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.

Are the big market teams the losers here?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-01-2013, 07:31 PM
  #101
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Columbus has had a bad hand dealt from the beginning, not the least of which is a bad alignment for an expansion team with no history, all so that Toronto could move east. Toronto took the easy expansion money, and then said screw you Columbus. Not that Columbus hasn't done an awful job of drafting and developing talent. Not that that's Bettman's fault.
Toronto moved to the Eastern Conference prior to the 1998-1999 season, 2 years before Columbus started playing. Part of the reason for their move is they wanted more games to be played against Montreal, however that was also the same year Nashville came into the league and they replaced Toronto in Central Division which made things easier.


Last edited by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER: 01-01-2013 at 08:31 PM.
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 07:47 PM
  #102
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I'm not sure defining a % of salaries necessarily increases the. portion paid. According to the NHL pre-salary cap the league paid a much higher percentage of revenues than after the cap was instituted.

I also understand the players ' perspective as well. I don't understand why fans just expect them to reduce their portion and players ' actual salaries just because the owners want to pay less.

I also understand a lot of teams are not profitable and its reasonable to believe something needs to be done. I heard Jimmy Devellano say the Red Wings lose money if they don't reach the second round of the playoffs. That is a problem, albeit a different problem.

That was the Wings position during the last lockout. I don't believe it applies to their situation under the current CBA, tbh.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 09:20 AM
  #103
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
Toronto moved to the Eastern Conference prior to the 1998-1999 season, 2 years before Columbus started playing. Part of the reason for their move is they wanted more games to be played against Montreal, however that was also the same year Nashville came into the league and they replaced Toronto in Central Division which made things easier.
The league realigned in 98 knowing Columbus was going to have a team, and that they were going to be in the central division in order to give Detroit at least some small amount of relief with another 7pm road game now and then.

Toronto had to move, because #1 they're Toronto, they're further east than Detroit, and the league hasn't wanted to have 1 Canadian or American team in a division for 30 years. They were forced to do it when the Rockies moved to NJ, but they eventually moved Winnipeg back to the Norris/Central.

I'm just saying that between Toronto and Columbus, one of those franchises could be successful with pretty much any alignment, and one needs a little help.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 02:00 PM
  #104
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
No, I think almost every market is a loser in some significant way.

Let's look at a few "small" market teams:
1. Columbus - Instead of being able to play, the Jackets have to endure being labeled the "last place team" for essentially 2 seasons in a row. Also, they lost the All-Star Game as well as much of the revenue in the Arena District which is generated by the Jackets games. It's so bad that Columbus is looking for ways to offset the loss for local businesses (particularly restaurants).

2. Phoenix - They made the Western Conference finals. A season without hockey may, however, nullify the boost in popularity the Coyotes' postseason run generated.

3. Florida - Much like Phoenix, last season's success in Florida may likely be tempered by a season without hockey.

(You can also add LA to the group of Phoenix and Florida although they aren't really that small and the Lakers aren't being their usual dominant selves.)

While the large market teams lose the most money immediately, the lockout is undoubtedly helping to foster a sense of ambivalence towards the NHL in all markets. This hurts small markets the most particularly after a season where many of the smaller markets performed well.
These are interesting points, and while the focus of this thread seemed to be more on the big market teams I do think it's good to remind readers of the thread that small market teams have suffered as well, though we tend to look more at their losses on the balance sheet stopping.

I can only presume that large market teams were told that a healthier league overall would lead to better TV contracts and growth, which presumably outweigh their losses over a fraction (or whole) NHL season.

Myself personally I always assumed that once 50/50 was reached (or something closer to 50/50 from where they used to be) and the new cap based on that linkage established that there would be rollbacks/buyouts and other tools introduced to help teams get from their current payroll down to where the new cap would be.

There really should be some mechanisms to for teams to dump 10+M in salary and ideally stay roughly as competitive as they were prior to the lockout.

lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 02:12 PM
  #105
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,497
vCash: 500
So does a deal have to be made today? The PA has a deadline of tonight midnight to file DOI. If the negotiating continues past midnight could Bettman say everything is off the table again and by the way you guys can't file your DOI.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:26 PM
  #106
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
So does a deal have to be made today? The PA has a deadline of tonight midnight to file DOI. If the negotiating continues past midnight could Bettman say everything is off the table again and by the way you guys can't file your DOI.
I don't think a deal must be made today.

The vote by the PA to "authorize" a disclaimer of interest by January 2nd is not a binding authorization. In fact, it even potentially casts some doubt on the strategy. A disclaimer of interest means the union has chosen to no longer represent its members. Decertification does require a vote of the membership and means the members no longer wish to be represented by the union.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 04:13 PM
  #107
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I don't think a deal must be made today.

The vote by the PA to "authorize" a disclaimer of interest by January 2nd is not a binding authorization. In fact, it even potentially casts some doubt on the strategy. A disclaimer of interest means the union has chosen to no longer represent its members. Decertification does require a vote of the membership and means the members no longer wish to be represented by the union.
I see, thanks. I thought it was today or nothing. Obviously if they are still negotiating tomorrow, todays date meant nothing. Why have it then?

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 06:39 PM
  #108
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
I see, thanks. I thought it was today or nothing. Obviously if they are still negotiating tomorrow, todays date meant nothing. Why have it then?
just to try to gain a little leverage.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 07:43 PM
  #109
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
So does a deal have to be made today? The PA has a deadline of tonight midnight to file DOI. If the negotiating continues past midnight could Bettman say everything is off the table again and by the way you guys can't file your DOI.
Then I believe the PA would certainly apply and re-file for the Disclaimer. If Bettman were to pull that, his currently reasonable argument suggesting the PA is using a DOI as a negotiating tactic would be completely unreasonable. ie.. he would be shooting himself in the foot.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 07:46 PM
  #110
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Florida and Anaheim aren't really Bettman.



3 of those were former WHA teams, that were treated like 2nd class citizens in the NHL from the day they arrived.



Minnesota had plenty of issues. They were merged with another team, and were going to move to San Jose. All of which came before Bettman. Then Norm Green moved the team.



Again, there was no choice with Atlanta. The people that own the building, who weren't the original owners of the Thrashers, didn't want the Thrashers in the building anymore.



I've seen it explained here before, but apparently the Islanders have had just like the worst lease ever.

Columbus has had a bad hand dealt from the beginning, not the least of which is a bad alignment for an expansion team with no history, all so that Toronto could move east. Toronto took the easy expansion money, and then said screw you Columbus. Not that Columbus hasn't done an awful job of drafting and developing talent. Not that that's Bettman's fault.

To pin Florida and Anaheim directly on Bettman(good or bad) is unfair, as he just got on the job, so those were franchises in motion well before Bettman came along.

You had a franchise in Atlanta that had nowhere to play once the owners could get rid of them. At the same time you've got Phoenix with issues. The only city ready for a team, with willing ownership, and a building, and no other territory issues, during this time, was Winnipeg. Two teams, one city. One team wasn't going to be able to play in a building, the other team, however empty the building may be, had a building to play in.



The NHL can't get a decent TV contract because even hardcore NHL fans in traditional cities hardly watch any team but their own on TV. It's a very provincial fan base. If it's not O6 or Philly, then it doesn't exist. Pittsburgh and Washington are lucky they have Crosby and Ovechkin, because otherwise they're an afterthought at best. The only reason Vancouver matters as much as they do today is because they happen to have a particular roster that's very disagreeable. Once that goes away, they're a 10:30pm team again, which just doesn't cut it.

The Toronto's and Montreal's(and others) of the world happily took the expansion money, and then proceeded to push off all the new southern teams into their own little group, so that the only time they would have to think about them is if they happen to get an undeserved(because they play in a poor division with no history. Wow, what a terrible idea) higher seed in the playoffs.

The problems of the NHL predate Bettman by decades. The real problem was the first expansion. Other than Philly, not one of the 23 other teams that have come along since 1967 is in any way a long term success story. So have a 7 team league, and call it a day.
This is just not true at all. Toronto moved before Columbus joined the league. The plan to move Toronto was before they ever decided Columbus was joining the NHL.

And if you knew your history, you'd know Toronto was screwed over by the NHl by joining the West to begin with.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 07:51 PM
  #111
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
The NHL is the only league on earth that is run by it's poorest members.

It is a big reason why it will never surpass leagues that understand all markets are not created equal.
This is true and I find it odd. The poor teams have so much power.

RogerRoeper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 08:30 PM
  #112
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
The league realigned in 98 knowing Columbus was going to have a team, and that they were going to be in the central division in order to give Detroit at least some small amount of relief with another 7pm road game now and then.

Toronto had to move, because #1 they're Toronto, they're further east than Detroit, and the league hasn't wanted to have 1 Canadian or American team in a division for 30 years. They were forced to do it when the Rockies moved to NJ, but they eventually moved Winnipeg back to the Norris/Central.

I'm just saying that between Toronto and Columbus, one of those franchises could be successful with pretty much any alignment, and one needs a little help.
Prior to the start of the 1998-1999 season the only realignment in the Central Division was the following teams. Toronto moving to the Eastern Conference and Northeast Divison, along with Dallas and Phoenix moving to the Pacific Division. So that made room for Nashville to join the Central Division in their 1st year. Like I said before and what RogerRoeper confirmed the addition of Columbus to the Central Division had no impact on the Maple Leafs going to the Northeast Division since that was decided before the Blue Jackets came into the NHL.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 05:26 PM
  #113
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
If they suddenly cut the salary cap to $60 million the big markets certainly will be. Consider that at the moment their are 16 teams over the $60M mark, with the Rangers being just beneath it for 17. The average cap salary in the league right now is also just a shade over $60M.

There's around $75M in payroll that the top half of the league will have to cut to get back down to the cap, and I doubt the bottom half of the league are really looking to add much in salary. Which means for the top half of the league they're likely going to have to simply buy out or cut free a number of veterans who will probably head to the KHL, and replace them with prospects and farm hands.

So yeah I can't see why the league would want to do this...
plus alot of those teams have either significant rfa's to resign or to replace top end players.......in reality there will be only a handful of teams (maybe 4 )able to take on salary and still field a full roster

I agree it doesnt make much sense from athe leagues view

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 06:08 PM
  #114
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Pittsburgh and Detroit look pretty smart now. Detroit only because they didn't get their UFAs but now have a ton of cap space, and Pittsburgh when they didn't get Parise and dumped cap space.

I don't really blame Minny for those deals (I believe they were the only team who could make a business case to sign those deals - the other teams could afford them, or didn't care), but can't believe some of the signings Calgary did.
Detroit will be at the cap without those FA signings. They will just be horrible. The cap has torn them down to bare bones. They lost Lidstrom to retirement and will not be able to spend what they paid him last year. They really have no way to get good again without tanking completely. They might compete in a cap league but they aren't talented beyond the top line.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:02 PM
  #115
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Why? They make more money with a cap on spending and writing revenue sharing cheques than they do if they could spend freely.
Because they agreed to make their teams equal to the worst teams in the league. For Detroit's owner that is bad. He spent a ton of his own money and around 10 years to build his product to the quality that he achieved only to have it torn apart by the cap. As a result the decline of local interest is obvious. He might make more money but he can no longer achieve greatness like he did before. In the new NHL you basically have to tank for several years in order to draft a couple of years worth of success like Pittsburgh, Chicago, and soon Edmonton. Sustained excellence is dead.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:09 PM
  #116
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Haha, I don't get how people can miss this point. Spend 60 million to field a competitive hockey team and rake in the profits hand over fist or compete with other big markets for free agents with massive contracts and spending. These guys are business men interested in making money first and foremost and this system allows them to kill it while only having to spend a capped amount of money on players.
Some owners like to win. Illitch has turned his attention to the Tigers where he can have an influence on outcome. They are pushing to win a World Series and he will likely accomplish the feat just like when he made the commitment to win the Stanley Cup. Now he has very little influence on whether the Wings win the Cup or not.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:34 PM
  #117
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
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.
So it is better because a crappy owner who doesn't have the commitment to winning can still win?

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:41 PM
  #118
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
If they were businessmen, who were interested -- first and foremost -- in making money, why in the hell did they buy into the NHL?

What part of the last 15 years in history convinced them the NHL was a good avenue for making "year-to-year" profits?

So why did they buy in?
Pride? Ego? Long-term money? Critical peace of the business empire?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:56 PM
  #119
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
So it is better because a crappy owner who doesn't have the commitment to winning can still win?
Haha, you are still looking to argue the cap no cap thing huh? While I am not the biggest Jacobs fan and would agree that his self imposed spending cap during the 80's and 90's lead to a lot of frustrating times for Bruins fans I think it would be unfair to call him a bad owner. He is a smart owner and he runs a good business and sometimes the smart business decisions are not always the best hockey decisions. Jacobs wanted a cap and he got it and since then he has spent right to it.

The Bruins have proved that under a cap with good scouting, player development, and management you can build a championship team. Under the new system Jacobs is committed to running a good business and Neely/Chiarelli are committed to running a good hockey team. The owner owns and the hockey personal runs the team; exactly how it should be.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:57 PM
  #120
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
If they were businessmen, who were interested -- first and foremost -- in making money, why in the hell did they buy into the NHL?

What part of the last 15 years in history convinced them the NHL was a good avenue for making "year-to-year" profits?

So why did they buy in?
Pride? Ego? Long-term money? Critical peace of the business empire?
For them playing with a sports franchise is like the average fan playing Madden on their Xbox. The franchises are toys.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:59 PM
  #121
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
For them playing with a sports franchise is like the average fan playing Madden on their Xbox. The franchises are toys.
Haha, just like that.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:06 PM
  #122
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Schminksbro,

I am trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that your anti-cap agenda isn't just about the Wings and your belief that more money equals championship hockey and "greatness" but you are making it very hard my friend.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:18 PM
  #123
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Haha, you are still looking to argue the cap no cap thing huh? While I am not the biggest Jacobs fan and would agree that his self imposed spending cap during the 80's and 90's lead to a lot of frustrating times for Bruins fans I think it would be unfair to call him a bad owner. He is a smart owner and he runs a good business and sometimes the smart business decisions are not always the best hockey decisions. Jacobs wanted a cap and he got it and since then he has spent right to it.

The Bruins have proved that under a cap with good scouting, player development, and management you can build a championship team. Under the new system Jacobs is committed to running a good business and Neely/Chiarelli are committed to running a good hockey team. The owner owns and the hockey personal runs the team; exactly how it should be.
The topic of the thread is how the new CBA will affect big market teams.
What you fail to acknowledge is that the Bruins won the Cup playing against inferior teams. The Wings have been the model franchise of the league for years. They drafted well and supplemented with free agents usually aging veterans. They managed well before the cap and had success because they had an owner willing to invest in his product which became wildly popular. Now? Just another mediocre franchise playing against other mediocre franchises in a giant crap shoot.
It is also worth noting that Detroit isn't a big market. The city has a population of less than a million. The team was successful because the owner was committed to winning and he did so. The last lockout did enormous damage to the local enthusiasm in spite of the Wings winning the Cup in 2008. This time around they won't have any bullets in their gun. No free agent splash. No run for the Cup. The team will only get worse as a direct result of the new CBA. They will be crippled and likely will never recover from the damage on or off the ice.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:35 PM
  #124
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Schminksbro,

I am trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that your anti-cap agenda isn't just about the Wings and your belief that more money equals championship hockey and "greatness" but you are making it very hard my friend.
The Rangers outspent the Wings annually during the pre-cap days. The Wings won and NYR didn't. In Detroit we have a great owner who gave away cars in order to get butts in seats. It isn't like he just bought a franchise in HockeyTown and had instant success. He created a plan and built the most successful franchise in sports. He created HockeyTown. He did this without a salary cap in a city that has taken its lumps economically. The population has plummeted and still the Wings were successful. Then came a division with Nashville and Columbus, the lockouts, rule changes and then came the cap. There goes the Redwings. Now the league is locked out again and the damage will be even deeper. The teams that the cap was supposed to save are still wallowing in apathetic markets. All I see is a reduction in the quality of the product that I used to buy without any of the promised benefits.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:36 PM
  #125
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
The topic of the thread is how the new CBA will affect big market teams.
What you fail to acknowledge is that the Bruins won the Cup playing against inferior teams. The Wings have been the model franchise of the league for years. They drafted well and supplemented with free agents usually aging veterans. They managed well before the cap and had success because they had an owner willing to invest in his product which became wildly popular. Now? Just another mediocre franchise playing against other mediocre franchises in a giant crap shoot.
It is also worth noting that Detroit isn't a big market. The city has a population of less than a million. The team was successful because the owner was committed to winning and he did so. The last lockout did enormous damage to the local enthusiasm in spite of the Wings winning the Cup in 2008. This time around they won't have any bullets in their gun. No free agent splash. No run for the Cup. The team will only get worse as a direct result of the new CBA. They will be crippled and likely will never recover from the damage on or off the ice.
If the Wings are so good at drafting players and developing those players (which I agree that they are) why can't they be the best of what you would call the "mediocre teams"?

If you want to blame the Wings issues on the cap then so be it. I personally think age has been the franchises biggest issue since the lockout but that's just my opinion. My suggestion to you is to stop living in the past, put your late 90's Red Wings highlight film in storage and start embracing the new NHL. And remember nothing lasts forever. I have seen some dominating runs in professional sports in my life time, from the Celtics of the mid 80's to the current version of the Patriots and the one constant is they always end one way or another.


Last edited by du5566*: 01-03-2013 at 10:50 PM.
du5566* 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 02:08 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.