HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Are the big market teams the losers here?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-30-2012, 11:29 PM
  #51
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 20,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
You think that Bettman would cater to those teams? VS what he believes is best for the league as a whole?
Well I figure someone like Ed Snyder must have a lot of pull. And I don't believe Bettman is this benevolant creature that think he must be fair to everybody, more like he answers to some powerful masters and then he follows a vision from a path that he continue on because it's his vision and doesn't want to go away from it even if it's the wrong one. Most of this Lockout is a result of the failfure of many weak markets, the markets he believes should exist while the bigger markets are losing money not playing and will gain nothing from it. They would have a case to be displeased by him and want something in return.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-30-2012, 11:46 PM
  #52
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
There is. Massive profits for those corporations. And that's what they are. Toronto, Philly, New York are all owned by huge corporations. Corporations look for one thing... the profits for their shareholders. The less money Toronto spends on players, the more profits get sent to their parent companies... and honestly the more my stock in Bell is worth.
It would appear that some people are just stuck on the baseless theory that high payroll = high profits.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:02 AM
  #53
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 20,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
It would appear that some people are just stuck on the baseless theory that high payroll = high profits.
I think nobody think that, overspending is never the solution. In an ideal World you should win games by having good management, pay as little as you can for players for maximum return. But getting the best players by luring them with more money is a great tool if it get you closer to winning and profit. For one thing, imagine the Bruins without Chara whom they got as UFA. No cup, no profit.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 01:18 AM
  #54
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
I think nobody think that, overspending is never the solution. In an ideal World you should win games by having good management, pay as little as you can for players for maximum return. But getting the best players by luring them with more money is a great tool if it get you closer to winning and profit. For one thing, imagine the Bruins without Chara whom they got as UFA. No cup, no profit.
Haha, good old Jeremy Jacobs always throwing money around. That signing was done under the new system with a cap if there had been no cap there would be no Chara in Boston. Some other team would have offered a huge contract and Jacobs would not have matched. It is under the new cap system that a team like the Bruins can compete for free agents like Chara.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 08:16 AM
  #55
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Red Wings would rather no salary cap. No one can convince me of otherwise.

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 08:43 AM
  #56
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I'm curious to know if anyone can offer some argument here to my thoughts. I can't seem to find how the large market teams benefit in anyway to this proposed CBA.

Sure there will be a decreased salary moving forward to player, however, a significant amount of this money will be re-directed out with revenue sharing.

The large market teams have already lost considerable amounts of money by losing games etc.. obviously these teams are not the reason we have a lockout.

If the cap is set to $60M next year, what do cap teams do if they have some young talent coming up looking for their first or second deals after their entry level contracts? Larry Brooks made some great arguments about NYR and having to sign players like McDonagh, Stepan and Hagelin.

I'm just looking to see if there is anything at all in the most recently proposed CBA to benefit the big markets. Not that they need help, but surely if they come out of this with a loss, it will be VERY difficult for Bettman to get support from big markets moving forward - especially if it turns out that the big markets accepted/supported a lockout to help the small markets at the expense of themselves.

Thanks in advance
I read Brooks article. As usual, he's unhappy because his Rangers won't have a spending advantage.

Are the NYR with McDonagh, Stepan and Hagelin the only NHL team with key youngsters, who'll be looking at possible large arbitration awards?

Every team will be under the same terms.

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 09:08 AM
  #57
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Red Wings would rather no salary cap. No one can convince me of otherwise.
Sure, but those franchises took the easy expansion money.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:14 AM
  #58
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Red Wings would rather no salary cap. No one can convince me of otherwise.
Nothing like keeping an open mind eh?

Economic realities and their actions say otherwise.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:16 AM
  #59
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
I read Brooks article. As usual, he's unhappy because his Rangers won't have a spending advantage.

Are the NYR with McDonagh, Stepan and Hagelin the only NHL team with key youngsters, who'll be looking at possible large arbitration awards?

Every team will be under the same terms.
Nope. Philly has Giroux, and others. Philly was the first team that came to mind, however every team will have this issue going forward should they not be able to come to a deal with key youngsters.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:40 AM
  #60
cam042686
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 331
vCash: 500
I think this article from today's National Post makes a very good point on this topic.

Craig Wallace

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...y-influential/

cam042686 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:01 PM
  #61
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
Well, let's say each team saves $10M on the cap. But the top ten teams cumulatively lose an extra $100M in new sharing. So that breaks about even. Plus they lose a thumpload on this season going kaput, and the downside of future lost interest.

So yeah, the big market teams are probably losing here. But 2/3 of the league doesn't do revenue sharing, so they're probably gaining on the whole.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:05 PM
  #62
colchar
Registered User
 
colchar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I'm curious to know if anyone can offer some argument here to my thoughts. I can't seem to find how the large market teams benefit in anyway to this proposed CBA.

Sure there will be a decreased salary moving forward to player, however, a significant amount of this money will be re-directed out with revenue sharing.

The large market teams have already lost considerable amounts of money by losing games etc.. obviously these teams are not the reason we have a lockout.

If the cap is set to $60M next year, what do cap teams do if they have some young talent coming up looking for their first or second deals after their entry level contracts? Larry Brooks made some great arguments about NYR and having to sign players like McDonagh, Stepan and Hagelin.

I'm just looking to see if there is anything at all in the most recently proposed CBA to benefit the big markets. Not that they need help, but surely if they come out of this with a loss, it will be VERY difficult for Bettman to get support from big markets moving forward - especially if it turns out that the big markets accepted/supported a lockout to help the small markets at the expense of themselves.

Thanks in advance

I can't see anything really helping them except for the argument that the salary cap proposals might mean more parity which would kind of benefit those teams.

colchar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:10 PM
  #63
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Well, let's say each team saves $10M on the cap. But the top ten teams cumulatively lose an extra $100M in new sharing. So that breaks about even. Plus they lose a thumpload on this season going kaput, and the downside of future lost interest.

So yeah, the big market teams are probably losing here. But 2/3 of the league doesn't do revenue sharing, so they're probably gaining on the whole.
Keep in mind those teams were spending close to twice the league average prior to the cap (04 was ~44m, they were mostly in the 65-77m range). So while they may only be saving 13% on salaries from the old CBA to the new one (~8m using the midpoint), they're still spending less than the 100-120m they'd likely be spending without the cap.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:12 PM
  #64
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 39,077
vCash: 500
i love the big market hockey fan. they believe that the big market team should have mor than an even playing field chance to win. that somehow as a paying fan of the leafs, flyers, rags or wings that they deserve more than the paying fan in tampa bay, carolina or edmonton.

many of the same fans of the winning big market teams also think that having a losing team like the oilers shouldnt mean being rewarded with being able to draft early and get those top end players. they should also be available for the wings to draft.

what they really want is for those small market teams to show up and lose like they should and not complain about it.wi

btw....no one mentions that teams like the red wings have those awesome draft picks in the late rounds because they can spend twice or three times on scouting than what the average team can spend and that they can afford twice or three times for coaching and staff that the average team can.

txpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:37 PM
  #65
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
i love the big market hockey fan. they believe that the big market team should have mor than an even playing field chance to win. that somehow as a paying fan of the leafs, flyers, rags or wings that they deserve more than the paying fan in tampa bay, carolina or edmonton.

many of the same fans of the winning big market teams also think that having a losing team like the oilers shouldnt mean being rewarded with being able to draft early and get those top end players. they should also be available for the wings to draft.

what they really want is for those small market teams to show up and lose like they should and not complain about it.wi

btw....no one mentions that teams like the red wings have those awesome draft picks in the late rounds because they can spend twice or three times on scouting than what the average team can spend and that they can afford twice or three times for coaching and staff that the average team can.
They feel that way because they're paying 2-3 times the ticket prices (at least) as Tampa, Carolina, etc, and that for the higher ticket prices that they deserve a more entertaining product. Honestly I can understand it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Yep. We can't level everything. Rich teams will still have more money to spend on certain things. Nicer charter planes/buses, more staff (trainers, doctors, etc), and more scouts/management types.

As for Detroits scouting staff, I think their rep is slightly overblown. They got very very lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. If they had any inclination as to how good they'd turn out (per-anial allstars) they'd have drafted them in the first 2 rounds.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:38 PM
  #66
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Well I figure someone like Ed Snyder must have a lot of pull. And I don't believe Bettman is this benevolant creature that think he must be fair to everybody, more like he answers to some powerful masters and then he follows a vision from a path that he continue on because it's his vision and doesn't want to go away from it even if it's the wrong one. Most of this Lockout is a result of the failfure of many weak markets, the markets he believes should exist while the bigger markets are losing money not playing and will gain nothing from it. They would have a case to be displeased by him and want something in return.
Bettman is a representative of the owners. He does not represent the fans or the game.

This lockout is because the owners see a better split in the NFL, NBA and MLB. They don't want to pay a higher percentage of revenues. It's not about any specific market.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:47 PM
  #67
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Red Wings would rather no salary cap. No one can convince me of otherwise.
I believe teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers and Red Wings prefer a cap. They can compete and make lots more money.



According to Forbes, the Leafs were worth $280 million in 2003. In 2011, they were estimated to be worth $521 million.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:54 PM
  #68
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 1,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I believe teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers and Red Wings prefer a cap. They can compete and make lots more money.



According to Forbes, the Leafs were worth $280 million in 2003. In 2011, they were estimated to be worth $521 million.
I agree. They don't mind a cap because they pretty much have big profits no matter what. On the other hand, if their wasn't a cap, they would spend and spend and wouldn't care about profits.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:56 PM
  #69
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 27,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I believe teams like the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers and Red Wings prefer a cap. They can compete and make lots more money.



According to Forbes, the Leafs were worth $280 million in 2003. In 2011, they were estimated to be worth $521 million.

I think in every business sense, you're right, as long as their overall savings after revenue transfer is higher with a cap than without.

That said, I personally think an owner like Mike Ilitch is still too much of a "fan" himself to worry about savings alone. He still wants a great team because he LOVES watching, he loves the excitement. At times I wonder if this new era will attract more business people who are in it from the arena tenancy and related businesses aspects, something that's already started happening.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 01:35 PM
  #70
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 6,175
vCash: 500
Although I am a fan of a large market team, I am not against revenue sharing. However I must point out that the other sports, with much more effective and competent management have been successful at it. The NHL's USA TV contract is a joke, and the only reason they have that is that NBC had nothing else to fill their programming on their sports channel. Meanwhile, the expansion into southern US markets is a failure. Why on earth are there 2 teams in Florida? Why did the league try Atlanta again? Why has this joke in Phoenix been allowed and enabled by the NHL? Why did anyone think the NY area could support 3 teams, or the LA market 2? This is all the doing of Gary Bettman. Add to this a moronic discipline process that suspends players 6 games for saying something stupid, but one game or no games for intentionally injuring an opponent, and on-ice rules that change by the month, and there is no wonder why most US casual fans do not embrace it. Finally, a league that locks out the players 3 times over 18 years, including canceling an entire season to get a cap system that is now inadequate cannot and should not be taken seriously. That is how we got here. The big market teams have lost a ton by missing half the season. The small market teams are ahead of the game with the league shut down. This is the only pro league that is run like a backwater rec league. And to add to that, it costs hundreds of dollars to take the family to a game in seats where the puck does not look like a pea. It is really too bad, and demonstrates that the game is such a great experience that despite the complete incompetence of the league management and with the amazing support of Canadians, it still exists.

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 01:36 PM
  #71
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,814
vCash: 500
Big markets were the losers last time and will be once again. Such is the price for parity.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:48 PM
  #72
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Well in Boston Jacobs refused to spend the money necessary to compete with the other big market teams under the old system so any cap is a good cap for Boston. The Bruins will spend right to the cap, field a competitive hockey team, and Bruins fans will be happy.
Pretty much the same for Kings' fans. AEG which is currently trying to sell all of their entertainment properties, including the Kings, never spent big money until the salary cap was in place. Once the team was in a position to make a sustained run they spent fairly close to the cap.

The reasons AEG is selling are likely two fold IMO.

1) Philip Anschutz is getting older and likely wants to retire, but he could have left the company to one of his children or let AEG President Tim Leiweke run the entire company.

2) The price of all enterntainment properties are inflated and it's time to sell.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:56 PM
  #73
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
Meanwhile, the expansion into southern US markets is a failure. Why on earth are there 2 teams in Florida? Why did the league try Atlanta again? Why has this joke in Phoenix been allowed and enabled by the NHL? Why did anyone think the NY area could support 3 teams, or the LA market 2? This is all the doing of Gary Bettman.
What team in the NY area is the doing of Bettman? Anaheim came around barely after Bettman became commissioner. Tampa Bay existed before Bettman. Florida got their team before Bettman. Atlanta was tried again because of wealthy ownership at first. Then the last owner they had didn't want the team in the building they owned, so no other owner could keep the team in Atlanta.

Why is Phoenix still around? Because other than the WHA cities, the NHL hasn't had that many relocating teams in the last 30 years. Plus, as of right now, where would they move to? They could've moved to Winnipeg, but the league had a coming mess in Atlanta. Move the Coyotes to Winnipeg, and then when the Atlanta Spirit Group can finally get rid of the Thrashers, where do they go? Fold? Not many teams fold anymore. That's not a good look for a league.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:38 PM
  #74
no1b4me
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
i love the big market hockey fan. they believe that the big market team should have mor than an even playing field chance to win. that somehow as a paying fan of the leafs, flyers, rags or wings that they deserve more than the paying fan in tampa bay, carolina or edmonton.
There could be that, but also as a shareholder with over 2000 shares in BCE Inc which owns 28% of the MSLE which in turn owns TML and 18% of the Habs I don't like that TML/Habs should have to continue to support teams in markets that can't support it. Company's like Walmart close stores in areas where it isn't making the profits it forcast and relocate them to better places.

This is what it's really about right? Supporting teams that can't make a go of it where they are and making the League stronger.


Last edited by no1b4me: 12-31-2012 at 05:40 PM. Reason: added: should
no1b4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 06:39 PM
  #75
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 39,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
They feel that way because they're paying 2-3 times the ticket prices (at least) as Tampa, Carolina, etc, and that for the higher ticket prices that they deserve a more entertaining product. Honestly I can understand it. I don't agree with it, but I get it..
i dont agree with it and wanted to just wanted to point out the ridiculous logic of their basic thinking. "sure, you can have a team in the league, but until your tickets are as expensive as my market, you are not allowed to win. so, dont ask....you have no right to beat my team. so just lose and go away"

btw....its worth noting that the bruins and the blackhawks not terribly long ago had awful attendence where many of these looked down upon markets were outdrawing and outspending them.

txpd is online now   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 09:59 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.