the NHL, something to make em take stock and get their stuff together. I was thinking the other day whether a league with three divisions (Van-Cal-Edm-Win-Min; Tor-Ham-Mtl-Que-Hal; NY-Bos-Det-Chi-Phi) and a four-team playoff would work out; seems feasible.
Who in Gods name would want? Forget your petty rage about the lockout. If the NHL ended I would never watch hockey again. I'm from Finland and NHL means more to me than Finnish league. The tradition, everything, it's magical. If NHL ended hockey would not mean nothing to me. No matter what new league they would spring up.
Lockout sucks but if NHL actually disbanded or something.... I'd puke.
