HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2012, 11:55 PM
  #451
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
It hasn't happened because the NHL was content for decades to wallow in their little six team small-potatoes niche milking their 19th century business model. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world and they STILL are trying to use the same 19th century business model. Hello!

I'm not arguing in circles I'm correcting a time-line that you have backwards. The NFL doesn't have their business model because their success allows them to have it, they have their success because the business model allows them to have it. The business model came first, before they had the success. The success came because they had the business model.

And btw, I never claimed to be "pro-business": I'm neither pro nor anti-business. I'm not pro-labor either. What I am is pro-HOCKEY. I want the sport to thrive and have success because I believe in the sport. I want a healthy, thriving league with a successful modern business model OFF the ice, and competitive balance ON the ice. I oppose anything that's preventing that opposes those things.
I knew that already. The NFL has been sharing revenue for around 45 years. The system was in place before 1994 yet they needed a lockout to pass baseball. They weren't ahead before then. You're pro American hockey not hockey, because let's be honest Canada is maxed out for markets.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:55 PM
  #452
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
^^

Shush. I have never advocated for a ten team, NE regionalized NHL.


I think 20 teams would do it, and only about 4 of them would be in Canada. I risk derailing the thread because if I speak further, I'm going to smoke out all the Canadian traditionalists lurking here, some of the nontraditional fans (notice I didn't say all), and all the routine "the NHL is perfect with a cap at 30 teams" people who are already mad at me.

Carry on.
I'll let it go. After this one post.

I do not by any means think the NHL is "perfect with a cap at 30 teams". If it was I would be over on the Jets board defending Nik Antropov from the masses instead of here talking business of hockey. And I was not trying to suggest that you have ever advocated a 10 team regionalized league, I was just curious on your views.

The league's expansion strategy was flawed. They made plenty of mistakes. Ideally, perhaps the league should have been less ambitious in the 90's and we have a BIT smaller league right now, talking about expansion now instead contraction. But that's in the past. I just cannot see any logical business sense for contraction, AT THIS TIME.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
OK.
Get rid of contraction, go with the low floor and no linkage. Lower the players share to 49-48 percent.
Can't control the percent in that case. Lowering the floor is going to require gutting the PA, I can't see it happening. I wouldn't be adverse to making the floor/cap a percentage based mechanism, but only if it maintains a decently small range. To much variance and you begin to get a non-competitive league, ie Basketball/Baseball. Nobody wants to watch sports with no competition, IMO.

There are a myriad of issues here. They all need to be considered. I don't think talking about lowering floor can be talked about in isolation. Cap is important, but with regards to the PA and maintaining competitive balance, so is the floor. You don't teams like the Pirates sitting with a nothing salary base collecting revenue sharing and laughing their ***** off to the bank while they put out a **** product year after year.

__________________


Holden Caulfield is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:57 PM
  #453
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Baron View Post
BTW- cutting 10 teams? Not only would that result in 33% of NHLers losing their jobs, but you would be effectively killing hundreds (possibly thousands) of small business/eliminating thousands of NHL related jobs at the same time....all the while a move to 26 or at worst 24 teams is more than sufficient should contraction prove necessary.

*small businesses = merchants/restaurant & bar owners that only survive because of hockey.

I'm just trying to be economically efficient. I've been mislabeled as pro-union, but I'm not really.

I do vacillate between 20 and 24 teams though, adding one more in Canada to keep the 'supply of talent' side of the equation strong.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-11-2012, 11:59 PM
  #454
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I knew that already. The NFL has been sharing revenue for around 45 years. The system was in place before 1994 yet they needed a lockout to pass baseball. They weren't ahead before then. You're pro American hockey not hockey, because let's be honest Canada is maxed out for markets.
I'm pro-hockey PERIOD. United States, Canada, doesn't matter. I don't want to see Canadian markets losing teams either. I want a franchise back in Quebec. I don't want Edmonton leaving for God knows where. I want a thriving sport on BOTH sides of the border. I DON'T do the US vs Canada BS that so many seem to want to drag the discussion down to. Hockey is best served by being strong in BOTH countries.

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:00 AM
  #455
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I knew that already. The NFL has been sharing revenue for around 45 years. The system was in place before 1994 yet they needed a lockout to pass baseball. They weren't ahead before then. You're pro American hockey not hockey, because let's be honest Canada is maxed out for markets.
And by the way, the NFL passed MLB in popularity back in the 1970s NOT in 1994. FYI.

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:02 AM
  #456
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I can't remember how many times as a kid whenever there was an NFL promo that came on hearing the words, "On any given Sunday." It's why the NFL is a huge success. MLB is taking the opposite approach and their gate receipts show it. If not for some mega-dollar local TV deals in big markets MLB would be bleeding cash.

I think the prices paid for TV rights for MLB are ridiculous, especially the deal the Dodgers just got. Talk about a bubble.
The Dodgers bubble will pop at some point. And I say that as someone who bleeds Dodger Blue come spring.

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:02 AM
  #457
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
The league's expansion strategy was flawed. They made plenty of mistakes. Ideally, perhaps the league should have been less ambitious in the 90's and we have a BIT smaller league right now, talking about expansion now instead contraction. But that's in the past. I just cannot see any logical business sense for contraction, AT THIS TIME.
I certainly don't see it as likely, but my thoughts on this have been from the premise that the expansion strategies were both forced on the NHL (due to their own backward ways back in the 70s) and flawed (overdoing it and going too quickly in the 90s).

There was the drain on talent initially, and then the league decided to absorb some of the old WHA teams (so that was strictly reactive, not proactive expansion). The 1990's was just too much in the absence of a true support structure to help the newer franchises get set up. That's why I called it a money grab, also noting most of the owners that set that in motion are no longer involved in the NHL.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:03 AM
  #458
LSnow
Registered User
 
LSnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,920
vCash: 500
Make a final offer which entails some more concessions, say if they dont take it to vote they cancel the season immediately. If players choose to not take it to vote, draft a legit 50/50 agreement and say your willing to play next year, dont negotiate at all, and after missing first month players will accept.

Win for the owners.

LSnow is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:04 AM
  #459
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
You don't teams like the Pirates sitting with a nothing salary base collecting revenue sharing and laughing their ***** off to the bank while they put out a **** product year after year.
No you don't.
But I think it's preferable to a lockout every six years.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:05 AM
  #460
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,764
vCash: 500
NFL's business has doubled since 2005. Moreso, in my opinion, due to the Fantasy Football craze and our ADHD culture, than systemic reasons. The casual fan needs only to dedicate themselves once a week, and even during the game the ball is only in play for a few minutes.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:05 AM
  #461
LarmerSavardSecord
Registered User
 
LarmerSavardSecord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wicker Park
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Baron View Post
Ugh really?

That's disappointing.

Side note: I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead- that was the first time I've ever had such contempt for an author's idealistic *expletive* that it strengthened my belief in the opposing viewpoint.
Pert said more recently that he rejects Rand now.

She was a horrible person (died friendless on medicare) and poor writer, but wrote Shrugged when top marginal income rates were ~90% vs current 35% (or effective 23%), so it was a different time (still nonsense then, but more silly for fans in today's world)

LarmerSavardSecord is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:07 AM
  #462
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That's why I called it a money grab, also noting most of the owners that set that in motion are no longer involved in the NHL.
If the NHL was concerned about growth it would expansion fees, bank them, and use them to prop up young franchises that can't keep up for a certain period of time.
But smart, sustainable growth isn't a priority for the NHL and its owners.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:08 AM
  #463
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarmerSavardSecord View Post
Pert said more recently that he rejects Rand now.

She was a horrible person (died friendless on medicare) and poor writer, but wrote Shrugged when top marginal income rates were ~90% vs current 35% (or effective 23%), so it was a different time (still nonsense then, but more silly for fans in today's world)
Her writing style is turgid as hell too.

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:09 AM
  #464
LSnow
Registered User
 
LSnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
NFL's business has doubled since 2005. Moreso, in my opinion, due to the Fantasy Football craze and our ADHD culture, than systemic reasons. The casual fan needs only to dedicate a few hours of their attention and only once a week, and even during the game the ball is only in play for a few minutes.
People like events, it makes life easier. One of the reasons people like CL, and F1. Your team playing 82 matches a year, multiple times a week, makes the one particular game much less entertaining.

LSnow is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:18 AM
  #465
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
It's not happening. What part don't you get? Do I have to spell it out or hold your hand? There is no demand for anything more then 300m yr!
How do you figure that? NBC will be forking out 200m for the next decade, and TSN and CBC will have new deals in the next couple of years. That alone will put the NHL over your 300m a yr plateau.

Edit. And that's on the national level. What about the local level? There's probably another 3-400m in local deals in the league. Now you're somewhere in the 6-700m range if you tally it all up. I know it's merely a drop in the bucket when you compare it to what the others are getting... but you have to start somewhere, and the NHL didn't really have a product that was capable of getting this until 05.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."

Last edited by Riptide: 12-12-2012 at 12:32 AM.
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:19 AM
  #466
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarmerSavardSecord View Post
Pert said more recently that he rejects Rand now.
Has he now? I wonder what caused the change in philosophy. Snider (Flyers) was/is a big Randist as well.

I think it's too simplistic, more than anything else.

Fugu is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:24 AM
  #467
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
How do you figure that? NBC will be forking out 200m for the next decade, and TSN and CBC will have new deals in the next couple of years. That alone will put the NHL over your 300m a yr plateau.
Yeah but 300 million is nothing. The NBA has similar salaries, similar expenses and has over 900 million from the national tv deal each year. And even it isn't in great shape but it's much better than the NHL will be over the next decade.

Being locked in to just under 200 million each year in national tv money for the next decade is a killer. The LA Dodgers alone will bring in more from their regional deal.

The tv deal is unacceptable for a league the size of the NHL that is in all the big US markets. Its pathetic.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:25 AM
  #468
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I knew that already. The NFL has been sharing revenue for around 45 years. The system was in place before 1994 yet they needed a lockout to pass baseball. They weren't ahead before then. You're pro American hockey not hockey, because let's be honest Canada is maxed out for markets.
I think Quebec City and Southern Ontario/Toronto2 would be fine. But yes, after that we're done.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:32 AM
  #469
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
In order for the TV deal to eventually be acceptable the product has to improve. The game is simply not worth watching a lot of the time and that is the biggest problem the NHL faces. It's not revenues or expenses or contract lengths it's all about making the NHL product and brand much more entertaining, consistent, exciting and credible.

I'm a big hockey fan but it's simply not a good tv sport, and having such a diluted talent pool and so many average teams just kills the tv experience even more.

Even as a huge Canucks fan, and they are a very entertaining team, I only find maybe 1/4 of the games to be really worth watching from start to finish over the course of the season. I watch them all because I am a fan but if I was a casual NHL fan or a new fan giving it a chance I would not be impressed most of the time.

I found last years playoffs incredibly boring and some of the western games from round 2 on literally put me to sleep, I fell asleep watching the NHL playoffs.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:32 AM
  #470
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
Yeah but 300 million is nothing. The NBA has similar salaries, similar expenses and has over 900 million from the national tv deal each year. And even it isn't in great shape but it's much better than the NHL will be over the next decade.

Being locked in to just under 200 million each year in national tv money for the next decade is a killer. The LA Dodgers alone will bring in more from their regional deal.

The tv deal is unacceptable for a league the size of the NHL that is in all the big US markets. Its pathetic.
Absolutely... but you have to start somewhere.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:35 AM
  #471
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Absolutely... but you have to start somewhere.
Agree but they can't improve that revenue source for an entire decade. That's a scary thought. As expenses grow over the next 10 years that revenue source stays the same. The NHL will be gate driven for at least another decade, they are so far behind the big 3, and I dont even consider the NHL part of the other big US sports, there is no big 4.

And the big expansion was done in an effort to land a big tv deal. So now they have teams losing money in weak markets AND no acceptable tv deal. It's a double loss.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 01:59 AM
  #472
LarmerSavardSecord
Registered User
 
LarmerSavardSecord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wicker Park
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan View Post
Agree but they can't improve that revenue source for an entire decade. That's a scary thought. As expenses grow over the next 10 years that revenue source stays the same. The NHL will be gate driven for at least another decade, they are so far behind the big 3, and I dont even consider the NHL part of the other big US sports, there is no big 4.

And the big expansion was done in an effort to land a big tv deal. So now they have teams losing money in weak markets AND no acceptable tv deal. It's a double loss.
Yeah, I suspect that TV deal will look bad pretty soon. But the NHL killed the TV revenue stream when they lost ESPN with the lockout. That incredibly powerful network moved on with NASCAR NCAAWBB, and the NBA. Fox (and CBS) were never a never good spots. The music stopped and NBC and the NHL were stuck together.

And it's just sorry that the EPL deal with NBC pays >50%/year vs the NHL deal (assuming rising payments over their contract.) The EPL games can't be viewed live in prime time! Most of the games are played while we are going to or at work or waking up on the weekends. It's a foreign league and (still) foreign sport! I think it's a brilliant move by NBC as the EPL/Euro soccer is on the rise here, but it's telling how much NBC has invested in the NHL.

The recent local TV deals for the two LA-based baseball teams (~13m population) together likely exceed the NBC-NHL deal over the next 10 years. Both deal stunned the media world, and they make the NHL deal look like peanuts and the NHL small time. It's the gilded era for TV deals (look at NCAAFB/BB, MLB, NFL, NCAAWBB, NASCAR) and the NHL gets peanuts with a second-rate platform.


Last edited by LarmerSavardSecord: 12-12-2012 at 02:01 AM. Reason: left out word
LarmerSavardSecord is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 02:34 AM
  #473
LarmerSavardSecord
Registered User
 
LarmerSavardSecord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Wicker Park
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Has he now? I wonder what caused the change in philosophy. Snider (Flyers) was/is a big Randist as well.

I think it's too simplistic, more than anything else.
Not sure why the change, other than the fact that her work appeals to young men that typically grow out of it when they experience their first boss in the real world. She was, by her own words and actions, a classic/pure sociopath, so others that experience the world the same way will find comfort with her philosophy.

Snider is part of the cult I think, Jacobs for sure in spirit - CEOs on average score very high on sociopathic tests, not surprisingly. (and "philanthropy" is not incongruent with sociopathy.)

LarmerSavardSecord is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 02:54 AM
  #474
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarmerSavardSecord View Post
Yeah, I suspect that TV deal will look bad pretty soon. But the NHL killed the TV revenue stream when they lost ESPN with the lockout. That incredibly powerful network moved on with NASCAR NCAAWBB, and the NBA. Fox (and CBS) were never a never good spots. The music stopped and NBC and the NHL were stuck together.

And it's just sorry that the EPL deal with NBC pays >50%/year vs the NHL deal (assuming rising payments over their contract.) The EPL games can't be viewed live in prime time! Most of the games are played while we are going to or at work or waking up on the weekends. It's a foreign league and (still) foreign sport! I think it's a brilliant move by NBC as the EPL/Euro soccer is on the rise here, but it's telling how much NBC has invested in the NHL.

The recent local TV deals for the two LA-based baseball teams (~13m population) together likely exceed the NBC-NHL deal over the next 10 years. Both deal stunned the media world, and they make the NHL deal look like peanuts and the NHL small time. It's the gilded era for TV deals (look at NCAAFB/BB, MLB, NFL, NCAAWBB, NASCAR) and the NHL gets peanuts with a second-rate platform.
The Dodgers deal alone will be worth more than 200 million per year for sure starting very soon.

And yes I totally agree with everything you said! And it's also scary because one of the reasons these leagues and teams can get such big deals is because sports is the one form of programming that fans want to watch live and hate seeing recorded. Who knows what that situation will be like in 10 years and what technology will be out by then. Maybe tv viewing will be way down who knows. They really missed out here.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 07:22 AM
  #475
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I'm pro-hockey PERIOD. United States, Canada, doesn't matter. I don't want to see Canadian markets losing teams either. I want a franchise back in Quebec. I don't want Edmonton leaving for God knows where. I want a thriving sport on BOTH sides of the border. I DON'T do the US vs Canada BS that so many seem to want to drag the discussion down to. Hockey is best served by being strong in BOTH countries.
I'm sure you don't, that's why you let it rip on Captain Bob. Hockey is best served by being financially viable, where every that is. If that just Canada, just the US or both so be it. Having a team is not right, and apparently you and some people on both sides of the border think otherwise. Not silly emotional connections, we're not kids here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
And by the way, the NFL passed MLB in popularity back in the 1970s NOT in 1994. FYI.
No it didn't, check the ratings before 1995.


This is going around in circles.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:10 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.