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.

1997 expansion approval

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2012, 01:10 PM
  #101
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
Just something I've seen across these boards and find puzzling. Why is this expansion not being brought up when discussing the 'blame game' consider the following;

-this came on the 3rd consecutive year a franchise relocated and only 2 years after the last lockout (in which the owners did not get what they wanted) ended. And at the time the canadian dollar was approaching rock bottom with all but Toronto and possibly Montreal in jeopardy.
-the NHL willingly extended the CBA which was deemed to be in the players favour by 4 years AND concurrently added 75 jobs for them without getting a single concession from them (the only concession was reducing roster sized from 24 to 23 but the net result was still more jobs)
-the expansion choices themselves; Atlanta eventually left, Columbus and Nashville are low market teams with Minnesota being mid market
-the league had already grown from 21 to 26 teams within the previous 6 years and more than one third of the current NHL cities did not have a team at the start of the decade (5 via expansion, 4 via relocation)

now consider how things would have gone if the league did not make the ill advised expansion;
-the CBA expires in 2000. It's likely the 2004 lockout either doesn't happen or isn't as nasty.
-with the future CBA's, there wouldn't be as much to fight for. Many believe it's the small market teams causing the lockout and without the expansion, there'd be 3 fewer
-Minnesota and Winnipeg would be viable outlets for failing franchises.
-the overall logistics of having 4 fewer teams would be beneficial; all 4 of those expansion teams were generally lower draws while on the road. And it also added a higher percentage of meaningless games with 4 more teams missing the playoffs every year. And the talent pool would be less watered down


I just question with the players getting blamed for everything wrong with the sport, why is this decision not being brought up when you could easily argue that this expansion was the worst self-inflicted disaster on any sports league?
I don't see how this is a disaster at all. I think most people on here have no idea about the basic economics work. I don't see how many times I have to say this: No matter how many teams you have there were always be teams that draw less than others. If there weren't teams in Nashville and Columbus other markets would be low level.

And the reason they expanded was they needed the money. so expansion team payments go to the other teams. Those teams then can pay their payrolls. How many NHL teams have failed in the last 30 years? How many have failed in the NBA?

There seems to be continual posts on here blaming the lower revenue markets for the lock-out. That isn't what is happening. It is the amount of total revenue that players get that is causing the problems. The NFL is doing great and the players get a lower share than the NHL. The arguments on here follow no logic or have nothing related to anything in reality.

Repeat after me: No matter how few teams exist there will always be a team that generates the least revenue.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 01:10 PM
  #102
Mwd711
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think there are examples of bad original owner decisions, in addition to subsequent owner decisions. Like Tampa. Nashville and Boots. Phoenix on the back of a real estate developer, as a re-sale. Ottawa was also part of a real estate block. Disney? It seemed like a great idea at the time. Atlanta and ASG?
Very true but this thread focuses on expansion and you'd be hard pressed to turn down any of the original owners of the expansion teams. The only real iffy ones are Ottawa and Tampa. Look at who else was bidding and who got them. How many times were there better bids? In most cases, there weren't. If you wanna turn down a media giant (Disney and Turner) for some dude, be my guest, but I don't think that's a good way to run the league if you're trying to legitimize it on the national stage. Those were big gets and gave the league great PR. Who else bidding could've done that?

Mwd711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 01:13 PM
  #103
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post

Repeat after me: No matter how few teams exist there will always be a team that generates the least revenue.
What is this? A joke?

If the difference between making and money and losing money was $5M or $15M -- that's a big difference, right?

Nobody has a problem that someone team is going to generate the least amount of revenue.

What we have a problem with is that some of these expansion teams have become Chevy Chase's dog leashed to the station wagon bumper.

Poor little guy...probably kept up with him for a mile or so



It's ugly and gruesome. And, as a result... here were are.



RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 01:25 PM
  #104
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
What is this? A joke?

If the difference between making and money and losing money was $5M or $15M -- that's a big difference, right?

Nobody has a problem that someone team is going to generate the least amount of revenue.

What we have a problem with is that some of these expansion teams have become Chevy Chase's dog leashed to the station wagon bumper.


It's ugly and gruesome. And, as a result... here were are.

MOD Say you removed these expansion teams...so you replace them with two higher revenue teams. so the cap floor and cap limit go up. Teams that were struggling fail. teams that were breaking even start to lose money. Ok so the teams that fail get remove so the salary floor and salary cap go up again. So new teams start to fail and so on and so on.

Having franchises that bring in little revenue is good for the teams that bring in a lot of revenue. It keeps the caps limits lower so they make more money.

The only argument is for more revenue sharing. The markets will no matter where they are located will never result in 30 teams generating the same amount of revenue. Columbus is a nice city so is Nashville. Both can support hockey and they do support hockey.

Nashville has 1700 more fans per game than Winnipeg. Almost as much as the hockey hotbed of Edmonton. SO there goes that lame theory. And not far behind Boston.

Hockey is doing great filling their arenas. the median attendance percentage is 100 percent. It is simple where the hockey financial problems lie. Too much money going to the players.


Last edited by Fugu: 12-21-2012 at 02:28 PM. Reason: flaming
atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 01:35 PM
  #105
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post

Hockey is doing great filling their arenas. the median attendance percentage is 100 percent. It is simple where the hockey financial problems lie. Too much money going to the players.
Cutting the salary floor in half would solve alot. But you're against that too. The NFL has more revenue period. A clawback is not going to solve owners problems.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 01:46 PM
  #106
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Cutting the salary floor in half would solve alot. But you're against that too. The NFL has more revenue period. A clawback is not going to solve owners problems.
i would be all for cutting the salary floor all together. and getting rid of arbitration. those are problems that force a lower revenue market team to pay to much for salaries. It doesn't matter that the NFL has more revenue. the NHL has plenty of revenue for the number of total employees and expenses they have. there is no reason that every team in the league cannot be highly profitable with their current revenues. The CBA is the problem. Players are way overvalued in the system.

Have you seen how high ticket prices are currently? There is no way the NHL can sustain the increases in revenues they have seen through increased ticket prices. Eventually attendance will go down. And if many teams are losing money than salaries are the most reasonable way to become profitable. I am sure travel is a big expense as well.

For some reason people seem to think the players getting 57 percent is fair. I don't see that. The owners have to pay for the referees, coaches, general managers, scouts, office space, travel etc. etc.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 01:46 PM
  #107
nhlfan79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think there are examples of bad original owner decisions, in addition to subsequent owner decisions. Like Tampa. Nashville and Boots. Phoenix on the back of a real estate developer, as a re-sale. Ottawa was also part of a real estate block. Disney? It seemed like a great idea at the time. Atlanta and ASG?
Point of clarification: Atlanta was awarded to Ted Turner and AOL Time Warner, not ASG, who came five years later. AOL-TW split up shortly after the team hit the ice, and TW could not have cared less about owning a team while they were bleeding money in their core operations. So, they ran the team on the cheap with a league-low payroll each year. Only then came ASG, which morphed TW's indifferent ownership to outright antagonistic ownership. The rest is history.

Yet the conventional wisdom says the "market" is what failed. Sigh.

nhlfan79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 02:12 PM
  #108
skydog71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Here's an interesting thought... if you contracted a rich team like Toronto ($200 million/year revenue according to Forbes), the salary cap would drop by $200 million * 0.57 / 31 = $3.68 million per team. This move would push 3 teams that are currently losing money (Capitals, Sharks, Predators) into the black.

If you also contracted the Rangers & Canadiens ($368 million/year in revenue), the cap would drop another $368 million * 0.57 / 29 = $7.23 million per team. This would make the Wild, Ducks, Sabres, Hurricanes & Blues profitable.

So we've basically saved 8 franchises by eliminating the 3 richest franchises. That's kind of messed up when you think about it.

Forbes NHL valuations: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

skydog71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 02:20 PM
  #109
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydog71 View Post
Here's an interesting thought... if you contracted a rich team like Toronto ($200 million/year revenue according to Forbes), the salary cap would drop by $200 million * 0.57 / 31 = $3.68 million per team. This move would push 3 teams that are currently losing money (Capitals, Sharks, Predators) into the black.

If you also contracted the Rangers & Canadiens ($368 million/year in revenue), the cap would drop another $368 million * 0.57 / 29 = $7.23 million per team. This would make the Wild, Ducks, Sabres, Hurricanes & Blues profitable.

So we've basically saved 8 franchises by eliminating the 3 richest franchises. That's kind of messed up when you think about it.

Forbes NHL valuations: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/
This is what I have been saying all along. And the fact that the Capitals sell out every game at ridiculous prices and still lose money shows that the league is broken.

the problem with the whole scenario of trying to contract the three biggest markets is that they would have a court battle on their hands. Just like contracted the bottom market teams. Contracting teams is not something that is an option. The whole contracting the bottom revenue teams argument just doesn't make sense.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 02:23 PM
  #110
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Say you removed these expansion teams...so you replace them with two higher revenue teams. so the cap floor and cap limit go up. Teams that were struggling fail. teams that were breaking even start to lose money. Ok so the teams that fail get remove so the salary floor and salary cap go up again. So new teams start to fail and so on and so on.

Having franchises that bring in little revenue is good for the teams that bring in a lot of revenue. It keeps the caps limits lower so they make more money.
Teams that are making money don't need the salary cap to stay lower by a couple million.

Is it really your argument that we have crappy market teams for the sake of big market profits?

So lets put a team in Wawa Ontario or [mod] Idaho.


Last edited by Fugu: 12-21-2012 at 02:31 PM. Reason: ...
RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 02:31 PM
  #111
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhlfan79 View Post
Point of clarification: Atlanta was awarded to Ted Turner and AOL Time Warner, not ASG, who came five years later. AOL-TW split up shortly after the team hit the ice, and TW could not have cared less about owning a team while they were bleeding money in their core operations. So, they ran the team on the cheap with a league-low payroll each year. Only then came ASG, which morphed TW's indifferent ownership to outright antagonistic ownership. The rest is history.

Yet the conventional wisdom says the "market" is what failed. Sigh.
I know, hence why I said 'in addition to subsequent ownership decisions."

I think the NHL should bear a massive portion of blame for letting the biggest city in the south fail as a market. It simply should not have been allowed to happen.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 02:35 PM
  #112
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydog71 View Post
Here's an interesting thought... if you contracted a rich team like Toronto ($200 million/year revenue according to Forbes), the salary cap would drop by $200 million * 0.57 / 31 = $3.68 million per team. This move would push 3 teams that are currently losing money (Capitals, Sharks, Predators) into the black.

If you also contracted the Rangers & Canadiens ($368 million/year in revenue), the cap would drop another $368 million * 0.57 / 29 = $7.23 million per team. This would make the Wild, Ducks, Sabres, Hurricanes & Blues profitable.

So we've basically saved 8 franchises by eliminating the 3 richest franchises. That's kind of messed up when you think about it.

Forbes NHL valuations: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

It also goes against every business doctrine that anyone capable of making money would accept. You don't sacrifice the cash cows so the dogs can live another day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
Nashville has 1700 more fans per game than Winnipeg. Almost as much as the hockey hotbed of Edmonton. SO there goes that lame theory. And not far behind Boston.

Hockey is doing great filling their arenas. the median attendance percentage is 100 percent. It is simple where the hockey financial problems lie. Too much money going to the players.

Perhaps you should consider what supply and demand do to ticket prices.

So, no, it's simple where the financial problems like, but it's not due to player cost. It's due to player cost relative to the problem created by supply and demand in each market (revenue).

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 02:37 PM
  #113
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It also goes against every business doctrine that anyone capable of making money would accept. You don't sacrifice the cash cows so the dogs can live another day.
No actually it makes a lot of sense. Teams like the Rangers overpaying for players when there was no cap really hurt the league. Getting rid of 3 teams to keep 27 teams profitable makes sense as well. It is logical. there is no business doctrine that says you should do business with other companies to keep them highly profitable while hurting your own bottom line.

I think I could live without the Rangers, Canadians, and Maple Leafs in the league. And if it makes the league stronger everyone should be for it. It would probably lead to less labor strife in the future. But alas it is not possible as you said people paid a lot of money for those franchises they wouldn't go down without a fight.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:09 PM
  #114
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
No actually it makes a lot of sense. Teams like the Rangers overpaying for players when there was no cap really hurt the league. Getting rid of 3 teams to keep 27 teams profitable makes sense as well. It is logical. there is no business doctrine that says you should do business with other companies to keep them highly profitable while hurting your own bottom line.

I think I could live without the Rangers, Canadians, and Maple Leafs in the league. And if it makes the league stronger everyone should be for it. It would probably lead to less labor strife in the future. But alas it is not possible as you said people paid a lot of money for those franchises they wouldn't go down without a fight.
Pretty much. It's like the difference between owning a large store in Manhattan and owning one down in the burbs. Even if the Manhattan location makes tons more revenue, rents there are absurd, and the price of doing business can quickly become not worth it if your business model isn't strong enough.

If the price of doing business in NY, MTL and TOR is that 16 or 17 franchises are going belly-up, that's a pretty good sign that the business model needs to adjust.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:12 PM
  #115
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
No actually it makes a lot of sense. Teams like the Rangers overpaying for players when there was no cap really hurt the league. Getting rid of 3 teams to keep 27 teams profitable makes sense as well. It is logical. there is no business doctrine that says you should do business with other companies to keep them highly profitable while hurting your own bottom line.

I think I could live without the Rangers, Canadians, and Maple Leafs in the league. And if it makes the league stronger everyone should be for it. It would probably lead to less labor strife in the future. But alas it is not possible as you said people paid a lot of money for those franchises they wouldn't go down without a fight.

No, it makes no business sense. You're giving up massive market share, along with the highest per customer return in the league. That goes against every business doctrine except one outlined by Marx (which may be an oxymoron to call it a 'business' doctrine).

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:18 PM
  #116
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, it makes no business sense. You're giving up massive market share, along with the highest per customer return in the league. That goes against every business doctrine except one outlined by Marx (which may be an oxymoron to call it a 'business' doctrine).
No it does make business sense. It makes business sense for owners of the 27 other teams. Why would I care how much revenue the rangers were getting if I owned the blue jackets? I would rather have a lower cap and floor so I could be profitable. There is no reason for me to want to support another corporation that is causing me to lose profits.

if the rangers, canadians, and maple leafs were giving my team more money than it cost me to have them in the league than it makes sense to keep them than otherwise throw them out. And the islanders are moving to NYC so I won't lose out on that tv market and that would help keep another league from forming with a team in new york.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:23 PM
  #117
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
No it does make business sense. It makes business sense for owners of the 27 other teams. Why would I care how much revenue the rangers were getting if I owned the blue jackets? I would rather have a lower cap and floor so I could be profitable. There is no reason for me to want to support another corporation that is causing me to lose profits.

if the rangers, canadians, and maple leafs were giving my team more money than it cost me to have them in the league than it makes sense to keep them than otherwise throw them out. And the islanders are moving to NYC so I won't lose out on that tv market and that would help keep another league from forming with a team in new york.

That owner can start his own league then. There's no reason why the highest valued franchises should be sacrificed so his $80 investment will flourish through anticompetitive practices.

Everyone had a chance to do their due diligence before buying into the league.

I can't believe I even have to argue something like this...

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:53 PM
  #118
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,335
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydog71 View Post
Here's an interesting thought... if you contracted a rich team like Toronto ($200 million/year revenue according to Forbes), the salary cap would drop by $200 million * 0.57 / 31 = $3.68 million per team. This move would push 3 teams that are currently losing money (Capitals, Sharks, Predators) into the black.

If you also contracted the Rangers & Canadiens ($368 million/year in revenue), the cap would drop another $368 million * 0.57 / 29 = $7.23 million per team. This would make the Wild, Ducks, Sabres, Hurricanes & Blues profitable.

So we've basically saved 8 franchises by eliminating the 3 richest franchises. That's kind of messed up when you think about it.

Forbes NHL valuations: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/
You don't save anyone by eliminating franchises but by lowering the cap. NHL has proposed a less messy way to do it, by lowering the player share to 50% of HRR.

For example if NHL found a way to cancel the TV deal revenue would go down and the cap would be lower. That doesn't mean any teams would be saved by it.

Revenue is tied to cost in a cap system. Nothing weird about it.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:12 PM
  #119
skydog71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It also goes against every business doctrine that anyone capable of making money would accept. You don't sacrifice the cash cows so the dogs can live another day.
But the Leafs aren't a cash cow for anybody except the Leafs. Maybe if there was more than 4.5% revenue sharing. But as it currently stands, for every dollar that Toronto makes above the league average, the other teams get $0.045 in income (revenue sharing) and a bill for $0.57 from the players.

The opposite is true with Phoenix. For every dollar that Phoenix loses, the other teams get to pay their players $0.57 less. Having poor teams like Phoenix drives down the salary cap, enabling rich teams to make even more money. This is why you have some teams like the Leafs making $80 million/year. In some respects, the Leafs' cash cow isn't a cow at all and is actually a Coyote.

skydog71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:24 PM
  #120
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydog71 View Post
But the Leafs aren't a cash cow for anybody except the Leafs. Maybe if there was more than 4.5% revenue sharing. But as it currently stands, for every dollar that Toronto makes above the league average, the other teams get $0.045 in income (revenue sharing) and a bill for $0.57 from the players.

The opposite is true with Phoenix. For every dollar that Phoenix loses, the other teams get to pay their players $0.57 less. Having poor teams like Phoenix drives down the salary cap, enabling rich teams to make even more money. This is why you have some teams like the Leafs making $80 million/year. In some respects, the Leafs' cash cow isn't a cow at all and is actually a Coyote.
The solution isn't to get rid of Toronto, but the system that forces that on those smaller teams, undoubtedly a system they wanted and one where they allowed UFA age to decrease to 27. Toronto can only employee about 22 players.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:26 PM
  #121
skydog71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
For example if NHL found a way to cancel the TV deal revenue would go down and the cap would be lower. That doesn't mean any teams would be saved by it.
That depends on the TV deal cancelled. If the Leafs had a TV deal worth $45 million that was cancelled, then the Leafs would lose $45 million in revenue. The players would lose 57% * $45 million = $25.65 million. Or about $855,000 per team. So the Leafs would lose about $44.15 ($45 million - $855,000) and all the other teams would make $855,000 (by having their expenses lowered by $855,000).

If it was a national TV deal worth $30 million, then each team would lose $1 million and would have the effect of reducing each team's cap by $430,000. So each team would lose $570,000.

skydog71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:31 PM
  #122
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
No and perhaps I was unclear in getting my point across again.

I did not mean to imply Canadian teams have no say or have been silenced by their American counterparts, though that is certainly how my previous post comes across. It was a poor example in an attempt to illustrate that American teams, particularly the likes of Boston (as you mentioned), along with an American commissioner often are the ones driving the agenda. Canadian teams, by contrast, seem to just be along for the ride.
Not saying that the Canadian teams want or wanted to give their voice to US team owners, if even hypothetically that would be the case. However, it is possible nevertheless that the Canadian team owners, at the time of Bettman's hiring, were also in favor of the idea of Bettman and that he was US-born. They may have felt, and may still feel, that the US was and is important to the future of the NHL. Just because some Canadian fans don't have that perspective doesn't mean that it doesn't exist among the Canadian owners in the NHL.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:33 PM
  #123
skydog71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The solution isn't to get rid of Toronto, but the system that forces that on those smaller teams, undoubtedly a system they wanted and one where they allowed UFA age to decrease to 27. Toronto can only employee about 22 players.
Oh I agree completely. I was just pointing out how broken the current system is. Which I guess is news to nobody.

skydog71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:06 PM
  #124
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think there are examples of bad original owner decisions, in addition to subsequent owner decisions. Like Tampa. Nashville and Boots. Phoenix on the back of a real estate developer, as a re-sale. Ottawa was also part of a real estate block. Disney? It seemed like a great idea at the time. Atlanta and ASG?
Boots never owned the team!!! I'm just gonna start claiming Bill Butler is the owner of the Oilers. Interesting nobody claims Brett Wilson as the Preds owner now, but continue this Boots owned 100% of the Preds crap. As for the rest of this hatefest. Guess what we ain't going anywhere deal with it!!!!! Hell let's go back to 24 or 21 teams and 2/3 of the teams making the playoffs.
Crappy teams that are 20 games below .500 with the 6th seed that's excitment right there


Last edited by Gnashville: 12-21-2012 at 10:36 PM.
Gnashville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 10:31 PM
  #125
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
Boots never owned the team!!! I'm just gonna start claiming Bill Butler is the owner of the Oilers. Interesting nobody claims Brett Wilson as the Preds owner now, but continue this Boots owned 100% of the Preds crap. As for the rest of this Nashville hatefest. Guess what we ain't going anywhere deal with it!!!!! Hell let's go back to 24 or 21 teams and 2/3 of the teams making the playoffs teams that are 20 games below .500 with the 6th seed that's excitment right there

Boots closed with the Freeman group and had about a 28% stake. Are you forgetting that a court trustee had to dispense with his stake after his trial for fraud? Or that Freeman ran into some tax problems, and that Cigarran eventually took over the lead owner role?

Oh, and Leipold and AEG lent money to Boots to help close the sale.

Fugu 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 01:56 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.