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.

My thoughts on the NHL's situation

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-04-2004, 11:34 PM
  #51
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
The NHL has reached it's max in Canada. The NHL is just begining to grow in the United States. The United States is infinitely larger and richer than Canada. US teams can pump more money into the NHL than Canada can. The NHL has made a smart long term business decision and is putting hockey in places it traditionally never was. By doing this, they are expanding their market from the ground up. Currently the NHL cannot make much money off TV contracts because it cannot keep up with Baseball, Football, and Basketball. That is changing and will continue to change as the grass roots effort continues. In addition, hockey will continue to develope in non-traditional markets, and the number of fans in the United States will continue to rise every year.
I don't think you will ever get it either. Why on earth do you care about any of this crap if you are a hockey fan?

If any of that happens - Hah! As if. - it means higher franchise values, higher ticket prices, higher salaries for the players, and even more commercials interrupting the game. Why do you want any of that?

Give me one good reason why any of us should care.

Who cares whether hockey keeps up with baseball, basketball or football? Who cares whether hockey goes to non-traditional areas? Americans like the NFL and Survivor and Republicans all of which to me are incredibly stupid things to like, but hey, different strokes, right? Canadians like the NHL, and most Americans don't. Americans like the NFL among other things I think are silly. Fine by me.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 12:06 AM
  #52
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
So why does Team A have a $30 million budget and Team B have a $50 million budget? If the teams are both good, both will have good revenues and both will have a $50 million budget. If they both suck, they will both have a $30 million budget.
:lol lol :lol Because one team represents Edmonton and the other team represents Detroit. That's why. Edmonton will NEVER NEVER EVER EVER have the revenue of Detroit. They are the $30 million budget. Detroit can throw $50 million around and think nothing of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Unless, of course, one of the teams decides they will try to buy a winner like the Rangers. If Team B is the Rangers they will spend the money and still suck. Even the hypotheticals can't show that the small markets in the NHL are disadvantaged.

Tom
:lol Why would New York have to suck? They did suck, but they didn't have to. If they'd been able to sign a player like Joe Sakic, I bet they wouldn't have sucked. Look at Toronto and Philly. They are totally throwing money around bringing in players to push them over the top. They made it to the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs and have been consistently successful for several years in the playoffs and regular season. Detroit too brings in top players for big money to keep them competitive. Don't even go to the Anaheim, Carolina, and Calgary route. Anaheim and Carolina missed the playoffs the very next season. I bet Calgary will too.

It's unbelieveable that someone can sit here and say that a team who has a $30 million dollar budget can compete on even terms with a team with a $50 million dollar budget, or if Edmonton plays as well as Detroit, that they will suddenly have an extra $20 million to play with. Give it up!! Even if New York and Edmonton drafted all their players, Edmonton wouldn't be able to keep them all while New York could.

And you are also giving one example where a team will ALWAYS suck if they buy players like New York has. Good grief !! Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.


Last edited by Licentia: 09-05-2004 at 12:12 AM.
Licentia is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 12:11 AM
  #53
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
: Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.
typically, the players that are available to be bought are on the downside of their career and their bang for buck quotient is quite low.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 12:13 AM
  #54
Licentia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
typically, the players that are available to be bought are on the downside of their career and their bang for buck quotient is quite low.

dr
But i've answered that argument as well. If both teams have drafted all their players, the small market team will not be able to keep them all, while the large market team will.

Licentia is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 12:27 AM
  #55
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
But i've answered that argument as well. If both teams have drafted all their players, the small market team will not be able to keep them all, while the large market team will.
well we disagree that its an issue. the only example i can see where a team in a small market has drafted well is OTT. they seem to have had no trouble keeping their players.

dont bring up the bankruptcy, that occured because Bryden put no money into the investment and had leveraged it all on financing and it fell apart. now that there is no huge interest to pay, the team is doing just fine.

so tell me a team that has had a collection of stars that they drafted they couldnt keep ?

PIT ? poor ownership decisions. they could have invested in a new rink, like VAN did and they didnt. now he pays the price. at one point his team was the most popular in the world with the worlds best player.

EDM ? Peter Puck pocketed every penny that team made and SOLD Wayne for 15million bucks. Why should we feel sorry that decision ?

CGY ? Gee, lets feel bad they dealt Nieuwendyk and Fleury and only have Regehr and Iginla to show for it.

so .... what small market team has drafted well and not been able to keep the team together ?

COL ? Surely, Denver isnt considered a huge market are they ? They have kept their team together.

NJD ? Surely, East Rutherford isnt a big market is it ?

So again, show me a small market that has drafted well and not been able to keep their team together.

DR

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 01:40 AM
  #56
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
:lol lol :lol Because one team represents Edmonton and the other team represents Detroit. That's why. Edmonton will NEVER NEVER EVER EVER have the revenue of Detroit. They are the $30 million budget. Detroit can throw $50 million around and think nothing of it.
Then get rid of Edmonton. If Ottawa can do it, then Edmonton and perhaps one or two other teams are not NHL markets. But I think Edmonton revenues would go way up plenty with a winner. They would sell every ticket at much higher prices. The broadcast revenues and pay per view would get higher. And of course, the 150 playoff games Detroit has enjoyed over the past decade would help the Oilers a lot too. They would have a big payroll with a winner or they are an AHL team.

The Red Wings revenue is dropping. In case you had not noticed they have not been winning a lot of playoff games lately. They are yesterday's team, going downhill fast. When they are missing the playoffs, they won't be drawing and they won't be spending big bucks.

Quote:
would New York have to suck? They did suck, but they didn't have to. If they'd been able to sign a player like Joe Sakic, I bet they wouldn't have sucked.
They tried to sign Sakic because small market Colorado wasn't supposed to be able to afford to keep all their stars. Colorado matched. Under this CBA free agents are old so they could not bid for Sakic or Iginla or Bertuzzi. The Rangers have bought or acquired the most famous,best players who were available. Every year, people figured they would make the playoffs for sure. The media applauded every signing. Every year they surprised eveyone by sucking big time. Then - and only then - did everyone decide it was because the Rangers spent stupidly.

Quote:
Toronto and Philly.
Toronto last won since 1967. Philly hasn't won since 1976. I don't think either team is going anywhere, but if one of them does win, it will be the first team to win built on free agents.

Quote:
Even if New York and Edmonton drafted all their players, Edmonton wouldn't be able to keep them all while New York could.
Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen.

Quote:
And you are also giving one example where a team will ALWAYS suck if they buy players like New York has. Good grief !! Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.
Name one that hasn't sucked. Trying to build a winning team by signing free agents is a stupid thing to do. Give a real world example.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 03:24 AM
  #57
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Then get rid of Edmonton. If Ottawa can do it, then Edmonton and perhaps one or two other teams are not NHL markets. But I think Edmonton revenues would go way up plenty with a winner. They would sell every ticket at much higher prices. The broadcast revenues and pay per view would get higher. And of course, the 150 playoff games Detroit has enjoyed over the past decade would help the Oilers a lot too. They would have a big payroll with a winner or they are an AHL team.

The Red Wings revenue is dropping. In case you had not noticed they have not been winning a lot of playoff games lately. They are yesterday's team, going downhill fast. When they are missing the playoffs, they won't be drawing and they won't be spending big bucks.



They tried to sign Sakic because small market Colorado wasn't supposed to be able to afford to keep all their stars. Colorado matched. Under this CBA free agents are old so they could not bid for Sakic or Iginla or Bertuzzi. The Rangers have bought or acquired the most famous,best players who were available. Every year, people figured they would make the playoffs for sure. The media applauded every signing. Every year they surprised eveyone by sucking big time. Then - and only then - did everyone decide it was because the Rangers spent stupidly.



Toronto last won since 1967. Philly hasn't won since 1976. I don't think either team is going anywhere, but if one of them does win, it will be the first team to win built on free agents.



Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen.



Name one that hasn't sucked. Trying to build a winning team by signing free agents is a stupid thing to do. Give a real world example.

Tom
while they didn't buy their whole team, detroit's last cup run we pretty much were able to obtain two of the biggest name UFA's that year, started w/ the hasek trade, then comes robitaille, hull, olausson was a nice addition as well, how many people were claiming that detroit bought the cup that year?... only reason i bring that up for your example

garry1221 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 03:38 AM
  #58
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I don't care. So the NHL goes back to being what it was in the 1980's. Fine by me.



I could care less. There is lots of talent.



So? All it would mean is more expensive hockey. It isn't like Canadians will stop watching or going to the games if the league stays Mickey Mouse in the United States. I see no downside. Hockey survives in Europe. It would survive in Canada too. I don't care whether it does well in the United States or not. Why should I?



A Canadian market that is icing a winner will be richer by far than an American team that ices a loser. That's all that matters.



It makes the world go around for the owners and players. It does not make the world go around for the fans.

Tom
In these statements, I sense bias. One of the four letter words not condusive to objectivity. Not exclusive to business related matters but a relevant indicator nonetheless.

But since we are talking business; tsk, tsk. Not a good idea to show your hand like that. Moss, Berland, Tahoe, Preston, et al; they would be disappointed. The stripes are evident. Credibility, reliability is tenuous at best.

I ***king hate when I feel it's necessary to make a point this way. It shouldn't come to this.

cws is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:43 AM
  #59
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licentia
:lol lol :lol Because one team represents Edmonton and the other team represents Detroit. That's why. Edmonton will NEVER NEVER EVER EVER have the revenue of Detroit. They are the $30 million budget. Detroit can throw $50 million around and think nothing of it.



:lol Why would New York have to suck? They did suck, but they didn't have to. If they'd been able to sign a player like Joe Sakic, I bet they wouldn't have sucked. Look at Toronto and Philly. They are totally throwing money around bringing in players to push them over the top. They made it to the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs and have been consistently successful for several years in the playoffs and regular season. Detroit too brings in top players for big money to keep them competitive. Don't even go to the Anaheim, Carolina, and Calgary route. Anaheim and Carolina missed the playoffs the very next season. I bet Calgary will too.

It's unbelieveable that someone can sit here and say that a team who has a $30 million dollar budget can compete on even terms with a team with a $50 million dollar budget, or if Edmonton plays as well as Detroit, that they will suddenly have an extra $20 million to play with. Give it up!! Even if New York and Edmonton drafted all their players, Edmonton wouldn't be able to keep them all while New York could.

And you are also giving one example where a team will ALWAYS suck if they buy players like New York has. Good grief !! Not every team that buys players will be guaranteed to suck.

But under a cap, every team will have the same budget, and teams that draft well are eventully going to be punished. Teams that don't draft well are going to be the ones who have the cap room to sign away superstars. I fail to see how this helps.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:45 AM
  #60
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen I don't think you will ever get it either. Why on earth do you care about any of this crap if you are a hockey fan?
Because I want my lower ticket prices. Thats what this all boils down to. Tickets are insanely expensive for a reason. The NHL is making no money anywhere else. My lower bowl tickets at the Continental Airlines Arena cost 80 bucks a pop. That is a direct result of the NHL's lack of TV revenue.

More fans = More TV revenue = Lower ticket prices.
More fans = More Hockey players = Better talent (I hate the term better product).
More fans = More hockey.

Thats what it boils down to. More, better, cheaper hockey.


I'm a fan of hockey, not a fan of Canada or the United States.


Quote:
Ottawa is keeping all their players. Vancouver is keeping all of theirs. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards and LeCavalier. Why wouldn't Edmonton if they were good? Saying what Edmonton would do is a bunk argument. It is another hypothetical. Why can't you find a real world example? Find an Edmonton or a team like Edmonton except winning (Tampa, Vancouver or Ottawa) who sold out to sink back to mediocrity. It doesn't happen
Ottawa is keeping their players for now. Vancouver is keeping theirs, for no. Tampa is not auctioning off Richards or LeCavalier yet. What happens when Hossa and Jovo and Richards and Lecavalier hit UFA age? They go where the money is, or the team can choose to keep one or two.

I'm going to use the Devils as an example, because I know them best. The Devils built up one of the better cores in the league for a decade (Niedermayer, Brodeur, Stevens, Elias, Madden). The Devils have had big name UFAs like Mogilny, Holik, Niewendyk (never could spell his name), etc leave. Why did they leave? Both Mogilny and Niewy wanted to stay. However, Lou couldn't pay them. He could afford to pay them for a few years, at a reduced rate. But once they found success, Lou couldn't compete with the Leafs' and the Rangers' offers. 9 million a year for Holik? You can have him.

The same thing will happen to Tampa, Calgary, San Jose, etc, who have even less money to draw from than New Jersey. Their teams will stick around for awhile, but they will be forced to rebuild when their big name players hit UFA age. Tampa already had to lose Stillman.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:49 AM
  #61
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
while they didn't buy their whole team, detroit's last cup run we pretty much were able to obtain two of the biggest name UFA's that year, started w/ the hasek trade, then comes robitaille, hull, olausson was a nice addition as well, how many people were claiming that detroit bought the cup that year?... only reason i bring that up for your example
and who did Detroit outbid for those two UFA's?

We gave up our 7th leading all time playoff scorer (Kozlov) and a 1st rounder for Hasek.

Olausson we took out of retirement.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 09:34 AM
  #62
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
Because I want my lower ticket prices. Thats what this all boils down to. Tickets are insanely expensive for a reason.
True. The reason is that the fans will pay the insanely expensive price.

Quote:
More fans = More TV revenue = Lower ticket prices.
More fans = more demand for tickets = higher ticket prices.

Every time. That's the point. Hockey is much better for the fan if the owners have to scramble for every nickel.

In Vancouver after Messier, the Canucks were very expensive and very lousy. The fans bailed. The team started losing money. What did they do? They started to give away tickets. There were half price deals. They gutted the team to the cheers of the fans who felt it deserved to be gutted. Payroll was slashed.

When the team came back, so did the fans. The price deals disappeared. Tickets went up. Games that were previously on free television went pay per view. TV revenues went through the roof, but that did not mean lower prices.

Good hockey = more fans = more revenue from all streams = higher payroll.
Lousy hockey = fewer fans = less revenue across the board = lower payroll.

Quote:
I'm going to use the Devils as an example, because I know them best. The Devils built up one of the better cores in the league for a decade (Niedermayer, Brodeur, Stevens, Elias, Madden). The Devils have had big name UFAs like Mogilny, Holik, Niewendyk (never could spell his name), etc leave.
And this is a big deal? Colorado and New Jersey have both dumped way more talent than Edmonton because they produce so much talent. What both teams do is make sure they have a steady stream of young players coming into their lineup. This is a good thing, it is smart management.

It really is hard to feel sorry for the Devils about any of these players. They decide Holik is not worth the money and let him go. Result? Rangers miss playoffs. Devils win Cup. The alternative is to keep all these guys which puts them on the Dallas or Detroit treadmill. Suddenly they wake up very expensive and very old. Losing these guys cost the Devils exactly nothing. Or were they supposed to win more than three Cups in the past decade?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 10:26 AM
  #63
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Every time. That's the point. Hockey is much better for the fan if the owners have to scramble for every nickel.
Maybe for the NHL fan, but for a hockey fan as a whole, we want owners to be making money. More fans means we'll have more alternative minor hockey coming up. In the US, more colleges will continue to create high-powered hockey programs, resulting in more schools competing against Minnesota, BU, etc. I want to see Duke recruiting hockey players. I want to see a major junior league in the US. I want more minor league developement teams (like baseball). And above all, I want professional hockey players to come out of these programs and leagues and go on to play hockey in the NHL.

Less money in the NHL = no growth of hockey.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 01:37 PM
  #64
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
Maybe for the NHL fan, but for a hockey fan as a whole, we want owners to be making money.
Man, this is really a stretch. The owners having to scramble for money is good fior the NHL fan but bad for hockey. Actually, it works the other way. Hockey at the grass roots helps the NHL. The NHL actually hurts minor hockey because it is perceived to be gratuitously violent.

Quote:
More fans means we'll have more alternative minor hockey coming up. In the US, more colleges will continue to create high-powered hockey programs, resulting in more schools competing against Minnesota, BU, etc. I want to see Duke recruiting hockey players.
Why? Why don't they do it? Why didn't they do it when the Rangers won a Cup and hockey popularity peaked in the US? Nothing changed. Hockey will always be at the bottom of the sports pecking order in the US. ESPN claims eating contests draw better ratings, remember? That's fine by me. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect me a bit. Canadians like hockey, Americans like eating contests.

We should cater to non-fans? Why? Where is the benefit in that for the fans? Change hockey so non-fans like it? If you really want to do that clean up the gratuitous violence. Eliminate fighting. Appeal to non-fans and ignore the people who pay for hockey the way it is.

Quote:
I want to see a major junior league in the US. I want more minor league developement teams (like baseball). And above all, I want professional hockey players to come out of these programs and leagues and go on to play hockey in the NHL.

Less money in the NHL = no growth of hockey.
So what? Growth is not always good.

There is an extensive minor league hockey system. There is the AHL, ECHL, and CHL. Hockey is growing in popularity all over the world except in the United States. Hockey can grow in lots of places - it will grow in lots of places. But if it doesn't fly in the United States, so what? The NHL stays the way it is or gets smaller.

Big deal. It will not be any worse for the fan and it might turn turn out better.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 02:40 PM
  #65
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
More fans = More TV revenue = Lower ticket prices.
More fans = More Hockey players = Better talent (I hate the term better product).
More fans = More hockey
If I were you, I would revise that statement. Go to the big markets & the huge fans markets that are not considered big markets economically wise.

In Toronto ,they have LEAFS, more revenus than almost 95% other can have & the tickets are HIGHER than ever & will continue to rise because the demand for having those tickets are HIGHER than EVER.

Same thing apply in Montreal where they don't have the same kind of revenues that TORONTO is having but TICKETS PRICE are higher & higher while the $ spend on players is always the same between 42-48M$.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 02:54 PM
  #66
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
So what? Growth is not always good.

There is an extensive minor league hockey system. There is the AHL, ECHL, and CHL. Hockey is growing in popularity all over the world except in the United States. Hockey can grow in lots of places - it will grow in lots of places. But if it doesn't fly in the United States, so what? The NHL stays the way it is or gets smaller.

Big deal. It will not be any worse for the fan and it might turn turn out better.
Growth isn't always a good thing, that's true. But in this case it is. Just because you don't believe hockey won't fly in the States doesn't mean too much to some of us. As someone who never grew up in or lived near anything resembling a hockey environment, perhaps I have a better appreciation for what the game means. I don't take it for granted, or take it as some right that I should have. Growth may not always be beneficial to the game, at times it can be a hinderance. But in the long run, it has shown time and again that growth is a positive. If you prefer the game to stay a certain way or only be for a specific group of people, then I can understand why you regard the possible growth of hockey in that way. Personally, it sickens me as a fan to think that way but to each his own. I want this sport to be as big as it can be and reach as many people as it possibly can. Realistically I know that won't happen but it doesn't keep me from thinking that way.

Quote:
"Hockey is growing in popularity all over the world except in the United States"
I believe the people in Atlanta and Nashville will take serious exception to that. In the five and six years (respectively) the NHL has been in these towns, the growth in popularity and participation has been extraordinary. Not to the levels that some believe they should be at, but that's part of the problem. Once again, too many people take it for granted that the support should be relatively instant. It doesn't work that way, it never has. It takes time for a new sport to establish itself, to become a part of the sporting culture of that city. That takes about a generation, maybe a tad less depending on where. So in another 10 or 15 years, you will start to see players coming from such places as Atlanta and Nashville. Unfortunately too many people want instant results, don't have the patience to see this through (or don't want teams in this region for other reasons, but I'll skip that one). You'd really have to spin a good yarn to convince me that is a bad thing for the sport, business or otherwise.

cws is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 03:43 PM
  #67
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Hell, its not just going on in Atlanta and Nashville.

I'm a senior in High School in Ramsey, New Jersey. My mother is Canadian (huge hockey fan, formerly Bruins now Devils fan), and she and my father both went to UNH (Big hockey school). So, I was raised a hockey fan. I caught on quickly (we had season tickets at age 8). Of course, my friends were slower to catch on.

Over the past half a dozen years, people have grown more and more aware of the Devils. At school, our varsity hockey games outdraw everything but football. In fact, they outdraw everything even though the rink we play at is 15 minutes away. Our team winning the county championship was bigger than the Field Hockey, Baseball, or Soccer successes, though the Football team winning the State Championship was beyond everything else.

Hockey is catching on, pure and simple. Our hockey team did very well my Freshman year. We actually went farther in the playoffs than we did this season. I was at most of the home games, and we had maybe three cars full of non-parents at the games. Thats it. We filled the stands every single game I was at this year.

Now, we even have one player getting calls from recruiters from some D1 schools. He's a goalie, and pretty good at it. He's not going to be professional or anything, but its a start for New Jersey Hockey.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 07:47 PM
  #68
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
Growth isn't always a good thing, that's true. But in this case it is. Just because you don't believe hockey won't fly in the States doesn't mean too much to some of us.
I did not say this. I said I'm from Missouri. I did not object to the location of the latest exapnsion franchises. I think hockey probably can sell anywhere. But - and it is a very big but - I'm not in favour of doing anything to the game to make it more attractive to US TV or to the fans in Nashville or Atlanta.

This started because Downfrom NJ tried to make this case:

"Who can you blame for hockey's bad TV contract? I blame the Rangers. Well, not just the Rangers, but our big market teams in general. The NHL cannot afford to have LA, Chicago, and New York out of the playoffs year after year. The New York Media is the greatest equalizer in sports reporting. If you want to create a superstar in the NHL today, he's going to have to come out of New York."

This is absolutely true. It is probably part of the agenda being advanced by the NHL owners. They want a great Ranger team. They want the Hawks to be good. They don't want to have to build a great team in Los Angeles from the ground up. They want an NFL-NBA type system at least in part because they can't sell Tampa-Calgary or Nashville-Ottawa is a Stanley Cup Final.

To that, I say too bad. The NHL should not implement a shootout because it is good for TV. They should not eliminate fighting because they think it would make the game more salable in the United States. I have no problems if the NHL wants to place teams in Florida or Atlanta or Nashville. I do have problems if after they do that we have a bunch of whining about how the game is structured and how it has to change to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive. There may or may not be good reasons to make any or all of those changes, but growing the game in the United States is not good enough. Not by a mile.

Quote:
Growth may not always be beneficial to the game, at times it can be a hinderance. But in the long run, it has shown time and again that growth is a positive.
How? It has shown time and again that growth is not good. For hockey fans it has meant higher prices, more lousy teams and a smaller chance to win. It has been great for the players - more jobs at higher rates of pay - and it has been great for the owners - more than half a billion in expansion fees - but there has not been one single benefit for the fan. None.

Quote:
It takes time for a new sport to establish itself, to become a part of the sporting culture of that city. That takes about a generation, maybe a tad less depending on where. So in another 10 or 15 years, you will start to see players coming from such places as Atlanta and Nashville.
I doubt we will see players coming from Atlanta or Nashville, but I don't think that matters any way. I agree with this point. This means that 10 or 15 years from now hockey may actually sell as a TV sport in the United States. That's fine, although even then ratings will depend on which cities win.

If it happens it happens. If it doesn't, I don't care. It is not our problem. If the game grows in the US, it grows, and fans everywhere will pay more because you always have to pay more for popular sports than not so popular ones.

But don't try to tell me we should do something because if it is not done, "the game can't grow." If Nashville can't generate the revenue Detroit can generate, too bad for Nashville. Unless they cap Detroit's payroll, the game can't grow. Unless we eliminate Bertuzzi incidents, the game can't grow. Unless fans think the team can win, the game can't grow. Unless we get a good team in New York, the game can't grow.

To all of those arguments, I say "Good! It is better for the fan if the game does not grow!"

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:04 PM
  #69
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
I do have problems if after they do that we have a bunch of whining about how the game is structured and how it has to change to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive.

The NHL is not implementing changes to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive. It is attempting to implement changes to keep the NHL alive. Its a business, you seem to forget that. The NHL is a business.

Quote:
How? It has shown time and again that growth is not good. For hockey fans it has meant higher prices, more lousy teams and a smaller chance to win. It has been great for the players - more jobs at higher rates of pay - and it has been great for the owners - more than half a billion in expansion fees - but there has not been one single benefit for the fan. None.
No benefit? Maybe no benefit to the Canadian fans, who have more hockey than I can dream of. It definately has benefited the hockey fans south of the border. You sound like a fan jealous that Tampa beat Montreal. Did I pin that right? Your upset that a team from some place you never associated with hockey beat your team. Or maybe a Calgary fan.


Nope, got it wrong again. Your just a Canadian. Your angry that an American team won this year. In fact, an American expansion team.

Americans control hockey, don't forget it. If the league split today into an American league and a Canadian league, the players would go to America. Why? Because its just one big business.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:11 PM
  #70
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
How? It has shown time and again that growth is not good. For hockey fans it has meant higher prices, more lousy teams and a smaller chance to win. It has been great for the players - more jobs at higher rates of pay - and it has been great for the owners - more than half a billion in expansion fees - but there has not been one single benefit for the fan. None.

Are you trying to say that if we still had the original six teams, fans would still be able to afford tickets? That prices would not continue to rise? If hockey had survived with just the six original teams, it's posible that tickets would be less expensive than they are today, but that also be because it was such a fringe sport, no one would be following it except in those six cities.

I can see that growth has brought in more teams. I don't know about lousy teams. Some will argue that any team today is much more talented than any team from 20 years ago due to the training and generally higher level of fitness.

Smaller chance to win? Yes true, so what? More fans get to enjoy the sport.

No single benefit for the fan? Let's see... More fans than ever can watch the game live than when there were only 6 teams. I think that benefits the fans...

Expansion fees went to the owners to cover losses incurred in runing an NHL team. I think that would benefit the fans...

But what have the fans got for the increase in player salaries? Are the players playing harder when their salaries go up by $1M or $2M? What do us fans (I sometimes wonder if you are really a fan sometimes...) get from players getting more money to satisfy their egos?

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:13 PM
  #71
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579

Expansion fees went to the owners to cover losses incurred in runing an NHL team.
lol ... the owners really have you brainwashed man.

lol ...

dr


Last edited by OlliMackBjugStud: 09-05-2004 at 08:16 PM.
OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 08:26 PM
  #72
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
lol ... the owners really have you brainwashed man.

lol ...

dr
Yeah your right... I'm just a brairwashed fool... right... At least I'm not walking around pretending that things don't really happen. I don't refuse to see things because they don't agree with my narrow view of how things work.


"owners and GM's just need to make smarter decisions and everything will just be perfect..." Like you really understand all the inns and outs of how to manage a professional hockey team to decide that the people that do run these teams can't make smarter decisions than you would...

Come up with an extremely narrow philosophy, then ignore anything that doesn't support it... then mock everyone elses opinion...

lol...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 09:35 PM
  #73
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
The NHL is not implementing changes to keep the Nashvilles and Atlantas competitive. It is attempting to implement changes to keep the NHL alive.
Don't you realize how stupid this sounds? Keep the NHL alive? Please. The NHL is not going to die no matter what.

Quote:
You sound like a fan jealous that Tampa beat Montreal. Did I pin that right? Your upset that a team from some place you never associated with hockey beat your team. Or maybe a Calgary fan.
Neither. Vancouver. I was delighted to see Tampa win this year. Another one of the owner's position collapsed. Don't you remember the mantra that small markets can't win? That only a big payroll team like Detroit or Toronto or Washington had a chance? I've been saying all along that the big budget teams would all come to the end of the road soon enough, and we would get a new generation of winners, a new generation of rich teams and a new generation of big spenders.

I'm very happy to see the guard changing. Assuming the CBA does not change, I expect Tampa to be very strong for the next several years.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 09:57 PM
  #74
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Yeah your right... I'm just a brairwashed fool... right... At least I'm not walking around pretending that things don't really happen. I don't refuse to see things because they don't agree with my narrow view of how things work.


"owners and GM's just need to make smarter decisions and everything will just be perfect..." Like you really understand all the inns and outs of how to manage a professional hockey team to decide that the people that do run these teams can't make smarter decisions than you would...

Come up with an extremely narrow philosophy, then ignore anything that doesn't support it... then mock everyone elses opinion...

lol...
the owners have been making a fortune off the NHL for decades and expansion lined their pockets with 100's of more millions. yet you think they HAD to expand to cover losses ?

lol

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
09-05-2004, 10:13 PM
  #75
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
the owners have been making a fortune off the NHL for decades and expansion lined their pockets with 100's of more millions. yet you think they HAD to expand to cover losses ?

lol

dr
For a number of teams yes. I'm sure some teams were more than willing to take the extra profits, the same teams that are driving up salaries now. The rest of the teams were covering losses...

djhn579 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 03:37 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.