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.
Lockout III: So close, and yet so far (Moderated: see post #295)
Dallas was good when it paid for stars like Hull and Hatcher and Modano.
Now they're run like a small market team and they're suffering.
Same with Colorado. Two former western conference powers who suddenly became small-market teams when the cap was installed.
I can't speak for Dallas but I can comment on the Avalanche. Obviously the Avs had some problems adapting the cap and took time to improve their scouting, drafting, and other aspect of management. However, you are the one who always talks about owners GMs exercising control. The Avs have been a great example of that in recent years - offering for the most part measured contracts, meeting the market value on a few players like Parenteau. And IIRC the Avs have never signed a player for longer than 6 years (Stastny on a 6 year deal under the Avs most spendthrift management during the Francois Giguere years).
What's the result of this? - there is no chance any marquee free agent is going to sign with them if they're offering 5-6 year deals compared to 13 year, $100 million, back diving deals. It makes it a pretty hard ask to stay competitive because this reality also means that it will eventually be hard to retain their drafted players if they're not willing to do this. They also don't receive the cap advantage of having star players on artificially low cap hits and thus the ability to fill out their roster with better depth players down the road when the rebuild is done.
Yeah except the NHL is about as popular as watching paint dry in many US markets unless the team is competitive.
Hence the NHL has to have some level of parity for it to draw any attention in many US markets at all.
Look at Dallas ... team has been *great* for like 15 years, the minute they're sorta bad or treading water (and even then, they've almost made the playoffs a few times the last few years), attendance drops like a rock.
That's the reality of most NHL markets outside of the few in Canada.
The NBA, NFL, and MLB all have B-C tier players who are more popular and famous than Sidney Crosby. And their PAs all accept 50-50 splits of revenue.
Your not that naive. you are aware that they had OWNERSHIP issues? Look at the hawks and when Wirtz died look how things took off
Colorado, St. Louis and Dallas were western conference powers with the biggest stars in the game when there was no salary cap.
Now that there is, they are franchises that struggle.
Colorado still does OK. When you're finishing third last or whatever, you're going to take a hit unless you are in Canada, and even there, probably.
Hockey experienced a nice little boom in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was a fresh, somewhat hip novelty back then. Wayne Gretzky in LA. Disney pushing those Mighty Ducks movies.
Golly, kids in the US will take down their Michael Jordan posters and replace them with Gretzky and Lindros ones, just you watch! Joey on Friends wore a Rangers jersey! It's cool to rollerblade in neon pink and black spandex! Who knows? The next Wayne Gretzky could come from the Bronx! Or Green Bay! Or even Santa Monica!
Etc. etc. etc.
Reality is that bubble burst after a while and it turns out ice hockey remains an alien concept to a good majority of the American population.
That reality is dawning on a lot of US franchises now that realize they need more hardcore hockey fans and need to market more to fringe fans. And it's not easy.
Not in today's age where people have so many entertainment options and so much cable channels and internet and smartphones and tablets, etc. etc. etc.
So basically you admit the NHL loses a lot of money. Otherwise they shouldn't be saving money by cancelling games. In fact by this logic they lose so much money that they're willing to give more make-whole money as more games are cancelled, lol.
Yet presumably you think owners are then also in the wrong for wanting a more favorable system for themselves as they are the ones ultimately bankrolling this huge money-losing enterprise?
You can't have it both ways.
No, the players are losing more money by holding out. The NHL will make up for their losses in the back half of the CBA. The NHL was losing money pre-cap, now they are making a profit. The NHL will be making an even larger profit by the end of the next CBA. The players, as a whole, will be making more in salary too, but not enough to offset their individual losses. The owners will make up for their losses during the CBA, they don't have a limited shelf life and can ride out the lows for the highs.
Revenue does not equal profit. The NHL had a profit of ~$250 million for the entire 82 games season with "record" revenue. That was the NHLs best case scenario if they wanted to keep the CBA the same. Obviously the owners are not happy making only ~$250 million and are willing to lose half of a season to "fix" the issue in their eyes.
The owners aren't making any HRR right now, but they are also skipping out on their largest expense. If they can capture 70+% of their HRR by playing 48 games and a full playoffs, shaving 40% of their largest expense is a "win". They are also getting 4-5 years of 50/50 with an 8 year CBA. This should allow them to grow their ~$250 million profit to make up for the $300 million "make whole" payments.
The NBA players figured out that they were going to lose more money by holding out than they would gain in a CBA deal. They cut their losses and signed the NBA's deal. How long until the NHLPA figures that out?
Your not that naive. you are aware that they had OWNERSHIP issues? Look at the hawks and when Wirtz died look how things took off
Does the average sports fan in Dallas say to themselves "shucks, I sure would go support that local ice hockey team, because I love ice hockey, but I just can't do it because I'm aware of a rocky ownership issue".
I doubt it.
It's not even like Dallas has been terrible the last few years. They've almost made the playoffs a couple of times, no different than say .... Calgary, who sells out every night.
The difference is Calgary is in a hockey friendly market.
Seattle? need an arena
GTA? needs an arena
KC? if they wanted a franchise, they'd have had one by now
Seattle is already building an arena.
GTA would build ten arenas if it meant a guaranteed NHL team.
KC wooed the Penguins.
And you didn't even post anything about Quebec City.
There is no dearth of NHL ready markets, and the NHL aint gonna contract (at least not without expanding again to get its sweetheart expansion fees).
Hockey would be a disaster in Kansas City, the only reason they want an NHL team is because they want an arena for the community so they can have Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift concerts, NHL is just a tenant to throw in there for the other 41 dates of a calendar year.
Even Seattle, I think could be a difficult market for the NHL to crack ... sure if the team was great, maybe, but if it was average-to-bad, that could be problematic. The Mariners have their share of problems in Seattle and the Sonics had problems too even with a marquee talent like Kevin Durant to work with.
Seattle is building that arena with the aim of getting the Sonics/NBA back there, NHL would just be a bonus for them. No one in Seattle is dying there without NHL hockey, NHL there would be a fourth fiddle at best when the Sonics come back.
Colorado still does OK. When you're finishing third last or whatever, you're going to take a hit unless you are in Canada, and even there, probably.
Hockey experienced a nice little boom in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was a fresh, somewhat hip novelty back then. Wayne Gretzky in LA. Disney pushing those Mighty Ducks movies.
Golly, kids in the US will take down their Michael Jordan posters and replace them with Gretzky and Lindros ones, just you watch! Joey on Friends wore a Rangers jersey! It's cool to rollerblade in neon pink and black spandex! Who knows? The next Wayne Gretzky could come from the Bronx! Or Green Bay! Or even Santa Monica!
Etc. etc. etc.
Reality is that bubble burst after a while and it turns out ice hockey remains an alien concept to a good majority of the American population.
That reality is dawning on a lot of US franchises now that realize they need more hardcore hockey fans and need to market more to fringe fans. And it's not easy.
Not in today's age where people have so many entertainment options and so much cable channels and internet and smartphones and tablets, etc. etc. etc.
But the point is that Colorado doesn't do as well as they would if they could spend money to make money, as they did for 15+ years pre-cap. Same with Dallas.
The cap has been bad for the hockey business in Colorado and Dallas, at least.
But the point is that Colorado doesn't do as well as they would if they could spend money to make money, as they did for 15+ years pre-cap. Same with Dallas.
The cap has been bad for the hockey business in Colorado and Dallas, at least.
I would argue Colorado and Dallas had booms in interest in the 1990s because they were new and fresh and there's a lot of novelty that comes with that.
Both had the benefit of ready made winning franchises too, Colorado was practically gift wrapped a Stanley Cup right off the bat. Though there is already an established history of hockey in Colorado and Colorado is more winter-sport friendly than most markets.
But you can't have a business where as a pro sport you're not viable/successful unless you are one of the best teams every freaking year.
If fans in Dallas can't be bothered to support the team when things are a little tough, well I'm sorry but maybe the issue isn't a salary cap there. You can't expect to have a great team every year, in pro sports for there to be winners, there has to be some losers too.
Dallas beat up on a lot of teams in the 90s, now some of them are on the rise, that's just the natural, normal cycle for sports.
Colorado, St. Louis and Dallas were western conference powers with the biggest stars in the game when there was no salary cap.
Now that there is, they are franchises that struggle.
that because they had Sakic, Forsberg and Modano ...players whom they drafted or traded for before the cap was implemented. So St. Louis traded away Pronger, but that wasn't for cap reasons, it was ownership
other than St. Louis (who seems to be a power once again with the cap btw...)how is that the caps fault?
Hockey would be a disaster in Kansas City, the only reason they want an NHL team is because they want an arena for the community so they can have Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift concerts, NHL is just a tenant to throw in there for the other 41 dates of a calendar year.
It wouldn't be the first time hockey was a disaster in an American city. Pocket the losses and go find a sweetheart deal publicly funded arena. There's no bottom to the owner's greed or the public's complicity when it comes to relocation and expansion.
Quote:
Even Seattle, I think could be a difficult market for the NHL to crack ... sure if the team was great, maybe, but if it was average-to-bad, that could be problematic. The Mariners have their share of problems in Seattle and the Sonics had problems too even with a marquee talent like Kevin Durant to work with.
Again, there are plenty of markets the NHL is in *right now* that are difficult to crack. All it takes is a willing owner and a willing arena. The likely success rate doesn't really come into play or else you wouldn't have teams in ridiculous markets like Atlanta or Pho(Glendale)enix.
And then we have Canada which could easily support 2-4 more teams.
Contraction will never be something the NHL can use against the players. Not with the current state of the league.
Hockey would be a disaster in Kansas City, the only reason they want an NHL team is because they want an arena for the community so they can have Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift concerts, NHL is just a tenant to throw in there for the other 41 dates of a calendar year.
Even Seattle, I think could be a difficult market for the NHL to crack ... sure if the team was great, maybe, but if it was average-to-bad, that could be problematic. The Mariners have their share of problems in Seattle and the Sonics had problems too even with a marquee talent like Kevin Durant to work with.
Seattle is building that arena with the aim of getting the Sonics/NBA back there, NHL would just be a bonus for them. No one in Seattle is dying there without NHL hockey, NHL there would be a fourth fiddle at best when the Sonics come back.
Seattle used to have a team called the Metropolitans that won a cup, I think the team stopped during the depression though, not sure. but they did quite well back then.
Kanas City had the Scouts that ultimately became the Devils. I think between St Louis and Dallas there could be some good rivalries.
It also helps the Western Conference travel issues having these teams there.
Accounting pays for that not the owner. How do you think owners got their buildings? By dipping into their pockets to pay for it? Hell not it was done by getting Govt and cities to pay up plus taking out huge loans which is paid back by fans flocking to the rinks coming to watch CROSBY, MALKIN, OVECHKIN, STAMKOS play hockey.
These building the owners have because fans paid money to watch hockey is now being used to bring in other revenue like concerts. Maybe the players should ask for revenue of the concerts being held at the rinks they play in which is owned by their "PARTNER" which Gary describe back in 2004 when a cap was introduced.
Owners are not stupid they never put any money out front on these buildings but are paying it back with revenue generated by events at the arena.
So you're saying that the owners do nothing and that the players can survive without the owners?
__________________ "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."
Any player can be signed for as many years as they want as long as the length of their contract will not put them past the age 35. Every contract signed when the player is past the age 35 would be a maximum of 2 years.
Doesn't resolve what they say their issues are. That being insurance costs, effect on franchise values and parity. There's still nothing stopping someone (in your proposal) from signing a player to a 12-14 yr deal (21-23 yrs old - depending on when he started playing in the NHL).
Fehr got the players a very nice severance package for accepting basically the same revenue split that NFL, NBA, and MLB players get. That means a lot of them won't be stung by a pay cut this time around for existing contracts.
NFL, NBA, and MLB players that make more revenue, are far more marketable, draw higher attendance, and far better TV ratings than their NHL counterparts who have the marketing appeal of a milk jug.
If you ask me that's pretty freaking good. Everyone knew the NHLPA was going to have to go to 50-50 ... to score a possible $300 million of $390 that it would take make whole is pretty freaking good seeing as how NBA players got $0 and so did NFL players, though NFL players weren't dumb enough to lose game revenue.
It will be interesting to see if the $300M is ever put on the table again.
The NHL wouldn't be the NHL without its status as the best league in the world. That means the best players in the world.
Yet only one side is negotiating as if they're God here. And it aint the players.
The only reason that the NHL is the best league in the world is because the NHL owners pay the best wages. That won't change with the new CBA. Most of the best players will still play in the NHL because they pay the best.
Bettman is a hockey guy, he's had 19 years of fighting for this League, whether you like all of his objectives or not. And the players haven't done at all shabby during that time. Fehr isn't a hockey guy, he's a union guy. Yes, maybe a sports-centered union guy, but that's like saying for years that Bettman had been an NBA guy and criticizing him for that because the NBA isn't the NHL. Fehr doesn't care about the NHL, he only cares about increasing or maintaining his "union-leader" reputation.
Not saying that Bettman hasn't made bad decisions or hasn't sometimes left a bad taste in people's mouths, probably including the players; but if I were debating about which one of these two men had the health and integrity of the NHL in their minds, I'd not hesitate to put my money with Bettman. Fehr is using the players for his own personal agenda.
Look, there are people here who has followed the game for several decades. You are welcome to state your opinion.
But do not say that Gary Bettman has fought for the game. Things are tough as it is without having to read stuff like that.
It will be interesting to see if the $300M is ever put on the table again.
It will be. As much as Bettman has used that "it won't ever be on the table" card in the past, he's always gone back on it.
Fehr I think is going to wait a few days and get the NHL to bend on the contract things (they want 5/7, PA has tabled 8 years, come down on a 7 year contract limit ... there you go).
The only reason that the NHL is the best league in the world is because the NHL owners pay the best wages. That won't change with the new CBA. Most of the best players will still play in the NHL because they pay the best.
Exactly, which is why the players are trying to get everything they can. I don't understand why people here accept the owners trying to snatch and run, but become so upset when the players do. No one's looking out for the fans here, this is business.
