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.
Yep it likely was, and it would have been nice to see Wirtz being led off in handcuffs like his old man should have been.
uh.... for what? He didn't do anything illegal. He wasn't hiding the money he made, just organizing it into separate spheres to make the Blackhawks not look profitable as they really are. Concessions and parking being counted separate is just a league trick to have an excuse to raise ticket prices and for less money to be counted as league profits so as to keep the cap/floor lower. He still reported his income to the government and paid taxes on said profits.
Most teams probably do the same thing, which is one of the reasons why I don't hold my breath whenever I hear about X number of teams in the NHL (and NBA) losing money.
As has already been said, my only reaction to people that are in favor of contraction is this.... okay, let's contract your team first. Let's see if pro-contraction folks suddenly change their opinion if their team is the one on the chopping block.
This is the reddest of the red herring spectrum.
What in the world does 'your' team allegiance have to do with a financial discussion that potentially involves insolvency? Hey, my team is losing so much money that no one will buy it and pay the bills, and the other owners don't want to keep throwing money into a pit, but since it's my team, heaven forbid that I can look at this rationally or objectively and declare that it's dead, Jim!
First of all, it's not my team. I may be a fan of a team, but I don't pay the bills. It's not my portfolio or personal wealth at stake, but I have a say, right?
What happens when --> I <-- move 2000 miles across the country and 'my' team stays exactly where it is. Do I care if that team is still in the same town? (realistically, should I?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law
I could see this actually being an issue this summer when the CBA expires. Something along the lines of the owners saying to the players union, "Salary rollback or contraction, take your pick". Players will eventually cave, salaries will universally roll back to somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of league revenues, and then the relocation/expansion discussions can resume.
Prior to the players caving though, could be an interesting financial game of chicken.
Like others have said, I think the star and top half of the league will look out for their own wallets. Why would Richards, Carter or Kovalchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHawk
Only fools and realtors believed that. Nothing earns a return over risk free without bearing risk.
You should send that sentiment to Greenspan. He also assumed that risk would lead to self-regulation. Instead, an entire country followed the banks over the edge.
(You avoided buying a house in the last 14 years, right? )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophet of Glennie
Contraction will never happen in any of the four major sports leagues unless we suffer a catastrophic economic failure. We're likely going to see expansion before 2020, contraction will not happen.
It's coming. The post-war boom died a couple of decades ago. The economy has some more Ring of Fire worthy temblors coming.
NHL players are a collection of the 700+ most skilled people at their craft in the world. MOD
That goes without saying, but that wasn't the context of my post. There truly won't be much that the PA can/will do if the NHL decides that contraction is the way to go.
At any rate, contraction is unlikely to be anything more than a bargaining chip. Like GHOST said, there are still profitable markets that haven't been tapped.
T
At any rate, contraction is unlikely to be anything more than a bargaining chip.
Again, its hard to see exactly what kind of chip that would be. Bettman is going to say if you want to play in the olympics we get to contract Phoenix? Or if you dont take a pay cut, we will buy out Florida against its will? The players arent going to care; its not their concern unless they want to buy the team. The suggestion that this is a bargaining chip the owners could use implies to me a league model that doesnt exist in reality.
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.
agreed. Contraction alienates the fans that you contracted teams from, I don't care if they only have one diehard fan. Also means less jobs for hockey players, guys who may be very skilled but don't have a place would go elsewhere and less growth for the sport as a whole.
I hope Contracting never happens.. the idea of it makes me sad.
Again, its hard to see exactly what kind of chip that would be. Bettman is going to say if you want to play in the olympics we get to contract Phoenix? Or if you dont take a pay cut, we will buy out Florida against its will? The players arent going to care; its not their concern unless they want to buy the team. The suggestion that this is a bargaining chip the owners could use implies to me a league model that doesnt exist in reality.
Well, I guess there's the school of thought that the PA wants to fight for jobs, and that a small rollback would be more palatable than eliminating teams.
Well, I guess there's the school of thought that the PA wants to fight for jobs, and that a small rollback would be more palatable than eliminating teams.
I don't understand why you keep presenting a false dilemma arguement though. The premiise you are using would be a false one, fuelled largely by owner greed.
What in the world does 'your' team allegiance have to do with a financial discussion that potentially involves insolvency? Hey, my team is losing so much money that no one will buy it and pay the bills, and the other owners don't want to keep throwing money into a pit, but since it's my team, heaven forbid that I can look at this rationally or objectively and declare that it's dead, Jim!
It's simple, really..... contraction is an emotional argument just as much as it is anything else, and it's insanely easy for fans of safe teams to make an argument for contraction knowing full and well that their team's never going to see the negative ramifications if a contraction actually happened. Same goes for markets that want NHL teams, like Quebec City and Hamilton and Seattle and elsewhere, as discussion about contraction pretty much turns their chances at landing a team into a non-factor.
On top of that, people that call for contraction usually aren't looking at it rationally or objectively either, but rather as thinking that if there are two (or more) less teams then that'd increase the odds of them landing additional quality players. Especially when it comes to the reality of the economics in the NHL which, granted have troubled franchises, but also markets seemingly willing to accept teams (both now and in the likely near future) and ownership groups that aren't looking at selling and using the team itself as part of a greater business strategy to accept the team being in the red but making profits elsewhere (a la the Panthers).
If that's a red herring, then so be it..... but don't think it is. It's just pointing out that fact that it's insanely easy to have an opinion on a subject when it will have zero negative impact on you regardless of how it turns out.
You should send that sentiment to Greenspan. He also assumed that risk would lead to self-regulation. Instead, an entire country followed the banks over the edge.
(You avoided buying a house in the last 14 years, right? )
It's coming. The post-war boom died a couple of decades ago. The economy has some more Ring of Fire worthy temblors coming.
No, I had to buy a house when we started a family, but I was able to wait out most of the downturn ... it's only down about 7% since I bought.
I'd say the Blackhawks. if you look at their attendance numbers in 2003-2004 and 2005-2006, they only averaged about 13,000 fans per game. Obviously it's a team that's only supported when they are playing well. Get rid of them.
this is a ridiculous statement. chicago is a hockey market. if you lived here, you'd know why people didn't go to games. wings had horrible attendance in the 80s and look at em now.
you know why the nhl is getting popular in the us again? bc of teams like the bruins, penguins, capitals, wings, rangers, flyers, and oh yeah, the blackhawks. ever wonder why the nhl is getting these sweet tv deals? even espn covers the nhl more on sportscenter now. people care about the nhl again.
these teams bring in bank for the nhl and make it relevant in the us
i shouldn't have even put the attendane link in the OP. i will take it out. i was more trying to talk about finances and if contracting was at all possible and if it would make sense for the nhl to do it. it doesn't look like it though after reading the posts
this is a ridiculous statement. chicago is a hockey market. if you lived here, you'd know why people didn't go to games. wings had horrible attendance in the 80s and look at em now.
you know why the nhl is getting popular in the us again? bc teams like the bruins, penguins, capitals, wings, rangers, flyers, and oh yeah, the blackhawks are bringing in more fans. ever wonder why the nhl is getting these sweet tv deals? even espn covers the nhl more on sportscenter now. people care about the nhl again.
these teams bring in bank for the nhl and make it relevant in the us
i shouldn't have even put the attendane link in the OP. i will take it out. i was more trying to talk about finances and if contracting was at all possible and if it would make sense for the nhl to do it. it doesn't look like it though after reading the posts
You've proven my point. With very few exceptions (think Leafs and Canadiens), the attendance, finances, etc. of a team ebb and flow and it is often times based on the on-ice performance.
Just a few years ago the Penguins were struggling big time and they had one foot out the door to Kansas City. Some great draft picks, personnel moves, a Cup and a new arena, and the Penguins are now a hot commodity. Chicago and Pittsburgh are great "hockey" markets, but don't think they can't struggle at the gate and with the bottom line like any other team when things are going bad. Same could be said of Detroit during the Dead Thing era, etc. Some of those teams at the bottom of the attendance figures for this season will likely see a significant rise in their financial stability should they ever ice consistent winners and in turn others near the top could see a decline (NHL teams are very much dependent upon gate receipts).
Last edited by Speedy Sanderson: 03-04-2012 at 06:46 PM.
Reason: Forgot to add the end of the last sentence
You've proven my point. With very few exceptions (think Leafs and Canadiens), the attendance, finances, etc. of a team ebb and flow and it is often times based on the on-ice performance.
Just a few years ago the Penguins were struggling big time and they had one foot out the door to Kansas City. Some great draft picks, personnel moves, a Cup and a new arena, and the Penguins are now a hot commodity. Chicago and Pittsburgh are great "hockey" markets, but don't think they can't struggle at the gate and with the bottom line like any other team when things are going bad. Same could be said of Detroit during the Dead Thing era, etc. Some of those teams at the bottom of the attendance figures for this season will likely see a significant rise in their financial stability should they ever ice consistent winners and in turn others near the top could see a decline (NHL teams are very much dependent upon gate receipts).
struggling at the gate does not mean a team is having financial problems. this is why i shouldn't have included the attendance part in the OP. my mistake
NHL teams are not as dependent upon gate receipts as you make it out to be. they help of course, but there are bigger factors. the NHL is not a minor league....
You mean after the myth crashed and the bubble burst?
Correct. One of the houses I looked at (but didn't buy) was priced at $225K when the previous person had paid $545K just 30 months prior (it was bank owned when I looked at it).
Would love to see a 20 team "A" league and a 20 team "B" league with promotion/relegation between the two based on on-ice performance.
Yes, there are many things that would have to change to make this possible.
Yes, I fully realize that it is highly unlikely to happen.
But IMO it would be the best way to solve most of the NHL's structural problems.
The worst idea ever
Hockey Fan A "Hey let's get tickets to the Jackets' playoff game tomorrow night"
Casual Fan B "Cool Who are they playing"
A "Winnipeg"
B "OK what round is it?"
A "The finals"
B "WOW they are in the finals!!!! YES!!!! Will the Stanley Cup be there?"
A "NO"
B "Why not?"
A "The Jackets are in the B league they play for the Bettman Cup"
B "HUH??" "WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT THE BETTMAN CUP!!!!!" "I thought this was the NHL not minor leagues"
A "if they win the Bettman cup then they get to play for the Stanley Cup next season"
B "WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT THE BETTMAN CUP!!!!!"
Last edited by Gnashville: 03-05-2012 at 08:41 PM.
Hockey Fan A "Hey let's get tickets to the Jackets' playoff game tomorrow night"
Casual Fan B "Cool Who are they playing"
A "Winnipeg"
B "OK what round is it?"
A "The finals"
B "WOW they are in the finals!!!! YES!!!! Will the Stanley Cup be there?"
A "NO"
B "Why not?"
A "The Jackets are in the B league they play for the Bettman Cup"
B "HUH??" "WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT THE BETTMAN CUP!!!!!" "I thought this was the NHL not minor leagues"
A "if they win the Bettman cup then they get to play for the Stanley Cup next season"
B "WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT THE BETTMAN CUP!!!!!"
Drinking from Bettman's Cup sounds like some sick post game locker room prank
Correct. One of the houses I looked at (but didn't buy) was priced at $225K when the previous person had paid $545K just 30 months prior (it was bank owned when I looked at it).
This sounds more like fortuitous timing on your part than someone being able to avoid a bubble. What if you had started looking ten years earlier? It's not like you can escape a bubble. The banks and govt were throwing money into the system, so otherwise unqualified buyers could now buy homes without much money down and with risk levels 'adjusted' to enable them to do so. The demand for houses rose. People decided that they could move up from their starters since more buyers were entering that segment. So they got pushed up the food chain. It was like reverse dominoes (upwards). The fact that I had always put down at least 20%, paid my mortgages, owned several houses by the collapse did little to protect me from the insanity of the system. I even bucked the common wisdom that said you should buy as much house as you'd qualify to buy (per the banks formulas). I didn't need that much house.
So here I am in Michigan, 12 yrs after I bought my current house, and values are slightly up from what I paid 12 yrs ago. I bought before the bubble but that did little to protect me from the idiocy that ensued.
I was even risk averse. The only saving grace is that, again, we're all in this together so when I move to a new place and need to buy a house there, they will have experienced an adjustment as well. It's not like I get to move to somewhere that was sheltered from the collapse and they still have 2005 prices.
What people cannot control is their age and life cycles, vis-a-vis the economy. If you want a house, you have to pay the going rate. If you have to move due to needing a job, and many people have had to move during the period after the crash to the present, well what choice did they have? No one was buying houses, and even fewer people were selling them. Realistically, the only people who could benefit were those who were new to the housing market (so nothing to sell), but who also had some cash and stable jobs.
This sounds more like fortuitous timing on your part than someone being able to avoid a bubble. What if you had started looking ten years earlier? It's not like you can escape a bubble. The banks and govt were throwing money into the system, so otherwise unqualified buyers could now buy homes without much money down and with risk levels 'adjusted' to enable them to do so. The demand for houses rose. People decided that they could move up from their starters since more buyers were entering that segment. So they got pushed up the food chain. It was like reverse dominoes (upwards). The fact that I had always put down at least 20%, paid my mortgages, owned several houses by the collapse did little to protect me from the insanity of the system. I even bucked the common wisdom that said you should buy as much house as you'd qualify to buy (per the banks formulas). I didn't need that much house.
So here I am in Michigan, 12 yrs after I bought my current house, and values are slightly up from what I paid 12 yrs ago. I bought before the bubble but that did little to protect me from the idiocy that ensued.
I was even risk averse. The only saving grace is that, again, we're all in this together so when I move to a new place and need to buy a house there, they will have experienced an adjustment as well. It's not like I get to move to somewhere that was sheltered from the collapse and they still have 2005 prices.
What people cannot control is their age and life cycles, vis-a-vis the economy. If you want a house, you have to pay the going rate. If you have to move due to needing a job, and many people have had to move during the period after the crash to the present, well what choice did they have? No one was buying houses, and even fewer people were selling them. Realistically, the only people who could benefit were those who were new to the housing market (so nothing to sell), but who also had some cash and stable jobs.
I don't have a people buying houses. I just had a people buying houses thinking it was an investment that would grow at 7-10% annually forever. I intentionally waited as long as I could to buy because it was obvious things were overpriced (my wife was 7 1/2 mo pregnant when we closed), and I have continued saving assuming that my house will be worth the same as it was when I bought it.
I also didn't buy a 'starter house', we bought a house that we will hopefully live in for the next couple of decades.
I think that MLB, NBA & NHL should look at contraction to 28 teams, it would help the quality of play so much and expand the revenues for every team. The NFL is perfect at 32 teams and now just need to get new stadiums built for some of the old buildings.
MLB has two teams in the A's & Rays that can easily be contracted.
NBA has one team with the Hornets and many can argue that other teams are struggling badly.
NHL has one team with the Coyotes and many can argue that other teams are struggling badly.
This sounds more like fortuitous timing on your part than someone being able to avoid a bubble. What if you had started looking ten years earlier? It's not like you can escape a bubble. The banks and govt were throwing money into the system, so otherwise unqualified buyers could now buy homes without much money down and with risk levels 'adjusted' to enable them to do so. The demand for houses rose. People decided that they could move up from their starters since more buyers were entering that segment. So they got pushed up the food chain. It was like reverse dominoes (upwards). The fact that I had always put down at least 20%, paid my mortgages, owned several houses by the collapse did little to protect me from the insanity of the system. I even bucked the common wisdom that said you should buy as much house as you'd qualify to buy (per the banks formulas). I didn't need that much house.
So here I am in Michigan, 12 yrs after I bought my current house, and values are slightly up from what I paid 12 yrs ago. I bought before the bubble but that did little to protect me from the idiocy that ensued.
I was even risk averse. The only saving grace is that, again, we're all in this together so when I move to a new place and need to buy a house there, they will have experienced an adjustment as well. It's not like I get to move to somewhere that was sheltered from the collapse and they still have 2005 prices.
What people cannot control is their age and life cycles, vis-a-vis the economy. If you want a house, you have to pay the going rate. If you have to move due to needing a job, and many people have had to move during the period after the crash to the present, well what choice did they have? No one was buying houses, and even fewer people were selling them. Realistically, the only people who could benefit were those who were new to the housing market (so nothing to sell), but who also had some cash and stable jobs.
But you're setting up a false problem. The resale value of a house is only an issue vis a vis the sale of said house. If you were utilizing property as an investment asset you weren't extracting value from, sure you lost money, but your arguments about age and needing a house or other such things don't apply. If you purchased a house, and the property lost value, and you now are moving, you suffer from an oversaturated market and therefore may have trouble moving your asset, but again, that's not a value issue. Finally, in any such move, if you're not moving from owning to renting, the purchase price of your new home will have fallen by at a similar rate, meaning you're no worse off than prior to the move.
Issues only arise if you were foolishly making voluntary investments in a bubble commodity, if you move from owning to renting, or if you made bad decisions with regards to asset based lending against an overvalued asset. In other words, the "housing crisis" hasn't genuinely harmed a significant number of people except insofar as the liquidity of the market has been reduced. Now, a healthy market would have aided those who suffered from other economic setbacks, but "not providing undue assistance" is a far cry from "harm." That is to say, the housing bubble isn't the problem, it just stopped covering for other issues.
To try circle this back around, your original Greenspan comment was an incredible non-sequitor, and wasn't even accurate within itself.
I think that MLB, NBA & NHL should look at contraction to 28 teams, it would help the quality of play so much and expand the revenues for every team. The NFL is perfect at 32 teams and now just need to get new stadiums built for some of the old buildings.
MLB has two teams in the A's & Rays that can easily be contracted.
NBA has one team with the Hornets and many can argue that other teams are struggling badly.
NHL has one team with the Coyotes and many can argue that other teams are struggling badly.
i agree, but many people seem to get butthurt over the idea of contraction. but if it doesn't make financial sense, then it shouldn't be done
)
