Hockey needs to be played in markets that want to watch hockey. Just because the Panthers can sell out a playoff game does not make them a viable market.
What about the struggling U.S economy, and the effects that's going to have in markets where hockey is already an after thought?
If we are only considering 2 more teams in Canada, than that saves 50% of the jobs lost in what I believe should NHL free markets: Florida, Tampa, Dallas and Phoenix
I'm making a somewhat complicated point, you need to be able to see a full two or three steps ahead in order to understand. Let's break it down:
1) There are 30 teams in the NHL. Some of them are struggling, you want to remove the weakest 4.
2) There will then be 26 teams in the NHL, average revenues per team are now up.
3) Now that average revenues have risen from say, ~110 million per year to ~115 million per year, the salary cap is now up, the cost of scouts is up, the cost of coaches and GMs is up, etc. The next 4 weakest teams, ranked 23-26, are now struggling.
4) You're right back to square one.
BTW Dallas Stars are a profitable team. They have an operating income of 3 million/year, and their franchise valuation increased by 4% last year. There is no need for them to relocate. However, if you removed the 4 weakest teams from the NHL, they would become unprofitable due to rising costs. Dallas would only need to be contracted if you contracted other teams first.
Last edited by DAChampion: 12-04-2012 at 05:24 PM.
i really hope that there is low turnout in a lot of arenas is this is resolved. unfortunately it looks like there has to be low turnout league wide with the welfare system setup they have.
Listening to 98.5FM, and at this time (7:30PM), they are taking a break for supper... Discussions will continue after the break.
What?? Are things actually moving forward? Martin McGuire said that one of his source told him Larry Tanenbaum and Burkle have been important actors so far today... The information is vague, but it seems like the divide might be shrinking bit by bit.
So far, he's asked Darche, St-Louis, Bergevin, and some other people if things are moving forward and up until now, no comments...
98.5 just reported that the entire habs upper brass (molson, bergevin, gilmore) as being around this meeting as well.
edit: Lots of good things on twitter. So far in these negotiations, I haven't seen both sides leak that they're happy with how things are going:
Kevin Paul Dupont @GlobeKPD
Getting some very positive vibes just now out of NHL's Manhattan Project. A vy encouraging word relayed from owner's side.
I'm making a somewhat complicated point, you need to be able to see a full two or three steps ahead in order to understand. Let's break it down:
1) There are 30 teams in the NHL. Some of them are struggling, you want to remove the weakest 4.
2) There will then be 26 teams in the NHL, average revenues per team are now up.
3) Now that average revenues have risen from say, ~110 million per year to ~115 million per year, the salary cap is now up, the cost of scouts is up, the cost of coaches and GMs is up, etc. The next 4 weakest teams, ranked 23-26, are now struggling.
4) You're right back to square one.
BTW Dallas Stars are a profitable team. They have an operating income of 3 million/year, and their franchise valuation increased by 4% last year. There is no need for them to relocate. However, if you removed the 4 weakest teams from the NHL, they would become unprofitable due to rising costs. Dallas would only need to be contracted if you contracted other teams first.
Not that I have heartburn with this, but why are costs rising if we cull the weak and remove the bottom 4 teams?
un****ingbelievable that it came to this. this was not an 11th hour tactic...it was / is the wrong leadership in place from the beginning - that planted the seeds of mistrust. if they get something done - bettman needs to go and they need fresh voices, perspective on ownership negotiating committee. Jacobs, leonsis...etc GTFO. didn't think i could hate the Bruins anymore than i do already
Not that I have heartburn with this, but why are costs rising if we cull the weak and remove the bottom 4 teams?
The salary cap, as an example, is determined by the average revenue per team.
If you remove the weakest teams, then the salary cap should go up; according to the Forbes numbers it would go up by ~4%, if I'm adding properly. You'd have fewer players in the league, but average pay per player would go up.
That said, I made some mistakes, I apologize. My argument is not as complete as I thought it was. Here are some factors I neglected to include:
1) Even if the bottom-4 teams contribute 7-10% of league revenues, league revenues would not drop that much, because whatever playoff revenues these teams made would be reallocated to other teams who would now make the playoffs instead.
2) If you maintain an 82 game season, the remaining 26 teams would each host an additional ~13% home games... i.e. the gate revenues lost by not having Florida Panthers home games would be offset by more home games for the remaining teams. Total gate revenue should thus INCREASE if you remove the 4 weakest teams.
However, things I don't know nearly enough about to speak conclusively:
3) The salaries of scouts, coaches, GMs, etc might go up if the remaining 26 teams are on average better-managed, but I'm not sure.
4) The National TV contract would now be split 26 ways rather than 30 ways, but its total monetary value might drop if the ratings drop.
So based #1,2; I don't think contraction would solve anything, but one would need to think more about #3, 4.
I'm making a somewhat complicated point, you need to be able to see a full two or three steps ahead in order to understand. Let's break it down:
1) There are 30 teams in the NHL. Some of them are struggling, you want to remove the weakest 4.
2) There will then be 26 teams in the NHL, average revenues per team are now up.
3) Now that average revenues have risen from say, ~110 million per year to ~115 million per year, the salary cap is now up, the cost of scouts is up, the cost of coaches and GMs is up, etc. The next 4 weakest teams, ranked 23-26, are now struggling.
4) You're right back to square one.
BTW Dallas Stars are a profitable team. They have an operating income of 3 million/year, and their franchise valuation increased by 4% last year. There is no need for them to relocate. However, if you removed the 4 weakest teams from the NHL, they would become unprofitable due to rising costs. Dallas would only need to be contracted if you contracted other teams first.
Yet, most independant economists disagree with you.
un****ingbelievable that it came to this. this was not an 11th hour tactic...it was / is the wrong leadership in place from the beginning - that planted the seeds of mistrust. if they get something done - bettman needs to go and they need fresh voices, perspective on ownership negotiating committee. Jacobs, leonsis...etc GTFO. didn't think i could hate the Bruins anymore than i do already
Nothing wrong with Bettman and nothing wrong with Fehr. I dislike Fehr but he's doing as players requested. It's his job, same applies for bettman.
I also don't see how there's bad leadership. They both didn't cave in regards to respecting the wishes of who they represent. I actually find bettman and Fehr stepping away willingly a sign that they are truly representing someone other than themselves.
Most independent economists have never really thought about the NHL.
They don't need to "think" about it. Its about numbers.
“The NHL made a mistake in overexpanding to bad markets, and now it’s trying to make the players pay for that mistake,” said Raymond D. Sauer, president of the North American Association of Sports Economists and chair of the economics department at Clemson University. “It’s that simple.”
Let me see: Chair of a major University's Economics department or a poster on a hockey message board?
Nothing wrong with Bettman and nothing wrong with Fehr. I dislike Fehr but he's doing as players requested. It's his job, same applies for bettman.
I also don't see how there's bad leadership. They both didn't cave in regards to respecting the wishes of who they represent. I actually find bettman and Fehr stepping away willingly a sign that they are truly representing someone other than themselves.
Bettman on behalf of the old guard of owners who sit on negotiating committee have 0 vision. none. nada.
i can't wait till this is over so i don't have to read palindrom ****ing trading Price to the leafs on the rumor board
They don't need to "think" about it. Its about numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring
“The NHL made a mistake in overexpanding to bad markets, and now it’s trying to make the players pay for that mistake,” said Raymond D. Sauer, president of the North American Association of Sports Economists and chair of the economics department at Clemson University. “It’s that simple.”
So you have one person, who probably isn't independent, and somehow you know what "most independent sports economists" think ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring
Let me see: Chair of a major University's Economics department or a poster on a hockey message board?
I stand by my orginal argument.
Yes, because the dismal science a great analytical and predictive track record :-)
Anyway you should have your own opinion rather than delegating to experts. Always think for yourself if you're in a position to do so. I know a lot of experts at various subjects. I'm an expert. Experts often know what they're talking about. But often, they're wrong, it happens. This will probably happen even more often in a discipline like economics than say physics, as the former has weaker foundations.
If you post his actual argument, I might be impressed. But right now it's just a conclusion and a credential. It has no value.
Last edited by DAChampion: 12-04-2012 at 11:26 PM.
Nothing wrong with Bettman and nothing wrong with Fehr. I dislike Fehr but he's doing as players requested. It's his job, same applies for bettman.
I also don't see how there's bad leadership. They both didn't cave in regards to respecting the wishes of who they represent. I actually find bettman and Fehr stepping away willingly a sign that they are truly representing someone other than themselves.
and this...with a 3+ billion dollar industry in chaos and distrust...it's essential for the paradigm to completely shift - for new fresh voices to stand in a place of possibility and establish new concepts that do not treat partners like cattle or whatever the **** else some of these owners refer to the players as. let's be clear - i'm not on either side, but the complete lack of vision on the part of very wealthy and powerful entrepreneurs / athletes has been astonishing http://triblive.com/sports/nhl/30688...#axzz2E9CKMvtW
