The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
PKP offer for Coyotes may be 230 million (mod: to QC w/relo $$)
Thats not a solution.
The ideal situation is to have no one on welfare, not have a better welfare system. It is not a ridiculous concept to have 30 healthy franchises, though some teams may need to be put in a better environment. I really don't think I can name 32 truly viable, self-suffient markets.
Over the last 5 or so years I've seen enough articles and analysis on the NHL and team profits. Supposed profits anyway.
My conclusion is that the league should have stayed at 28 teams.
Not that Minnesota shouldn't have gotten a franchise again, but it should have been done through relocation. Hell when Edmonton was in trouble I don't find it awkward to have had them move to Minnesota, certainly not as drastic as Quebec going to Denver.
Nashville was my biggest concern from the start. At the time I did not understand why they got a team when they did. Although the Canadian economy was struggling it didn't make sense to keep putting expansion teams in the U.S. instead of waiting for the Canadian economy to come back, and most people knew it would.
It's certainly great Nashville has worked but they weren't the only question mark.
Short of pointing fingers I think the NHL should have stayed at 28 teams with right now, teams in Quebec City, Hamilton, Winnipeg and maybe Portland/Seattle or Las Vegas.
In Nashville's case actually, they got a team just a year after the the city got an NFL franchise.
I would sure love to know the situation between the NFL and NHL in 1997.
I also question the move to Columbus at around the same time as well.
Because expanding to places like Hamilton and Quebec would tap big expansion fees, and provide two more lucrative markets that would likely contribute to revenue sharing, thus helping out the poorer teams.
...but WHY keep the underacheivers at all, when you can just move them to said lucrative markets? To me, that's a very short term heavy point of view. Sure, you'll tap those markets and use that money for balance...what happens when the expansion fee money is gone, wasted to keep underachievers afloat? You have the underachievers eating away at the profits of the successful markets, once again. It makes no sense to keep the markets that have never turned a profit. A monkey can sell 18,000 playoff tickets. But you need to have a fanbase that's stable enough to have respectable attendance in the thin years as well. PHX still seems to be giving away playoff tickets. They won one of the most competitve divisions in the league. It's pathetic, really. They've had the noose on for years now. Moving to Glendale seems to be the move that kicked the stool out from under their feet.
Over the last 5 or so years I've seen enough articles and analysis on the NHL and team profits. Supposed profits anyway.
My conclusion is that the league should have stayed at 28 teams.
Not that Minnesota shouldn't have gotten a franchise again, but it should have been done through relocation. Hell when Edmonton was in trouble I don't find it awkward to have had them move to Minnesota, certainly not as drastic as Quebec going to Denver.
Nashville was my biggest concern from the start. At the time I did not understand why they got a team when they did. Although the Canadian economy was struggling it didn't make sense to keep putting expansion teams in the U.S. instead of waiting for the Canadian economy to come back, and most people knew it would.
It's certainly great Nashville has worked but they weren't the only question mark.
Short of pointing fingers I think the NHL should have stayed at 28 teams with right now, teams in Quebec City, Hamilton, Winnipeg and maybe Portland/Seattle or Las Vegas.
In Nashville's case actually, they got a team just a year after the the city got an NFL franchise.
I would sure love to know the situation between the NFL and NHL in 1997.
I also question the move to Columbus at around the same time as well.
Going south has been an unreal almost fantasy-based savage expansion. Like a dream from a mad man. I would say the ideal for the NHL should be 25 teams.
The NHL would be foolish to expand. The product gets worse with added teams. We don't have 30 healthy teams, why expand? It would be shortsighted and come back to bite the league in the butt. The league would expand. Then the league 10 years later would contract.
The expansion period would be great for the owners, the contraction period that would follow would be a disaster for the owners. The CBA negotiations following the contraction (that would HAVE to occur) would involve the players getting anything they wanted in return for the loss of jobs that would result.
Complete franchise health is not now nor has it ever been a deterrent to expansion. Every single round of expansion has happened in the midst of at least one franchise in trouble. What helps those franchises? The split on the expansion fees help a bit.
There is nothing about an expansion to 32 that guarantees contraction at a later time. That is just your guess. There were a lot of people that thought like you in the early 90's and late 90's too. Here we are 12 years since the last expansion and there is nobody even remotely close to folding. The Phoenix situation was an owner quitting and forcing the NHL's hand which will end up in relocation at worst...not contraction. Nobody else is really close to relocation.
Over the last 5 or so years I've seen enough articles and analysis on the NHL and team profits. Supposed profits anyway.
My conclusion is that the league should have stayed at 28 teams.
Not that Minnesota shouldn't have gotten a franchise again, but it should have been done through relocation. Hell when Edmonton was in trouble I don't find it awkward to have had them move to Minnesota, certainly not as drastic as Quebec going to Denver.
Nashville was my biggest concern from the start. At the time I did not understand why they got a team when they did. Although the Canadian economy was struggling it didn't make sense to keep putting expansion teams in the U.S. instead of waiting for the Canadian economy to come back, and most people knew it would.
It's certainly great Nashville has worked but they weren't the only question mark.
Short of pointing fingers I think the NHL should have stayed at 28 teams with right now, teams in Quebec City, Hamilton, Winnipeg and maybe Portland/Seattle or Las Vegas.
In Nashville's case actually, they got a team just a year after the the city got an NFL franchise.
I would sure love to know the situation between the NFL and NHL in 1997.
I also question the move to Columbus at around the same time as well.
The league wanted 30 teams at the time and probably all of those Canadian teams were pushing for it to get some free money out of it. Columbus was one of the places that had everything close enough in line to make it happen. Same with Nashville.
Complete franchise health is not now nor has it ever been a deterrent to expansion. Every single round of expansion has happened in the midst of at least one franchise in trouble. What helps those franchises? The split on the expansion fees help a bit.
There is nothing about an expansion to 32 that guarantees contraction at a later time. That is just your guess. There were a lot of people that thought like you in the early 90's and late 90's too. Here we are 12 years since the last expansion and there is nobody even remotely close to folding. The Phoenix situation was an owner quitting and forcing the NHL's hand which will end up in relocation at worst...not contraction. Nobody else is really close to relocation.
Isn't that just mortgaging the future in an incredibly reckless way?
There's no real reason behind such an assumption. The league would be foolish if they haven't actually had some preliminary discussion about it. It's free money if the markets are ready for it and two happen to be coming around to it. They're asked about it a decent amount. Now, that's not saying it's a constant topic of discussion but Bettman and company definitely have to have thought about it as an option in the near future.
It's not free money at all. All expansion does is guarantee that clubs like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, NYR, Philly, and Chicago will continue to send money to prop up the likes of Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, Anaheim, etc.
Why would any owner of the richer 10-15 clubs in the league be at all interested in expansion if the sad sacks aren't addressed? Look at it this way.
1. Phoenix moves to Quebec. No expansion fees, but the richer clubs now know they've got one fewer welfare case to shore up with millions per season. So they save cash there.
2. Phoenix stays, but Quebec gets an expansion team. Every owner gets an instant $5-10 million or whatever, but the top clubs don't benefit at when it comes to sending cash south. So Toronto, etc. still wind up sending millions every year to Phoenix and the other money-losers.
So, really think you'd see Toronto, NYR, Philly, etc. be all that eager for expansion before moving the many money-losing teams that they are currently supporting? If so, I'd really like to know why you would think this way. The instant cash from expansion is meaningless to the top clubs with 6-12 NHL bottom-feeders continuing to leech off them.
At the very least, the notion of NHL expansion in the current climate would touch off a civil war at the Board of Governors.
It's not free money at all. All expansion does is guarantee that clubs like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, NYR, Philly, and Chicago will continue to send money to prop up the likes of Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, Anaheim, etc.
Why would any owner of the richer 10-15 clubs in the league be at all interested in expansion if the sad sacks aren't addressed? Look at it this way.
1. Phoenix moves to Quebec. No expansion fees, but the richer clubs now know they've got one fewer welfare case to shore up with millions per season. So they save cash there.
2. Phoenix stays, but Quebec gets an expansion team. Every owner gets an instant $5-10 million or whatever, but the top clubs don't benefit at when it comes to sending cash south. So Toronto, etc. still wind up sending millions every year to Phoenix and the other money-losers.
So, really think you'd see Toronto, NYR, Philly, etc. be all that eager for expansion before moving the many money-losing teams that they are currently supporting? If so, I'd really like to know why you would think this way. The instant cash from expansion is meaningless to the top clubs with 6-12 NHL bottom-feeders continuing to leech off them.
At the very least, the notion of NHL expansion in the current climate would touch off a civil war at the Board of Governors.
The other key problem with expansion is that the 30 existing teams have to share the tv and merchandizing money with another partners. So there's less money for the big markets there too.
Isn't that just mortgaging the future in an incredibly reckless way?
I don't think so and I don't see an argument for that position honestly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddGillForever
It's not free money at all. All expansion does is guarantee that clubs like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, NYR, Philly, and Chicago will continue to send money to prop up the likes of Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, Anaheim, etc.
Why would any owner of the richer 10-15 clubs in the league be at all interested in expansion if the sad sacks aren't addressed? Look at it this way.
1. Phoenix moves to Quebec. No expansion fees, but the richer clubs now know they've got one fewer welfare case to shore up with millions per season. So they save cash there.
2. Phoenix stays, but Quebec gets an expansion team. Every owner gets an instant $5-10 million or whatever, but the top clubs don't benefit at when it comes to sending cash south. So Toronto, etc. still wind up sending millions every year to Phoenix and the other money-losers.
So, really think you'd see Toronto, NYR, Philly, etc. be all that eager for expansion before moving the many money-losing teams that they are currently supporting? If so, I'd really like to know why you would think this way. The instant cash from expansion is meaningless to the top clubs with 6-12 NHL bottom-feeders continuing to leech off them.
At the very least, the notion of NHL expansion in the current climate would touch off a civil war at the Board of Governors.
It actually is free money because the 30 teams there split the expansion fees. In this day and age, regardless of how many teams, there will be 'sad sacks' that have to be given money by the rich teams. The reality is that teams that do poorly will lose money until they turn it around but when they do, it will be someone replacing them in that 'sad sack' state. That's simply how it is and it can be cyclical.
Whether Quebec City got a relocation of the Coyotes or an expansion, that's more of a revenue stream regardless. After that, you still have an option of expansion anyway.
Considering just how much money is being made by the big market teams due to the cap that was created to help the smaller markets compete, I think they can take the hit. And complaining about it is just being spoiled over it. Without the cap and the other teams, they don't make anywhere near the amount of money they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinM
The other key problem with expansion is that the 30 existing teams have to share the tv and merchandizing money with another partners. So there's less money for the big markets there too.
The other key addition with expansion is that you expand your audience for both TV and merchandising sales.
