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.

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?
Yes 210 29.41%
No 504 70.59%
Voters: 714. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2012, 10:30 AM
  #301
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jossipov View Post
Who's "they"? Im a hockey fan, and think the world deserves hockey. I'd like to see it more popular. I want more kids playing peewee hockey. I want the SCF to be a big deal. I dont really want it to be just some parochial interest like curling or ultimate frisbee.
Frankly, All this sounds like a hipster that he doesnt want his favorite local band on the radio because kids in Iowa dont deserve alt rock or something.
So you would call all of Canada and the original six hipsters, eh? A lot of us hockey fans that have the opposite view as yours are tired of seeing Bettman selling the soul of this game for THE big tv contract , putting teams in places that are a failure at being a hockey market. So "our" concept is simple: put hockey in cities that are crazy about hockey. I was a Expos fan but to me it's OK that they lost their team from the standpoint that the fans were not supporting the team, that market was not supporting MLB. It's that simple. And i'm sorry if I have not the same sympathy for The Trashers fans losing their club than the Quebec Nordiques fans who filled their arena for 5 years when they were dead last in the league.



Quote:
Like I said, explain. You didnt actually address any of the questions. How does a smaller more irrelevant league make hockey better? How would it make it better long term and short term?
Because you get a less diluted talent pool. Seems logical enough.

I'm not opposed to expansion per se but I wish the NHL would have done it in a logical manner and do it when the league is healthy enough. Small growth like the UFC smartly does it. But Bettman did it for the quick buck and for the wrong reasons and it has been a failure.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:46 AM
  #302
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,670
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jossipov View Post
Hockey fans are strange animals, nowhere else do you meet sports fans who want their game to shrink in the long term as much as possible.
The NHL over-expanded into a bunch of weak hockey markets and now the league is locked out due a need to attempt to protect those poorly performing markets. In some cases alternative markets exist (GTA, QC, Seattle) that would greatly outperform the teams that annually lose the most money; the net difference would prove to be the cutting of some money losers and replacing them with teams that contribute to the pie.

The only thing shrinking the league are the financial results of the teams that are supposedly there to provide growth; it seems doubtful that any league has lost more money in an attempt to uncover growth in fact. Many of us would gladly sacrifice four or six of the financial bottom rung if it meant hockey was being played today. The bonus net result would be an improved on-ice product, and the remaining teams that truly require assistance would actually benefit because the assistance they would receive wouldn't be as diluted.


Last edited by Gump Hasek: 12-12-2012 at 10:51 AM.
Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:02 AM
  #303
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,345
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jossipov View Post
Is it just me or do a lot of these comments seem to sound like "If there were only 8 teams in the league then mine would finally make the playoffs"?



You'd have to define top notch hockey, because I was under the impression that the NHL was top notch hockey. Explain how getting rid of Preds, Yotes, or Panthers or something make it more top notch? Would having much fewer teams make hockey more popular in North America or less? Would watching your team play the same 5 other teams every week be more fun or less fun? Would a 6 team league be one that more people would care about or fewer people would care about? Would it even help grow the game in the remaining markets or would more people in those markets lose interest in following a nationally irrelevant league? (Did you know Philadelphia has a Rugby team that plays in the USA Rugby League....neither does anyone in Philadelphia because none of them are aware there is a USA Rugby League).

Hockey fans are strange animals, nowhere else do you meet sports fans who want their game to shrink in the long term as much as possible.
I sort of agree with this. I also think underlying it somewhere is anti-American sentiments and misplaced resentment. Which I find distasteful. I sense some Canadians were actually hoping for southern expansion efforts to fail - even to the detriment of this league and sport they supposedly love. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Me? Honestly I would have loved to see hockey thrive in Phoenix, and Columbus.

Turbofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:47 AM
  #304
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
So you would call all of Canada and the original six hipsters, eh?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
A lot of us hockey fans that have the opposite view as yours are tired of seeing Bettman selling the soul of this game for THE big tv contract
The big TV contract is important. The NFL is HUGE...and ticket sales are not even a quarter of their revenue. It is needed to give the game national attention. An NHL with only provincial attention and surviving only on gate revenue will die shortly it gets overtaken by MLS.
And how is "the soul of the game" tarnished exactly? What do you mean by Soul of the game?
Again, I'm sorry but a lot of this just reads like "My team didnt compete, and that's not fair, because we "deserve" it."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
So "our" concept is simple: put hockey in cities that are crazy about hockey.
Both of them? Again, if you dont try and break into new markets you wont go anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I was a Expos fan but to me it's OK that they lost their team from the standpoint that the fans were not supporting the team, that market was not supporting MLB.
I disagree. You know the other team they wanted to remove? It was the Twins, and now the Twins are doing great. However, the biggest part is that if it wasnt for the expos there may never have been a Blue Jays, because the Expos were important for breaking baseball into the Canadian market...expanding the game.
Also, the Expos did not fail simply because people just didnt support them, they failed because they were horribly mismanaged. And you know what helped more than anything else with the huge drop in the fan base? The strikes and.....they had no TV contract.
because TV contracts are important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
It's that simple. And i'm sorry if I have not the same sympathy for The Trashers fans losing their club than the Quebec Nordiques fans who filled their arena for 5 years when they were dead last in the league.
The Quebec Nordiques werent filling their arena, and were losing money. There was also little potential to grow. Now, I'd actually not have a problem with moving the Yotes to Quebec City, but that is a lot different from what you were suggesting, and it also doesnt mean that a future Quebec Nordiques would not have revenue problems and be able to survive in a league without revenue sharing, salary caps, TV contracts, ect.

For example, I agree with this guy that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
In some cases alternative markets exist (GTA, QC, Seattle) that would greatly outperform the teams that annually lose the most money
That might not be a bad idea, but that's a lot different than what you (Kimota) were suggesting before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Because you get a less diluted talent pool. Seems logical enough.
Dont agree much with that argument. Heck, you can just compress the NHL to two teams, and every game can be the all star game...that would be exciting. Frankly, I think the opposite for this very reason: Less exposure of hockey = fewer people getting into hockey = fewer people becoming good hockey players in the future (more good soccer players though). Could you imagine if more kids in the US were getting into hockey instead of just football? Not only would the NHL get a bit more color in its cheeks, but the talent pool would expand greatly. These are long term considerations that are important for the future of the game, and for the long term, no matter what and even with relocations, there needs to be a continental league with national attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I'm not opposed to expansion per se but I wish the NHL would have done it in a logical manner and do it when the league is healthy enough. Small growth like the UFC smartly does it. But Bettman did it for the quick buck and for the wrong reasons and it has been a failure.
Maybe, but it didnt...and going backwards (new league of the O6 and a few small Canadian markets?) would not only not fix that, but make that problem worst. It also hasnt been a failure, Revenue and media attention has been going up. It hasnt been a success either. I'm all for making adjustments...but that's a red herring...because it wasnt what was being talked about.


Last edited by Jossipov: 12-12-2012 at 12:03 PM.
Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:49 AM
  #305
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post

I'm not opposed to expansion per se but I wish the NHL would have done it in a logical manner and do it when the league is healthy enough. Small growth like the UFC smartly does it. But Bettman did it for the quick buck and for the wrong reasons and it has been a failure.
The League decided to add 4 teams for the 1999 NHL season. In 1997, the Board of Governors listened to 9 cities bid for a team. Those cities were:

Nashville
Houston
Atlanta
St. Paul
Columbus
Oklahoma City
Hampton Roads
Raleigh
Hamilton

That seems fairly logical to me. And what are these "wrong reasons" you speak of?

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 11:56 AM
  #306
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,670
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jossipov View Post
because it wasnt what was being talked about.
You've wrongly and incorrectly attributed the last two quotes in your post to me; I said none of the sort. Remove them.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:01 PM
  #307
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
You've wrongly and incorrectly attributed the last two quotes in your post to me; I said none of the sort. Remove them.
Sorry, that was a "copy/paste" error.
Corrected.....


Last edited by Jossipov: 12-12-2012 at 12:22 PM.
Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:15 PM
  #308
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
The League decided to add 4 teams for the 1999 NHL season. In 1997, the Board of Governors listened to 9 cities bid for a team. Those cities were:

Nashville
Houston
Atlanta
St. Paul
Columbus
Oklahoma City
Hampton Roads
Raleigh
Hamilton

That seems fairly logical to me. And what are these "wrong reasons" you speak of?
To catchup to the other leagues.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:18 PM
  #309
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jossipov View Post
Yes, that's exactly what I meant




The big TV contract is important. The NFL is HUGE...and ticket sales are not even a quarter of their revenue. It is needed to give the game national attention. An NHL with only provincial attention and surviving only on gate revenue will die shortly it gets overtaken by MLS.
And how is "the soul of the game" tarnished exactly? What do you mean by Soul of the game?
Again, I'm sorry but a lot of this just reads like "My team didnt compete, and that's not fair, because we "deserve" it."



Both of them? Again, if you dont try and break into new markets you wont go anywhere.


I disagree. You know the other team they wanted to remove? It was the Twins, and now the Twins are doing great. However, the biggest part is that if it wasnt for the expos there may never have been a Blue Jays, because the Expos were important for breaking baseball into the Canadian market...expanding the game.
Also, the Expos did not fail simply because people just didnt support them, they failed because they were horribly mismanaged. And you know what helped more than anything else with the huge drop in the fan base? The strikes and.....they had no TV contract.
because TV contracts are important.

The Quebec Nordiques werent filling their arena, and were losing money. There was also little potential to grow. Now, I'd actually not have a problem with moving the Yotes to Quebec City, but that is a lot different from what you were suggesting, and it also doesnt mean that a future Quebec Nordiques would not have revenue problems and be able to survive in a league without revenue sharing, salary caps, TV contracts, ect.

For example, I agree with this guy that:


That might not be a bad idea, but that's a lot different than what you (Kimota) were suggesting before.



Dont agree much with that argument. Heck, you can just compress the NHL to two teams, and every game can be the all star game...that would be exciting. Frankly, I think the opposite for this very reason: Less exposure of hockey = fewer people getting into hockey = fewer people becoming good hockey players in the future (more good soccer players though). Could you imagine if more kids in the US were getting into hockey instead of just football? Not only would the NHL get a bit more color in its cheeks, but the talent pool would expand greatly. These are long term considerations that are important for the future of the game, and for the long term, no matter what and even with relocations, there needs to be a continental league with national attention.



Maybe, but it didnt...and going backwards (new league of the O6 and a few small Canadian markets?) would not only not fix that, but make that problem worst. It also hasnt been a failure, Revenue and media attention has been going up. It hasnt been a success either. I'm all for making adjustments...but that's a red herring...because it wasnt what was being talked about.
First the Norddiques had attendance on par with Toronto and NY before being removed. They were because of arena funding. That's it. Revenue is not profit and the Owners are initiating this lockut because there is not enough profit. No offense but your posts read like if the sport is not in america it does not matter, and that's not the way to market your vision at all. Baseball also started in Canada and has been in the country since 1838.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:19 PM
  #310
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
To catchup to the other leagues.
Is that not a goal the NHL should go after?

Or is it simply not feasible?

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:20 PM
  #311
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
I sort of agree with this. I also think underlying it somewhere is anti-American sentiments and misplaced resentment. Which I find distasteful. I sense some Canadians were actually hoping for southern expansion efforts to fail - even to the detriment of this league and sport they supposedly love. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Me? Honestly I would have loved to see hockey thrive in Phoenix, and Columbus.
Of course it is. Lot's of people(not myself) feel that America has taken over too much of Canadian culture and hockey is just another notch for them.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:21 PM
  #312
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
Is that not a goal the NHL should go after?

Or is it simply not feasible?
Not feasible.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:37 PM
  #313
Captain Monglobster
Registered User
 
Captain Monglobster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Palestine
Posts: 1,079
vCash: 500
Get the real hockey markets to start a new league. I'm tired of this ****show. Unless the NHL cleans house at the top and goes in a new direction it will be the same BS anyway.

Captain Monglobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:42 PM
  #314
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
First the Norddiques had attendance on par with Toronto and NY before being removed.
Yes, that's true half...but misleading...since Toronto had rather low attendance that year (lower than the Ducks) and the Nords were nowhere near NY. Also, neither of them were anywhere close to the Tampa Bay Lighting in 94.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
No offense but your posts read like if the sport is not in america it does not matter, and that's not the way to market your vision at all.
None taken. There are 30 million people in Canada. There are 300 million people in the US. I'd say the US is an important market


Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Baseball also started in Canada and has been in the country since 1838.
Ya... Go Blue Jays

Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 12:52 PM
  #315
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jossipov View Post
Yes, that's true half...but misleading...since Toronto had rather low attendance that year (lower than the Ducks) and the Nords were nowhere near NY. Also, neither of them were anywhere close to the Tampa Bay Lighting in 94.
Fair, but the Nords were a cut above Winnipeg and some other teams up north so you were right to say Canadians were hypocrites, just a bad example.

Quote:
None taken. There are 30 million people in Canada. There are 300 million people in the US. I'd say the US is an important market
I agree 100%. Some Canadian fans take it too far. But at the same time 10 teams losing money is not acceptable, 1, 3 maybe 5(a little much)

At some point, something has to give. Personally I would prefer the lowering of the cap floor to prevent contraction but hey.


Quote:
Ya... Go Blue Jays
My father is a jays fan, but I wont blame the lack of the cap for them not winning. It's management

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:05 PM
  #316
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
No offense but your posts read like if the sport is not in america it does not matter, and that's not the way to market your vision at all.
No offense intended here either, but that's kind of true. At least it's true if your goal is to be a major league. If you want to be the CFL, you can go ahead and stick to Canadian markets. If you want to be a major league sport, you need to intelligently include American markets based on BOTH current stability AND growth potential.

And if you want the real money, you HAVE to cover the continent and capture the attention of the American national media. That doesn't mean a footprint in every state in the Union, but at least a toehold in every, or nearly every, major media market is a must. Losing Atlanta is a HUGE blow from that perspective. Adding a small market team that gates pretty well is nothing compared to the size of the media market that no longer has any reason at all to pay attention to the NHL. 10% of the Atlanta regional market > 100% of Winnipeg. We spurned a dollar to pick up a quarter.

If we want to continue to be a major league we need to be able to look beyond attendance-based revenue almost entirely. For as long as we're gate-driven, this league is locked in an outdated model based on market forces as they were 50 years ago, and will be eventually doomed to fail.


Last edited by Dojji*: 12-12-2012 at 01:11 PM.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:07 PM
  #317
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post

I agree 100%. Some Canadian fans take it too far. But at the same time 10 teams losing money is not acceptable, 1, 3 maybe 5(a little much)

At some point, something has to give. Personally I would prefer the lowering of the cap floor to prevent contraction but hey.
That might be an idea. I will say that potential should also be taken into account.
For example, there have been plenty of teams that had streaks in the red (the Pens being an example), but would later overcome it. Some teams currently in the red have good potential to be in the black later (Buffalo, Minnesota, and San Jose as examples)....
There is also the mismanagement problem. So for example the Aves and Oilers dont bring in as much revenue as many other teams, but they spend well so despite the lower revenue they still turned a profit, but then you have the Caps who despite decent revenue were still in the red last season.


also, I'm a supporter of a team in QC, I think it could work long term when done right and be pretty cool...just though I should mention that before I get accused of being too US-centric again

Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:09 PM
  #318
Coramoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
No offense intended here either, but that's kind of true. At least it's true if your goal is to be a major league. If you want to be the CFL, you can go ahead and stick to Canadian markets. If you want to be a major league sport, you need to intelligently include American markets based on BOTH current stability AND growth potential.
Barring another Canadian Dollar collapse, Canadian markets provide a stability that other markets don't. I'm all for expanding for growth potential, but the Quebec marketplace never lost money, sure it's not a growth spot, but it's a stable place to put a team that hasn't made money since it left Winnipeg. No where else is a good bet, having stable teams with revenue sharing will make a 32 team league more attractive to markets like Seattle and Houston and Kansas

Coramoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:15 PM
  #319
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
You're missing the point. The point is that there is no way to exclude the United States from this discussion without failing to be a major sport. If you want to be one of the big 4, New York, Chicago, and California, at the barest minimum, have to be heavily involved, and there need to be other markets, selected intelligently, nearby those teams for them to play against. People in LA don't give a crap about Toronto, that's just a fact. That's one of the big reasons Phoenix exists.

And no, Canadian markets are not universally stable. If they were, Ottawa, Edmondton, Winnipeg, Quebec and Vancouver wouldn't have struggled financially at least a few times in recent decades.

Toronto and Montreal are stable. LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CANADIAN MARKET pretty much rides on their coattails reputation-wise.

And pretending you can say "barring a collapse of the CAD" as if that has no chance of happening is pretty funny. Right now you guys are flush on an oil sands boom and the American economy is reeling from a major debt crisis. Two major short time incidents that change the dynamic over a period of time, but not indefinitely. It is not hard to see both markets normalizing at some point in the next 10 years.

Also I like how you whistled past the fact Quebec is not a growth spot, as if it's not the single hugest reason to stay away. Growth is a major driving force behind the things the NHL needs to do going forward. It's not like the NFL, MLB and NBA don't have a big enough lead already. You HAVE to compete for the American dollars that are out there for pro sports. If you don't, then you're not a big league, you're a midlevel pro league living in denial.

Every other major sport had to go through the same growing pains. The difference is that every other major sport had the sense to do it in the 50's and already lived through the growing pains we're still going through, back when people had attention spans and could comprehend what a long term plan was.


Last edited by Dojji*: 12-12-2012 at 01:21 PM.
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:21 PM
  #320
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,485
vCash: 500
another thing that needs to be said is that when you are expanding a market that means you are going to have fickle fans, as developing large loyal followings takes time (likewise expanding into Canadian markets where there are already established loyal fan bases for existing teams doesnt make them sure bets, but that is a different story) .
The NHL has done itself no favors by constantly taking a step forward and two steps back with this.
When you have entire seasons locked out every few years you are resetting this process with casual fans and draining any built up momentum.
These lockouts do massive damage to long time established leagues, they are virtual death blows to developing ones like the NHL

Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:37 PM
  #321
Coramoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
You're missing the point. The point is that there is no way to exclude the United States from this discussion without failing to be a major sport. If you want to be one of the big 4, New York, Chicago, and California, at the barest minimum, have to be heavily involved, and there need to be other markets, selected intelligently, nearby those teams for them to play against. People in LA don't give a crap about Toronto, that's just a fact. That's one of the big reasons Phoenix exists.

And no, Canadian markets are not universally stable. If they were, Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Quebec and Vancouver wouldn't have struggled financially at least a few times in recent decades.

Toronto and Montreal are stable. LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CANADIAN MARKET pretty much rides on their coattails reputation-wise.

And pretending you can say "barring a collapse of the CAD" as if that has no chance of happening is pretty funny. Right now you guys are flush on an oil sands boom and the American economy is reeling from a major debt crisis. Two major short time incidents that change the dynamic over a period of time, but not indefinitely. It is not hard to see both markets normalizing at some point in the next 10 years.

Also I like how you whistled past the fact Quebec is not a growth spot, as if it's not the single hugest reason to stay away. Growth is a major driving force behind the things the NHL needs to do going forward. It's not like the NFL, MLB and NBA don't have a big enough lead already. You HAVE to compete for the American dollars that are out there for pro sports. If you don't, then you're not a big league, you're a midlevel pro league living in denial.

Every other major sport had to go through the same growing pains. The difference is that every other major sport had the sense to do it in the 50's and already lived through the growing pains we're still going through, back when people had attention spans and could comprehend what a long term plan was.
California has teams to play against, nobody cares about Phoenix there either.

First off your wrong, Vancouver never struggled(huge market, lots of money, not going to be a problem), and yes every other team survived due to Revenue Sharing, which is why it exists and now the Canadian teams are supporting the weak American teams, that's why the system exists.

Also economically speaking even with a normalization, you're not going to see the CAD drop to 80 cents to the dollar again, not in the next 20-30 years for sure.

the NBA is struggling a lot monetarily despite their bigger presence everywhere else so idk how helpful that is.

Chicago is heavily involved, so is New York, so is California, no one is talking about getting rid of those successful teams, and no one is arguing against growing areas near there, but you have to look at the realities in front of you, there are no owners and the reputation of the league is in the crapper due to not moving Phoenix. 3 years of this and while the league has done a good job of saving Dallas and St Louis, etc.

Coramoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:09 PM
  #322
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 500
I know that everybody automatically thinks bigger = better, but why? Why should "growing the game" be of interest to a hockey fan in Montréal or Toronto or New York? Why should it matter to him whether hockey catches up to Football/Baseball/Basketball or not? His club has good attendance and/or good sponsorship money, why share the revenue with teams that don't necessarily have to exist from his point of view?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:13 PM
  #323
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
The fan shouldn't. The owner better, because the rest of the league being as strong as possible affects his bottom line. If you have to go through a few growing pains to get there, so be it. Quite frankly, if this line of thinking dominated throughout the league's history, we'd still have just the original 6 and be a much less healthy league.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:16 PM
  #324
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I know that everybody automatically thinks bigger = better, but why? Why should "growing the game" be of interest to a hockey fan in Montréal or Toronto or New York? Why should it matter to him whether hockey catches up to Football/Baseball/Basketball or not? His club has good attendance and/or good sponsorship money, why share the revenue with teams that don't necessarily have to exist from his point of view?
Exactly! Why does big salaries necessarily mean better, more entertaining hockey? I can't see how certain teams not being able to compete economically with the likes of the economic powerhouses, if those teams were left to spend as they are able to, would make for better hockey, a more entertaining League. Hell, look at the parity that has been achieved since the last CBA, and the resulting record increases in revenue, with franchise values higher than ever.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:16 PM
  #325
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I know that everybody automatically thinks bigger = better, but why? Why should "growing the game" be of interest to a hockey fan in Montréal or Toronto or New York? Why should it matter to him whether hockey catches up to Football/Baseball/Basketball or not? His club has good attendance and/or good sponsorship money, why share the revenue with teams that don't necessarily have to exist from his point of view?
Because it's not just about "your" team. It's about hockey as a whole. Does a fan love hockey or do they just love the Leafs? If it's the latter I don't have connection with that "fan": He may as well be a Klingon to me. My hierarchy is: Hockey first, my favorite teams a distant second, my favorite players a distant third. I'm a fan of the SPORT first and foremost.

Morgoth Bauglir 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 09:42 AM.

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.