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.
I know people hate the idea of contraction, and many seem to want the NHL to expand, which is idiotic imo, but would the NHL be better off contracting 2 teams? Would it make sense financially? I know the player's union would ***** about it, but does anyone else agree that there are a few too many crappy and irrelevant teams in the NHL?
And I know the NHL makes money off of expansion fees, but expanding would hurt the overall quality of the league. It seems like then there would be even more teams with financial problems and more teams with records like the Blue Jackets. How would this help the NHL?
4, 7 team divisions would be perfect imo.
Current team values according to Forbes if anyone is interested.
Move two, contract two, for a total of 28 teams. Seattle and Quebec City will both be good homes to teams once they have arenas built, and in Seattle's case an owner. The Islanders and Devils both have their issues and are in the same media market, but both have history. Columbus hurts for attendance and doesn't have history, plus it is up against tOSU.
7 teams in Mountain/Pacific time zone, 7 teams in the Central time zone (save for Denver), and 14 in the eastern time zone also make for easier scheduling and breaking up of teams into divisions.
Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Boston, Buffalo, Detroit
Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida
Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Nashville, Colorado, Dallas
Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim
Home and away against team in the opposite conference - 28 games
Home and away twice against every other team in your conference - 52 games
Total - 80 games
For each division, the top two playoff seeds will be determined by standings against other division teams. The remaining two seeds will be determined by overall record against the rest of the league, so teams that are drastically better in a strong division can "wild card" in past the teams in weaker divisions.
A 24 team NHL could probably be more profitable in every measure except the national TV contract in the US. No revenue sharing, no weak sisters.
I know people hate the idea of contraction, and many seem to want the NHL to expand, which is idiotic imo, but would the NHL be better off contracting 2 teams? Would it make sense financially? I know the player's union would ***** about it, but does anyone else agree that there are a few too many crappy and irrelevant teams in the NHL?
And I know the NHL makes money off of expansion fees, but expanding would hurt the overall quality of the league. It seems like then there would be even more teams with financial problems and more teams with records like the Blue Jackets. How would this help the NHL?
4, 7 team divisions would be perfect imo.
Current team values, attendance, and NHL standings according to Forbes, ESPN, and nhl.com if anyone is interested.
So your thought is to rid the NHL of Phoenix and either the Devils or the Blues?
Going to be a difficult sell to get people to be rid of either a New York-based or a second six franchise.
Not that getting rid of the St. Louis franchise would necessarily be the worst idea...the various ownership issues with that particular team have streched almost to their inception...and I do not see that sort of thing being resolved anytime soon.
there are teams with more problems than the devils or blues
there are teams with more problems than the devils or blues
Your comment was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nds90
whichever ones cause the most problems for the NHL financially
Which, at current, are teams which the NHL is footing the bill for and thus by far causing the most problems for the NHL financially.
In addition, both of those teams have ownership there may be no easy fix for. Verbeek and Chambers cannot be civil to one another in Jersey and the Blues cannot seem to find an owner, or at least one that does not have invisi-cash.
Additionally, insofar as the Blues, traditionally they have had issues with stable ownership and this does not seem to be something that will change in the future. Moving or contracting the team may very well be in the best interest of the league as the St. Louis market is not exactly a terribly large one.
More profitable for the owners, the players, or the fans?
Seems to me like I could straw man this argument all the way up into "NHL = Leafs vs Habs 82 times a year".
I think that would get boring, but it might work for the original six to play each other home and away eight times...fill out an 80 game season, get a little variety in there.
The fewer teams that receive revenue sharing, the lower the players escrow payments are and the more profit the remaining owners keep. The players size of the pie remains the same, but the number of things shrinking the pie decreases so the salaries for the remaining players increase.
The big problem for the players is that 138 NHL roster spots would disappear. That's a lot of meal tickets gone away for a lot of guys.
Tampa has the 21st best ticket sales percentage in the league at 95.7%, which drops to 85.7% for New Jersey. The Devils, Islanders, Panthers, Hurricanes, Islanders, Jackets, Ducks, Avs and Coyotes all fall in that lower group. As far as tickets sold, Columbus, Anaheim, Dallas, the Islanders and the Coyotes all have lower attendance than Winnipeg's sold out but smallest arena in the league.
New Jersey and the Isles are in the same media market as the Rangers, Anaheim is in the same market as LA. Dallas is a sunbelt team, and Columbus is an expansion team with no history. The Coyotes are a playoff team with regularity, and they are the only team in that bottom nine besides Columbus to not have a cup or finals appearance.
I am not sure how you would decide which teams stay and which teams go, but if somebody said at a board of governors meeting "who wants to give their franchise back and disperse their contracts in exchange for it being off their hands" I would not be shocked to see a few hands go up.
Which, at current, are teams which the NHL is footing the bill for and thus by far causing the most problems for the NHL financially.
In addition, both of those teams have ownership there may be no easy fix for. Verbeek and Chambers cannot be civil to one another in Jersey and the Blues cannot seem to find an owner, or at least one that does not have invisi-cash.
Additionally, insofar as the Blues, traditionally they have had issues with stable ownership and this does not seem to be something that will change in the future. Moving or contracting the team may very well be in the best interest of the league as the St. Louis market is not exactly a terribly large one.
didn't know the NHL was footing the bill for st. louis and new jersey. good to know, thanks
A 24 team NHL could probably be more profitable in every measure except the national TV contract in the US. No revenue sharing, no weak sisters.
Do you recall the 21 team league? No matter what size, you have 'weak sisters'. Do you think all the teams moving and folding in the 70's and 80's were doing so just for the enjoyment?
Do you recall the 21 team league? No matter what size, you have 'weak sisters'. Do you think all the teams moving and folding in the 70's and 80's were doing so just for the enjoyment?
yes but there's way too many weak sisters right now. the nhl doesn't need this many damn teams. if i'm one of the big money teams, i'd be gettin sick of it
Do you recall the 21 team league? No matter what size, you have 'weak sisters'. Do you think all the teams moving and folding in the 70's and 80's were doing so just for the enjoyment?
I remember getting Esa Tikkanen hockey cards out of McGavin's bread bags when I was 3...I only know it from reading about it.
I do remember almost losing the Oilers, and I do know that a league where all of the teams can fill 7 out of 8 seats on average and have owners interested in the long term success of their team is better than one with a few stragglers when possible. Edmonton had a successful team owned by an owner who had serious business and financial problems, and used the team to try and keep his crumbling empire going. We are fortunate here in that the Canadian dollar went up, EIG stepped in, and that the owner following the EIG also is in it for the long haul.
There were terrible teams even during the Original Six-era of the NHL.
Contraction is an absolutely ridiculous idea from virtually every angle. It's bad for business, bad for the fans, bad for the players and bad for hockey as a whole.
There were terrible teams even during the Original Six-era of the NHL.
Contraction is an absolutely ridiculous idea from virtually every angle.
how so? would contraction actually lose money for the nhl? if it would, then yes it would be ridiculous. that's why i'm asking. if it would help the nhl, then obviously it wouldn't be ridiculous
how so? would contraction actually lose money for the nhl? if it would, then yes it would be ridicululous. that's why i'm asking. if it would help the nhl, then obviously it wouldn't be ridiculous
First of all, the NHLPA would never allow it. Even the slightest hint of 40 to 200 players losing their jobs would immediately lead to a new lock-out.
First of all, the NHLPA would never allow it. Even the slightest hint of 40 to 200 players losing their jobs would immediately lead to a new lock-out.
forget the NHLPA. unions only care about what's best for them. i'm asking if contraction would be worth it financially for the nhl. and idk where you get losing 200 players out of contracting only 2 teams.
Why do people always bring this up? There's zero chance the NHLPA ever allows this to happen.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
The Blackhawks ended their season with capacity attendance and record merchandise sales, television ratings and sponsorship revenues, and the Stanley Cup.
It's a lot more complicated that snapping your fingers and telling teams to go away. There are long-term leases, other financial considerations, and a dependent minor league team or two. No owner is just going to just walk away. The would need to be considerably compensated.
Really though, fans don't have much weight in this matter. It's the owners that have the say, and do you see them talking about it?
I think that would get boring, but it might work for the original six to play each other home and away eight times...fill out an 80 game season, get a little variety in there.
The fewer teams that receive revenue sharing, the lower the players escrow payments are and the more profit the remaining owners keep. The players size of the pie remains the same, but the number of things shrinking the pie decreases so the salaries for the remaining players increase.
I have a huge problem with the argument that the total "size of the pie" would still be as big if the NHL contracted back to the original six (or even down to 24). Besides, revenue sharing depends on the CBA, not expansion.
The League cannot unilaterally contract a team - except for the 'Yotes which they already own (Of course, GB would then have to explain to the other 29 owners that they were flushing the $140M purchase price plus add'l loses down the drain). The only way the League can contract a team is by negotiating a buyout for it's current owners - and getting the other 29 owners to agree to pay for it.
The League will never allow contraction as long as there are viable (or even not-so-viable if someone is willing to pay) relocation markets.
The only way the League will contract is if a team effectively folds and liquidates through bankruptcy - and there are no interested buyers (local, relocation, or the League).
