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, 01:36 PM
  #326
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
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.
The league would be less healthy if it consisted of the O6 + a few economically strong expansion teams in Canada and the USA? Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
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.
Fine, but maybe a concentrated league actually means better hockey?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:51 PM
  #327
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Fine, but maybe a concentrated league actually means better hockey?
Maybe, maybe not. I don't believe that one naturally follows the other. But I DO believe that a more "concentrated" league would also mean a weaker sport overall as the leagues exposure shrinks and contraction destroys the league's credibility.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:53 PM
  #328
Coramoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
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.
will you at least admit that phoenix is a failure?

Coramoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:53 PM
  #329
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The league would be less healthy if it consisted of the O6 + a few economically strong expansion teams in Canada and the USA? Why?
Because a 6-12 team league = minor league/minor sport. Sports are strong when they are INCLUSIVE as opposed to EXCLUSIVE. The greater number of people a sport touches, the stronger that sport is. It starts at the top and grows all the way down to the grassroots.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:55 PM
  #330
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramoor View Post
will you at least admit that phoenix is a failure?
Phoenix should be moved. I'm against contraction, I'm NOT against relocation to better markets. If the league moved Phoenix to Quebec tomorrow I'd be fine with it: I was appalled when Quebec lost the Nordiques in the first place.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:58 PM
  #331
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Phoenix should be moved. I'm against contraction, I'm NOT against relocation to better markets. If the league moved Phoenix to Quebec tomorrow I'd be fine with it: I was appalled when Quebec lost the Nordiques in the first place.
I think Phoenix is just fine where it is, but the Coyotes should almost certainly be relocated.

Sorry man, but we need a little humor around here ocassionally.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 01:59 PM
  #332
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I think Phoenix is just fine where it is, but the Coyotes should almost certainly be relocated.

Sorry man, but we need a little humor around here ocassionally.
No kidding And for the record I love Phoenix (the city): Been there, love the climate, could see myself retiring there someday

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:00 PM
  #333
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Maybe, maybe not. I don't believe that one naturally follows the other. But I DO believe that a more "concentrated" league would also mean a weaker sport overall as the leagues exposure shrinks and contraction destroys the league's credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Because a 6-12 team league = minor league/minor sport. Sports are strong when they are INCLUSIVE as opposed to EXCLUSIVE. The greater number of people a sport touches, the stronger that sport is. It starts at the top and grows all the way down to the grassroots.
You are throwing around phrases like "credibility" and "strong". Could you be a bit more specific please? "The greater number of people a sport touches, the stronger the sport is". What do you mean with "stronger"?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:01 PM
  #334
Coramoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Phoenix should be moved. I'm against contraction, I'm NOT against relocation to better markets. If the league moved Phoenix to Quebec tomorrow I'd be fine with it: I was appalled when Quebec lost the Nordiques in the first place.
there is no reason to contract, and Quebec would be a great situation for the league, especially if there are expansion plans for 2015-2016, as the league would be stronger with Quebec now then anywhere else

Coramoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:11 PM
  #335
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
You are throwing around phrases like "credibility" and "strong". Could you be a bit more specific please? "The greater number of people a sport touches, the stronger the sport is". What do you mean with "stronger"?
Would you say soccer is a strong sport? Yes? Why is it strong? I would say it's a strong sport because it impacts millions of people world-wide. Kids play it in the streets. Some of those kids grow up to be talented players in the pros. Some of those kids grow up to be fans who spend money watching the pros. The greater number of people your sports touches the stronger your sport is. You have to bring a sport into the communities and make fans out of the kids so that they become players (which increases your talent base) or long-term fans (who spend money on your sport). This is just common sense. You strengthen your sport by reaching more people, you WEAKEN your sport by shrinking the number of people you reach. Again, common sense.

As for credibility, the perception in the media (which in turn shapes public perception) is that leagues that contract are failing leagues that need not be taken seriously. That becomes a downward spiral that leagues simply do not recover from. I've watched it happen with the WHA, the ABA, and the USFL. It's like clockwork. A major sports league HAS to maintain a certain level of credibility with the public or they're doomed to fail.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:44 PM
  #336
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Would you say soccer is a strong sport? Yes? Why is it strong? I would say it's a strong sport because it impacts millions of people world-wide. Kids play it in the streets. Some of those kids grow up to be talented players in the pros. Some of those kids grow up to be fans who spend money watching the pros. The greater number of people your sports touches the stronger your sport is. You have to bring a sport into the communities and make fans out of the kids so that they become players (which increases your talent base) or long-term fans (who spend money on your sport). This is just common sense. You strengthen your sport by reaching more people, you WEAKEN your sport by shrinking the number of people you reach. Again, common sense.
Soccer is a sure-fire success (maybe not in North America, but everywhere else). You don't really need to sell it, you just expose people to the sport and they love it. It's not happening with hockey to the same degree, is it? Few hockey fans actually become players themselves outside of some specific regions (Canada, US states close to Canada, rather small parts of Europe). As for the fans who spend money: if there is not enough of them in certain places to support a NHL franchise, why bother? Why try to become "stronger" with all possible means? You already have great players, the best in the world. Concentrate the league, get rid of the fringe NHLers and your league is even better.

BTW I'm soccer fan and I don't care whether the sport grows or not. I know it still does and that's alright, just as it was alright if it stopped to grow.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 02:56 PM
  #337
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Soccer is a sure-fire success (maybe not in North America, but everywhere else). You don't really need to sell it, you just expose people to the sport and they love it.
You need to sell the crap out of it in North America.....which is exactly what's being done. Why? To grow the sport. In Europe kids have been playing soccer for over a hundred years, the exposure is maxed out and now new people are being sought to expose the sport to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
It's not happening with hockey to the same degree, is it? Few hockey fans actually become players themselves outside of some specific regions (Canada, US states close to Canada, rather small parts of Europe).
Soccer in Europe has about a hundred years head start on hockey in the United States. It's still better to get off to a late start than to say "why bother?" and not start at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
As for the fans who spend money: if there is not enough of them in certain places to support a NHL franchise, why bother? Why try to become "stronger" with all possible means? You already have great players, the best in the world. Concentrate the league, get rid of the fringe NHLers and your league is even better.
Why not try to grow stronger? If you love something why on Earth would you want to see it stay weak and small? Why would you NOT want to bring it to others so they can enjoy it like you do? If I really like something I want to share it with others.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
BTW I'm soccer fan and I don't care whether the sport grows or not. I know it still does and that's alright, just as it was alright if it stopped to grow.
Maybe you're content with a niche outlook on things but I suspect most people are not. Certainly not in North America. We generally are not content to remain cloistered in small parochial boxes and naturally strive for something bigger and better.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 03:03 PM
  #338
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coramoor View Post
will you at least admit that phoenix is a failure?
I will admit that Phoenix is failing, which is a totally different thing.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 03:07 PM
  #339
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The league would be less healthy if it consisted of the O6 + a few economically strong expansion teams in Canada and the USA? Why?
Because that would mean in all likelihood that they never exanded beyond the East Coast and a couple California teams.

The one thing you can say about the southern expansion is that it expressed a laudable determination to go out there and compete for the rest of the entertainment dollars that the big 3 have access to that the NHL doesn't if it stays in its little protected niche.

The fact that they aren't winning that competition at the moment is no excuse not to continue to compete.


Quote:
Fine, but maybe a concentrated league actually means better hockey?
Or perhaps it means better DEFENSIVE hockey, better goaltenders, and fewer players who do only one thing well, which from the standpoint of a lot of fans, means more grinding, and a poorer ability for truly great athletes to stand out from the pack. From the layman's perspective, that kind of talent density would look like WORSE hockey.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 03:11 PM
  #340
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
You are throwing around phrases like "credibility" and "strong". Could you be a bit more specific please? "The greater number of people a sport touches, the stronger the sport is". What do you mean with "stronger"?
Exposure.

I'm only a hockey fan because I got the chance to see the team in action. If I grow up in Tennessee, and there's no team closer to me than Chicago, I don't get that chance, and I become a football fan instead. Thus the NHL loses any and all access to whatever entertainment dollars I have to spend.

Meanwhile, if I grow up in Tennessee right now, my options are still pretty limited, since there's not really a lot of local hockey, but if the Vols and Titans aren't playing, I might watch the Preds just to see what this hockey thing is. And if I like what I see , I'll probably go watch again. Maybe take in a game live if I have a few dollars lying around just to see what that's like. And if I have a kid, we might shoot at a net together instead of playing catch with a football (or along with also doing that).

That's how this works.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 03:23 PM
  #341
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
You need to sell the crap out of it in North America.....which is exactly what's being done. Why? To grow the sport.
See, I don't want to grow the sport. The sport either grows by itself or it doesn't grow. You're entitled to see it the other way, but again, why should hockey fans in Toronto etc see it the other way?
BTW I'm not from Toronto, Montréal, New York etc, so I'm not arguing in favour of my team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Why not try to grow stronger? If you love something why on Earth would you want to see it stay weak and small? Why would you NOT want to bring it to others so they can enjoy it like you do? If I really like something I want to share it with others.
Again, small doesn't equal weak and big doesn't equal strong in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Maybe you're content with a niche outlook on things but I suspect most people are not. Certainly not in North America. We generally are not content to remain cloistered in small parochial boxes and naturally strive for something bigger and better.
Same for bigger = better. But agreed, it's a question of outlook. I just happen to question the general outlook that everybody seems to take as a given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Because that would mean in all likelihood that they never exanded beyond the East Coast and a couple California teams.
So what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
The one thing you can say about the southern expansion is that it expressed a laudable determination to go out there and compete for the rest of the entertainment dollars that the big 3 have access to that the NHL doesn't if it stays in its little protected niche.
Some think it's laudable. Other think it would be wiser to keep the dollars you already have instead of throwing them out of the window for revenue sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Or perhaps it means better DEFENSIVE hockey, better goaltenders, and fewer players who do only one thing well, which from the standpoint of a lot of fans, means more grinding, and a poorer ability for truly great athletes to stand out from the pack. From the layman's perspective, that kind of talent density would look like WORSE hockey.
If more players who do only one thing well = better hockey for you, then we're never going to agree in this debate because we don't agree on what actually is good hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
I'm only a hockey fan because I got the chance to see the team in action. If I grow up in Tennessee, and there's no team closer to me than Chicago, I don't get that chance, and I become a football fan instead. Thus the NHL loses any and all access to whatever entertainment dollars I have to spend.
And saves the revenue sharing dollars.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 03:39 PM
  #342
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Because that would mean in all likelihood that they never exanded beyond the East Coast and a couple California teams.

The one thing you can say about the southern expansion is that it expressed a laudable determination to go out there and compete for the rest of the entertainment dollars that the big 3 have access to that the NHL doesn't if it stays in its little protected niche.

The fact that they aren't winning that competition at the moment is no excuse not to continue to compete.




Or perhaps it means better DEFENSIVE hockey, better goaltenders, and fewer players who do only one thing well, which from the standpoint of a lot of fans, means more grinding, and a poorer ability for truly great athletes to stand out from the pack. From the layman's perspective, that kind of talent density would look like WORSE hockey.
We already have though Dojji. That's not a teams issue, it would occur with 15 or 40 teams. That's a make the nets bigger issue.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 04:57 PM
  #343
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,427
vCash: 50
The interesting thing being missed is this idea that current markets not contracted would be unaffected by a major contraction, is if it would be all savings or something. The losses in sponsorship and tv deals alone should give one pause, much less the casual fan interest is big markets as well as the long term loss of interest resulting from national irrelevance.

What I'm saying is you better factor in that the CanAm Rangers would most likely not be bringing in the revenue of the NHL Rangers in the short term and certainly not in the long term.

Limited Relocation is one thing, a large contraction quite another.

Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 05:33 PM
  #344
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
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.
I love the habs and I hate the leafs but the league would be far worse off without the leafs than without the majority of southern teams that i am pretty much indifferent to. How many people in traditional markets shed a tear for the thrashers ?

I understand that expanding to new markets has appeal but it also has risks and after a certain amount of time the league should be in a position to say that a market they chose is systematically unable to support a team and not continually double down in order hoping that the markets they have failed to leverage for decades are on the precipice of becoming hockey hotbeds withing the next couple of years.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 05:38 PM
  #345
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I love the habs and I hate the leafs but the league would be far worse off without the leafs than without the majority of southern teams that i am pretty much indifferent to. How many people in traditional markets shed a tear for the thrashers ?

I understand that expanding to new markets has appeal but it also has risks and after a certain amount of time the league should be in a position to say that a market they chose is systematically unable to support a team and not continually double down in order hoping that the markets they have failed to leverage for decades are on the precipice of becoming hockey hotbeds withing the next couple of years.
And Atlanta was rightly moved to Winnipeg. As I said before, I have no problems with relocating teams to better markets. I only have an issue when people start talking about contraction: That's bush league and hurts the sport. Relocating to better markets HELPS the sport. Phoenix is a bust? Fine, Quebec and Seattle want teams.....pick one and relocate.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 08:12 PM
  #346
hockeyfan2k11
Registered User
 
hockeyfan2k11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9,128
vCash: 500
This lockout is destroying the league. I don't think it will recover. It may stick around, but those TV contracts will never be anywhere near as lucrative as the the other leagues. All that sponsor money will be harder to get.

hockeyfan2k11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 08:36 PM
  #347
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
And Atlanta was rightly moved to Winnipeg. As I said before, I have no problems with relocating teams to better markets. I only have an issue when people start talking about contraction: That's bush league and hurts the sport. Relocating to better markets HELPS the sport. Phoenix is a bust? Fine, Quebec and Seattle want teams.....pick one and relocate.
The problems that there are more "struggling" teams than remaining suitable markets. Right now Quebec and Toronto 2 lead the pack then Seattle. Everything else is a lateral move and all it does is reset the clock for " but we are a new market, we need more time"

Eventually I think that contraction of some of these teams is inevitable, especially with the rumors of expasion that will certainly fill the two "stable" markets. Or the league could dissolve and reform and leave some of the owners holding the bag.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 08:45 PM
  #348
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
The problems that there are more "struggling" teams than remaining suitable markets. Right now Quebec and Toronto 2 lead the pack then Seattle. Everything else is a lateral move and all it does is reset the clock for " but we are a new market, we need more time"

Eventually I think that contraction of some of these teams is inevitable, especially with the rumors of expasion that will certainly fill the two "stable" markets. Or the league could dissolve and reform and leave some of the owners holding the bag.
I'm sorry, but I don's subscribe to the notion that "suitable market" means "Canadian city with a population over 300,000"; nor do I subscribe to the notion that there are a dozen teams that need to relocate or disappear.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:28 PM
  #349
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I'm sorry, but I don's subscribe to the notion that "suitable market" means "Canadian city with a population over 300,000"; nor do I subscribe to the notion that there are a dozen teams that need to relocate or disappear.
There aren't a dozen, but which cities do you put ahead of qc and Toronto 2 ( and as a gentlemans warning don't say freaking Kansas city). Right now there are no better markets for the NHL than qc and tor 2. If you get the cruise ship looking arena and an nba team seattle joins the ranks. After that it gets really, really thin.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-12-2012, 10:34 PM
  #350
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
There aren't a dozen, but which cities do you put ahead of qc and Toronto 2 ( and as a gentlemans warning don't say freaking Kansas city). Right now there are no better markets for the NHL than qc and tor 2. If you get the cruise ship looking arena and an nba team seattle joins the ranks. After that it gets really, really thin.
Quebec, Seattle, Hamilton, and possibly Milwaukee and Houston with Saskatoon a a few years down the road when the population is larger. You don't need a dozen possible destinations when there aren't a dozen teams that need to move.

SaintPatrick33 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 08:23 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.