HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Do we really WANT all the current NHL franchises to stay?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-15-2004, 11:11 PM
  #26
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
How about we contract the Rangers? According to Larry Brooks, the team that lost the most money on the UROs was the Rangers. They were the team that lost $41 million. They are also the team that has been either number one or number two in payroll every year for the past seven years.

Oh, and after Calgary makes the playoffs this season they'll have been the worst team in the league over that period. The Rangers will be the only team in the whole NHL to miss the playoffs for seven straight years. A hopeless franchise.

Let's contract the six biggest money losers. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts Chicago is in that group, too. Hockey doesn't draw flies in Chicago and the games aren't even on TV! What kind of a hockey market is that? Dump it.

Dump the six biggest money losers and the NHL is only losing $75 million. Accept the offer the players put on the table last October and shazzam. The league is in the black. It will be too bad to see the Rangers go, but the league is doomed if a weak sister sustains losses like that.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
02-16-2004, 11:30 AM
  #27
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How about we contract the Rangers? According to Larry Brooks, the team that lost the most money on the UROs was the Rangers. They were the team that lost $41 million. They are also the team that has been either number one or number two in payroll every year for the past seven years.

Oh, and after Calgary makes the playoffs this season they'll have been the worst team in the league over that period. The Rangers will be the only team in the whole NHL to miss the playoffs for seven straight years. A hopeless franchise.

Let's contract the six biggest money losers. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts Chicago is in that group, too. Hockey doesn't draw flies in Chicago and the games aren't even on TV! What kind of a hockey market is that? Dump it.

Dump the six biggest money losers and the NHL is only losing $75 million. Accept the offer the players put on the table last October and shazzam. The league is in the black. It will be too bad to see the Rangers go, but the league is doomed if a weak sister sustains losses like that.

Tom

The Rage is offline  
Old
02-16-2004, 12:54 PM
  #28
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
If a franchise is struggling financially, it simply proves that a hockey team can't survive in that area....especially for franchises like Carolina and others in the area, when everyone knows there will never be a stable fanbase there.
The only thing this proves is that you'll never be in on a decision involving NHL finances and territorial expansion. The NHL knows that to be anything other than a niche sport (think curling/lacrosse with more popularity) in America (where the money is) is to get a hold of the southern market. Southern markets fail in large part for the same reasons that northern markets fail. Poor performances on the ice leads to bad attendance. When the novelty wears off in Southern markets and the on-ice product is bad, they have nothing to fall back on. Northern teams have 20-30-80 years of history and faithful fans who remember the good times and show up in hopes they'll return. When the on-ice product is bad and the novelty is gone, there is nothing to bring these fans back.

But, if you give a team like Florida/Nashville/Tampa Bay a chance to turn the corner on the ice, they will build a fanbase slowly and surely. This new CBA is hoping to accelarate this process. If Nashville makes the playoffs this year and then becomes a staple (ala St. Louis) in the playoffs for the next decade or two (with a few Stanley runs [successful or not] interspersed in there), they'll have a solid fanbase with which to draw when the lean times hit.

This Southern expansion takes time. It's not an overnight process which is why so many simple minded people have given up already. Maybe they aren't simple minded, but for the most part, they don't care too much about hockey as a sport (they just care about hockey as it relates to their team). Southern expansion is the future of hockey. If they can become a staple in the community (Nashville's HS hockey teams have increased from 0 to around 20 or so in 5 years), they can create a bigger pool of hockey players with which to draw from.

What if football players like Jeremy Shockey and basketball players like Charles Barkely start turning to hockey at a young age? There are tens of millions of potential hockey players out there in the south. It would great things for the sport of hockey. Hockey has expanded to include Europeans. Imagine what lies in store 20 years from now if Southerners are involved.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
02-16-2004, 01:10 PM
  #29
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve

It looks to me that the big NHL franchises are going to be extremely hurt by almost any new CBA proposal, simply because a few of the weak franchises need whatever it takes to keep them alive.

(I wasn't sure if this should simply be in the NHL Talk forum or Business of Hockey, so if a mod thinks that this should be in BoH, just move it for me. Thanks.)
a few weak franchises?? you have YOUR "big NHL franchises" outspending the bottom 15 teams by $2 to $1 in payroll ratio. Thats not a few weak franchises.

maybe it would be best if the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Wings, Avalanche, and Stars formed their own league. Then the teams with payrolls between $30m and $45m can compete with the rest of the league.

I understand that you as, apparantly, a Flyer fan realize that there is no way that anymore than 7 or 8 teams can spend enough money to complete with the Flyers and I don't blame you for wanting to keep that advantage. But, where you miss the point is that its not Carolina and Florida that are dragging down the Flyers and the Wings. Its the Bruins, Islanders, Devils, Capitals, Canadians, Blackhawks, Blues, Oilers, Senators, Sharks, Kings, Canucks and others that dont want any team in the league spending $45 to $75m anymore. Yes, some of those teams spend between $40m and $50m to compete, but lose money. Others of them won't spend the money and realize that they can not realistically compete.

I think the stanley cups over the last 10 years make the best point. Wings, Avalanche, Stars, Devils, Rangers...thats it. Noone below the top 7 or 8 payrolls have won a cup in more than 10 years.

how many teams do you want to dump?

txpd is offline  
Old
02-16-2004, 02:15 PM
  #30
ObeySteve
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Delaware County, PA
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ObeySteve
Quote:
I think the stanley cups over the last 10 years make the best point. Wings, Avalanche, Stars, Devils, Rangers...thats it. Noone below the top 7 or 8 payrolls have won a cup in more than 10 years.
Yeah, 5 teams in 10 years.....thats about more teams in one decade than any other decade in NHL history.

I'm simply sick of people crying equality when it looks like absolutely nothing is going to save a few of the lowest franchises in the long run.

Like I said, my proposal was to contract somewhere around 5 teams.

ObeySteve is offline  
Old
02-16-2004, 02:39 PM
  #31
craig1
Registered User
 
craig1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
I think the stanley cups over the last 10 years make the best point. Wings, Avalanche, Stars, Devils, Rangers...thats it. Noone below the top 7 or 8 payrolls have won a cup in more than 10 years.

Actaully, if you go back a little further, the Pens had some of the highest payroll in the league in their second cup year 91-92, and their Presidents Trophy year 92-93.

craig1 is offline  
Old
02-16-2004, 04:08 PM
  #32
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 11,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
Yeah, 5 teams in 10 years.....thats about more teams in one decade than any other decade in NHL history.

I'm simply sick of people crying equality when it looks like absolutely nothing is going to save a few of the lowest franchises in the long run.

Like I said, my proposal was to contract somewhere around 5 teams.
my problem with the contraction talk is this: is there ever going to be contraction in the gary bettman era? isnt it silly to talk of contraction during a regime that committed itself to global domination? regardless of how much they have failed-bettman would resign before contraction (not that i would mind). any of these teams that are "in trouble" are significantly more likely to be moved to other cities instead of being dissolved. in the end, some franchises will move regardless of the cba - someone mentioned darwinism... i agree. the system needs to be set to what is fair, and the rest will sort itself out. teams will move no matter what happens, the owners of some franchises will just find a better deal somewhere else. picking cities we "think" dont deserve teams is arrogant and ignorant....we may be surprised in the end about who makes it and who doesnt.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
02-16-2004, 05:02 PM
  #33
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
Yeah, 5 teams in 10 years.....thats about more teams in one decade than any other decade in NHL history.

I'm simply sick of people crying equality when it looks like absolutely nothing is going to save a few of the lowest franchises in the long run.

Like I said, my proposal was to contract somewhere around 5 teams.

sure...you might notice that the lowest franchises are all losing teams. teams that cant afford to compete and while its true that 5 teams in 10 years is about average you missed the point. those 5 teams are 4 of the top 5 payrolls and the 5th is a 7th payroll.

txpd is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 01:45 AM
  #34
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
The only thing this proves is that you'll never be in on a decision involving NHL finances and territorial expansion. The NHL knows that to be anything other than a niche sport (think curling/lacrosse with more popularity) in America (where the money is) is to get a hold of the southern market. Southern markets fail in large part for the same reasons that northern markets fail. Poor performances on the ice leads to bad attendance. When the novelty wears off in Southern markets and the on-ice product is bad, they have nothing to fall back on. Northern teams have 20-30-80 years of history and faithful fans who remember the good times and show up in hopes they'll return. When the on-ice product is bad and the novelty is gone, there is nothing to bring these fans back.

But, if you give a team like Florida/Nashville/Tampa Bay a chance to turn the corner on the ice, they will build a fanbase slowly and surely. This new CBA is hoping to accelarate this process. If Nashville makes the playoffs this year and then becomes a staple (ala St. Louis) in the playoffs for the next decade or two (with a few Stanley runs [successful or not] interspersed in there), they'll have a solid fanbase with which to draw when the lean times hit.

This Southern expansion takes time. It's not an overnight process which is why so many simple minded people have given up already. Maybe they aren't simple minded, but for the most part, they don't care too much about hockey as a sport (they just care about hockey as it relates to their team). Southern expansion is the future of hockey. If they can become a staple in the community (Nashville's HS hockey teams have increased from 0 to around 20 or so in 5 years), they can create a bigger pool of hockey players with which to draw from.

What if football players like Jeremy Shockey and basketball players like Charles Barkely start turning to hockey at a young age? There are tens of millions of potential hockey players out there in the south. It would great things for the sport of hockey. Hockey has expanded to include Europeans. Imagine what lies in store 20 years from now if Southerners are involved.
I've tried many times to illustrate (here and in other places) that hockey in this region of the country will take more than a few years to take hold. Normally I emphasized the millions of potential new fans and whatnot, but your take is much more encompassing and much better than mine has been. I very much agree with it.

cws is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 06:45 AM
  #35
iagreewithidiots
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
Yeah, 5 teams in 10 years.....thats about more teams in one decade than any other decade in NHL history.

I'm simply sick of people crying equality when it looks like absolutely nothing is going to save a few of the lowest franchises in the long run.

Like I said, my proposal was to contract somewhere around 5 teams.
What are the lowest franchises?

You might be surprised, if you did a little research, to find that some of the better teams are the teams losing the most money.

Why are you sick of people crying equality? The NHL is a business. They need to make money. Making all teams competitive would make them more money.

When would you stop contracting? There are always going to be high payroll and low payroll teams. What happens after you contract five teams. When a high payroll team decides they can spend more and more millions and now there are five more teams that cant keep up. Should we contract five more teams?

There is no need for contraction. Just start cheering for the NHL to keep its current CBA and youll have a few teams that will fold on their own. Just be ready to bet some of those teams will be ones you never expected.

iagreewithidiots is offline  
Old
02-17-2004, 09:45 AM
  #36
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen
picking cities we "think" dont deserve teams is arrogant and ignorant


As was said already, the "big boys" had no problem taking the expansion money when it was offered, an issue which fans of those teams seem to want to ignore or gloss over. They voted new teams in, yet NOW their fans want contraction of these new teams? The owners knew what they were getting into, but even if they didn't all that expansion money certainly helped line their pockets for a few years.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
02-18-2004, 02:22 PM
  #37
KM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersRule
FLA is one of the teams that has the least losses and are gathering higher attendance and TV ratings lately.


they lost $17.5 million last year according to TSN.

KM is offline  
Old
02-19-2004, 10:30 AM
  #38
NJD Jester
Registered User
 
NJD Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 960
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to NJD Jester
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
What if football players like Jeremy Shockey and basketball players like Charles Barkely start turning to hockey at a young age? There are tens of millions of potential hockey players out there in the south. It would great things for the sport of hockey. Hockey has expanded to include Europeans. Imagine what lies in store 20 years from now if Southerners are involved.
You are talking about a MAJOR shift in social, economic and cultural norms that a league with very few minority or southern georgraphic role models will need to initiate. Great in theory, but really, really unlikely.

NJD Jester is offline  
Old
02-20-2004, 11:43 PM
  #39
DaMick
at least we got D
 
DaMick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Purgatory
Country: United States
Posts: 8,433
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to DaMick
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwthrash
I've tried many times to illustrate (here and in other places) that hockey in this region of the country will take more than a few years to take hold. Normally I emphasized the millions of potential new fans and whatnot, but your take is much more encompassing and much better than mine has been. I very much agree with it.
Always good to see ya post CW...

DaMick is offline  
Old
02-21-2004, 12:32 AM
  #40
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD Jester
You are talking about a MAJOR shift in social, economic and cultural norms that a league with very few minority or southern georgraphic role models will need to initiate. Great in theory, but really, really unlikely.
It does require a shift. However, that shift is already occuring. More and more kids are flocking to hockey in Nashville (and other southern cities). HS hockey has grown by leaps and bounds. And the team doesn't need southern geographical role models (atleast not in your sense). That's what Kovalchuk, Walker, Timonen, Loungo, St. Louis and Co. are for. These players are the idols for the young southern hockey players. There are some things that must be overcome (lack of training facilities, proper coaching, and willing participants), but each has been drasticly improved since hockey has been introduced to the South. One can only assume they will keep improving and it could have a snowball effect. Hockey's not trying to outstrip football, baseball, and basketball. All it needs to do is steal a few people here and there and it will add up. It's not far fetched or unlikely. Why? Because it's already happening.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
02-21-2004, 07:34 AM
  #41
Horton16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM


they lost $17.5 million last year according to TSN.

17.5 is less than the average loss of the 19 teams that lost.

Horton16 is offline  
Old
02-21-2004, 10:08 AM
  #42
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
According to Levitt's report, 18 teams lost 5 million or more last year. I'm not sure I'd call that huge financial threat, but if nothing about the system changes, I 'd say it probably is. Things are not going to get better for ownership. 12 teams lost 10 million or more. I think that's closer to the number you'd probably lose.
except that some of those teams that lost $10m or more are some of the larger revenue teams in the NHL. Dallas, St. Louis and Washington were 3 of those teams and all three are in the top half of the league in gross revenue. In all three cases the owners of those teams overspent their revenue in an attempt to win. Dallas and Washington are examples of teams that would have Florida/Carolina attendance problems if they had losing teams like the Panthers and the Canes.
Dallas overspent and won a cup and contended for several years in a row and have built a strong franchise that would be highly profitable with a salary cap. The Capitals were a breakeven to profitable team that overspent in an attempt go from regular playoff participant to regular contender and take the franchise to the next level. Where it worked for Dallas it failed in Washington. St Louis continues to overspend because they need to win as being in the playoffs is losing its value because they are in every year and lose every year.

a salary cap puts all of those teams back into the black.

in most cases it comes down to a winning product sells tickets. winning teams in pittsburgh attract good attendance. on the other hand if you gave the detroit redwings the last ten years of the florida panthers you might well have the chicago blackhawks and an empty arena every night.

Edmonton sells out every hockey game, but can't make enough money to compete for hockey players.

txpd is offline  
Old
02-21-2004, 10:12 AM
  #43
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD Jester
You are talking about a MAJOR shift in social, economic and cultural norms that a league with very few minority or southern georgraphic role models will need to initiate. Great in theory, but really, really unlikely.
it can happen, but it will take a lot of time. the capitals have been in washington for 30 years and have a program of youth hockey developement. 30 years after starting there is one washington area native in the NHL, Jeff Halpern, and one Washington area native that has been taken in the NHL entry draft, Stephen Werner, 3rd round by the Capitals.

i will be 20 years until there is a atlanta native in the NHL.

txpd is offline  
Old
02-21-2004, 11:55 AM
  #44
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd
it can happen, but it will take a lot of time. the capitals have been in washington for 30 years and have a program of youth hockey developement. 30 years after starting there is one washington area native in the NHL, Jeff Halpern, and one Washington area native that has been taken in the NHL entry draft, Stephen Werner, 3rd round by the Capitals.

i will be 20 years until there is a atlanta native in the NHL.
Actually, an Atlanta native got the win last night in Phoenix.

But your point is taken (Pelletier wasn't a product of any program in Atlanta, he just happened to be born there). It will take quite a bit of time in places like Atlanta, just as it did is so many other cities. Many fans today, for whatever reason, don't want to give cities like this a chance. The "what have you done for me lately" generation doesn't seem to have the patience to let this play through to the end.

Bettman is an idiot for quite a few reasons, bringing hockey to the south isn't one of them. Maybe there is one too many teams in the south, but that's a debate for another time. Every potential "new" fan isn't gonna come streaming in overnight, but they will come if given the time. And how the league will love all that extra cash when it happens.

cws is offline  
Old
02-28-2004, 11:45 AM
  #45
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Two questions:

Is anyone here talking about contracting their favorite team?

Cana salary cap work in a league that has garunteed contracts?

-HckyFght!

HckyFght* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.