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, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

Wings Legace believes the season is off

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-24-2004, 08:28 PM
  #51
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Perhaps their is a self interest of Sens and Canucks fans here. We see that we have used the CBA properly, and now we have an opportunity to continue using it to become the next Colorado. There is no reason either of our teams couldnt do that. We may never do it. But we can the possibilty exists. After following the plan for 10 years, you tank the rug out from under us at the last minute. Its not fair. Edmonton can just as easily do it. They made more money than Ottawa last year.
Perhaps the Sens are bad example of how to build a team. They lost tons of money over the 90s and into the 00s. Even now they are losing lots of money. Perhaps they should go back to the drawing board and come back with an equally effective but cheaper strategy. Either that or fold the team.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 08:41 PM
  #52
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Perhaps the Sens are bad example of how to build a team. They lost tons of money over the 90s and into the 00s. Even now they are losing lots of money. Perhaps they should go back to the drawing board and come back with an equally effective but cheaper strategy

It is a very understandable misunderstanding. But the Sens were never not operationally profitable. It was only because the owner borrowed the money to buy the team that they lost money. Because nobody wanted to take the gamble in small market Ottawa.

But some very visionary people did see the potential. Took a risk and proved it could of worked if someone with the money had made the investment. Bryden was practically minutes away from crafting a plan that would have paid off his debts and let him keep the team anyway. But investors that were tied to publicly traded pension funds couldnt partner with him legally, and it seems some banks didnt like the tax scheme. And in typical business fashion, another shark came in and scooped a great deal.

If Melnyk had bought it 10 years ago, the Sens wouldnt of gone bankrupt.

Like the Sabres, the Sens bankruptcy had nothing to do with players salaries, as Bettman said himself, and everything to do with financial structuring.

As for going with a cheaper strategy, well if bringing up Meszaros, Eaves, and Bochenski and letting de Vries, Smolinski, and Bondra walk is the price to pay, oh well, ill pay it.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 09:41 PM
  #53
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
It is a very understandable misunderstanding. But the Sens were never not operationally profitable. It was only because the owner borrowed the money to buy the team that they lost money. Because nobody wanted to take the gamble in small market Ottawa.
That has to be the silliest excuse I've heard. Many business are founded on loans for startup capital. Interest repayments are not an excuse.

I could borrow $1b dollars at 10% interest and put it a bank at 0.1%. I'd be making $1m operational profit before interested repayments. $1m wow am I making money doing nothing. Doesn't make it a good deal when you account for the money's cost. Likewise if Melnyk had $128m dollars and all he could get in a year from that was $0 its wasted money.

The Sens wrote off hundreds of millions in debt. Bryden is still trying to get $59m written down again to $600K (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Ottawa...19/720809.html). That is a heck of a lot debt to write off just to make the Sens almost able to break even after being sold to Melnyk.

The Sens owed close to $500m when sold to Melnyk.
http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servle...t_sens20030617
http://ottawa.cbc.ca/ottawanews/bryden/

Melnyk got the Sens and arena at grossly under cost because the team was unprofitable with any kind of debt load. He paid just $128m. Unless your thinking is Melnyk should run the Sens as a charity basket case/billionaires plaything, they should be expected to account for the $128m he put into them.

Quote:
But some very visionary people did see the potential. Took a risk and proved it could of worked if someone with the money had made the investment.
$250-300m to be invested and nil return is not a good investment. The idea that if someone already has the cash and they buy the team it doesn't matter if the team doesn't make money because its not costing them anything is extremely false.

Quote:
Bryden was practically minutes away from crafting a plan that would have paid off his debts and let him keep the team anyway.
Paid off his debts? Or wrote off his debt?


Quote:
But investors that were tied to publicly traded pension funds couldnt partner with him legally, and it seems some banks didnt like the tax scheme. And in typical business fashion, another shark came in and scooped a great deal.

If Melnyk had bought it 10 years ago, the Sens wouldnt of gone bankrupt.
Provided he didn't take a loan. And they'd have been a massive waste of money. He'd have been better sticking his money in realestate and shares. The Sens couldn't meet there interest payments. We wouldn't want to seperate rink expenses and debt from team costs and income because that is a plank of the pro-NHLPA combined enterprise argument.

Quote:
Like the Sabres, the Sens bankruptcy had nothing to do with players salaries, as Bettman said himself, and everything to do with financial structuring.
You mean he took a loan to buy the team & rink? And they were so unprofitable they could meet payments.

Quote:
As for going with a cheaper strategy, well if bringing up Meszaros, Eaves, and Bochenski and letting de Vries, Smolinski, and Bondra walk is the price to pay, oh well, ill pay it.
Phone Melnyk now.


Last edited by me2: 11-24-2004 at 09:49 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 10:20 PM
  #54
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
I could borrow $1b dollars at 10% interest and put it a bank at 0.1%. I'd be making $1m operational profit before interested repayments. $1m wow am I making money doing nothing. Doesn't make it a good deal when you account for the money's cost.
Exactly

Quote:
Melnyk got the Sens and arena at grossly under cost because the team was unprofitable with any kind of debt load.
Exactly

Quote:
That has to be the silliest excuse I've heard. Many business are founded on loans for startup capital. Interest repayments are not an excuse.

You mean he took a loan to buy the team & rink? And they were so unprofitable they could meet payments.
Its very understandable fans would have this misunderstanding. But Brydens debt wasnt for the rink. It was the price of the team, start up costs, and losses while playing in a 10,000 seat arena before the long term real estate deal started with the building of the Corel Centre. And then compound interest.

The rink itself was apparently bought by Brydens partner - Covanta. They were using it as a tax shelter. They also owned half the team. They went bankrupt because of Enrons bankruptcy while they were partnered with them, and because of 9/11 sending their airline services division into a horrible cash position that meant they couldnt make the payments on the arena mortgage and so they went bankrupt.

Melnyk bought the team from Bryden at its value, and bought the arena from Covanta during its bankruptcy for restructruring. The arena came very cheap because without the team it had no value to anyone. The team sold at its Forbes value, once Melnyk had the arena.


Last edited by thinkwild: 11-24-2004 at 10:25 PM.
thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 10:31 PM
  #55
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Its very understandable fans would have this misunderstanding. But Brydens debt wasnt for the rink. It was the price of the team, start up costs, and losses while playing in a 10,000 seat arena before the long term real estate deal started with the building of the Corel Centre. And then compound interest.

The rink itself was apparently bought by Brydens partner - Covanta. They were using it as a tax shelter. They also owned half the team. They went bankrupt because of Enrons bankruptcy while they were partnered with them, and because of 9/11 sending their airline services division into a horrible cash position that meant they couldnt make the payments on the arena mortgage and so they went bankrupt.

Melnyk bought the team from Bryden at its value, and bought the arena from Covanta during its bankruptcy for restructruring. The arena came very cheap because without the team it had no value to anyone. The team sold at its Forbes value, once Melnyk had the arena.

The article reported the Bryden owned the rink and the Covanta was the primary lender on the rink.


The list of liens includes one filed by the Ontario Ministry of Finance for roughly $500,000 in unpaid taxes for Terrace Corporation, a Bryden company.

Terrace, which until recently owned over 90 per cent of the Ottawa Senators and 100 per cent of the Corel Centre, is now also bankrupt. It was forced into bankruptcy by Standard Life, which is owed $16 million.


and


In the late 1990s, Bryden, who already owned 100 per cent of the shares for the Corel Centre, was looking for full control of the team too.


and


For various reasons—including banks backing out, and major creditor Covanta Energy Corporation going into bankruptcy protection—none came to fruition.


and


But in the end, only the banks and federal government got any money from the team's bankruptcy sale to billionaire Eugene Melnyk.

The rest, including the original 68 investors, got nothing for the millions they invested in the Sens.

Among them was Covanta Energy Corporation, owed $50.7 million by the team, and $210 million by the Corel Centre.


Sneaky Melnyk


Bryden's Palladium Corporation, which owns the Corel Centre, owes in excess of $264 million. Under the current sale agreement, Eugene Melnyk will buy the Corel Centre for $27.5 million.


Last edited by me2: 11-24-2004 at 10:37 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 11:29 PM
  #56
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
The article reported the Bryden owned the rink and the Covanta was the primary lender on the rink.
... selective snipping ...
I guess you really do see what you want. Those are some interesting links you provided. But I got something quite different out of them than you seemed to.

Quote:
If it's approved by creditors at the end of this month, the measure will relieve Bryden of about $59 million in total debt, all of which he says can be traced back to direct loans or loan guarantees he made to prop up the hockey team and the Corel Centre.
Bryden had $59 mil of debt then. $50mil for the franchise? And he will settle for $600k

Quote:
During the decade he owned the team, Bryden and a collection of junior partners pumped millions into keeping it financially afloat.

Their efforts were always hampered by a massive debt of more than $350 million for the team and the arena
The massive debt yes. $350mil, of which $59 mil was Brydens?

Bryden: Deal Maker extraordinaire
Quote:
Combined, the Senators and arena owe close to $500 million to secured creditors alone.
Combined, the tax shelter was losing money. Surprise, surprise.

Quote:
Bryden has a genius for making big, complicated deals come together. He knows how to work business laws to his favour and is exceptional at convincing banks to lend his enterprises millions and millions of dollars.

But he's also left a trail of failed businesses that have crumbled under the weight of their debts

By 1988, Bryden was worth $32 million, according to a court document.
Shortly after that it became apparent he was in over his head. In 1991, his personal finance company, Kinburn Corporation, collapsed under $830 million of debt.

"Because Rod is a big fan of debt, he had built an empire that was heavily leveraged," according to John Owens, who has worked closely with Bryden over the years.
Kinburn was even worse than the Sens it seems. Just a business deal. People get hurt, but lowering salaries isnt the issue.


This next one was an interesting paragraph, I didnt know these numbers
Quote:
After finally securing a mortgage for $170 million US in 1994, he had to hire a U.S. entertainment firm to build the arena. As part of the deal, the Senators gave up 90 per cent of the profits from corporate suites, plus a percentage of food and parking revenues. It was a 30-year contract for the team, and to break it would cost $200 million.

In addition, the hockey team was paying an extraordinary amount of rent, $600,000 annually for executive and administrative offices at the arena.
"We [the original partners] had to roll our eyes at that," says original investor Don Puccini, "because [for that] … you could probably rent an entire office building in downtown Ottawa, or somewhere at Bloor and Yonge in Toronto. That sort of got us thinking, there's more here than meets the eye. "

And that's part of Rod Bryden's style. He proudly makes his deals complicated.
Bryden the deal maker
Quote:
"Rod generated tens of millions of dollars in business for banks over his career, and he's not done yet I'm sure," says Owens. "I think the banks are smart enough to realize a deal that works; they want to be part of that. There were no firearms involved, everyone willingly participated, knew the risks and all of that, and very often it was the same banks. That's business."
Banks took the risk. Good business too.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 11:42 PM
  #57
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 50
I guess this proves the sens were a lame duck from the start. A team that should never have been a business.

Quote:
I guess you really do see what you want. Those are some interesting links you provided. But I got something quite different out of them than you seemed to.
What do you have to show Covanta was the owner and not Bryden?

me2 is offline  
Old
11-24-2004, 11:54 PM
  #58
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Who is owed the money for the arena? Covanta shareholders? Covanta also owned 45% of the Sens team

The Sens were a lame duck for the same reason you would be if you tried to borrow the money to buy Canadian Tire. Its profitable. Could you borrow the money to buy it if it were for sale? Or is buying it restricted to people who have that kind of money. If you borrowed the money to buy it, and then went bankrupt because you couldnt make the interest payments, would you say its bad business on a treadmill to obscurity that can only be fixed by capping the players salaries?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 02:06 AM
  #59
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Who is owed the money for the arena? Covanta shareholders? Covanta also owned 45% of the Sens team

Of course Covanta is owned money. I've posted that about 4 times. There is a big difference between being owed money and owning something. I wonder what return on investment Covanta made.....

When exactly did Convanta get to own 45% of the team? Do you have a link?

Quote:
The Sens were a lame duck for the same reason you would be if you tried to borrow the money to buy Canadian Tire. Its profitable. Could you borrow the money to buy it if it were for sale? Or is buying it restricted to people who have that kind of money. If you borrowed the money to buy it, and then went bankrupt because you couldnt make the interest payments, would you say its bad business on a treadmill to obscurity that can only be fixed by capping the players salaries?
It took someone to start them, run up hundreds of million in debt, then write off all of the debt to make them viable. They were a lame duck. They couldn't have survived on their own without that debt write off. They needed a new arena to make money, but they couldn't make enough money from the new arena to pay for it. A good example of building your own arena not paying off.

me2 is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 02:38 AM
  #60
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 10,025
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Heck, if the league really wanted to make money, they could just make Bertuzzi go to every rink in the league as punishment and skate around for a couple of hours while the fans threw garbage and shouted obsenities. I'm sure most fans would pay top dollar for that

quat is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 04:04 AM
  #61
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,112
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
Heck, if the league really wanted to make money, they could just make Bertuzzi go to every rink in the league as punishment and skate around for a couple of hours while the fans threw garbage and shouted obsenities. I'm sure most fans would pay top dollar for that

lol

me2 is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 08:06 AM
  #62
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
Why not just look at the hockey attendances before and after the last lockout/strike. To me that is more representative of the NHL than what happens in MLB or NFL. Hockey seems to have recovered from that.
How can you compare a situation where half a season was missed to one where one or two seasons are missed and replacement players are used? The NFL's 1987 situation is the only evidence we have on what happens when replacement players are used. Its the most popular sport in America. Do you honestly think hockey will somehow do better? Has Gary Bettman been saving some magical marketing plan for 10 years?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 08:25 AM
  #63
Winger98
Moderator
powers combined
 
Winger98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 14,470
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Winger98
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
How can you compare a situation where half a season was missed to one where one or two seasons are missed and replacement players are used? The NFL's 1987 situation is the only evidence we have on what happens when replacement players are used. Its the most popular sport in America. Do you honestly think hockey will somehow do better? Has Gary Bettman been saving some magical marketing plan for 10 years?
This might be the only time when hockey's lack of popularity could be a positive. It's hard to alienate fans you don't have :lol

Seriously, I think a scenario where American fans largely say to hell with the sport is very possible if a whole season is lost, and damn near assured if two seasons are gone. In new markets, it pisses off new fans while allowing other local sports to regain their position; in older markets it offends people who have stuck by the game for ages.

Despite how grim the situation looks, I think a lot of people secretly think the two sides will get together and get something done to save at least part of the season. If it doesn't happen and the season gets cancelled, I think we'll see a lot of fans, who had been silent before, come out and condemn both sides.

Winger98 is offline  
Old
11-25-2004, 11:20 AM
  #64
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winger98
In new markets, it pisses off new fans while allowing other local sports to regain their position; in older markets it offends people who have stuck by the game for ages.
I think this is a problem that league has now and will only be intensifed with the lockout. Bettman is constantly trying to persuade some guy in Acworth, Georgia to watch hockey at the expense of the people who already do. In 12 years, you'd think Bettman would realize that guy isn't going to watch hockey, no matter how many refs there are or how many pucks glow. How many fans have they lost in a chase to get fans they will never have?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 12:47 PM
  #65
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
It took someone to start them, run up hundreds of million in debt, then write off all of the debt to make them viable. They were a lame duck. They couldn't have survived on their own without that debt write off. They needed a new arena to make money, but they couldn't make enough money from the new arena to pay for it. A good example of building your own arena not paying
Let me try to do a better job explaining what I was trying to say.

From my understanding, things were manageable when Bryden/Covanta were operating the team. They could make enough money to pay for it. Part of the value they got was its tax sheltering abilities which dont show in their statements well. We were small, disadvantaged, forever threatened to be moved to Portland, struggling for money, season ticket sales, fans, and respect, but not losing money overall on the investment in the team and its arena. Yes we lost players when they went over our salary cap, but the system allowed us a way to compensate for that and still improve.

Covanta went bankrupt because of a strange set of outside circumstances involving Enrons collapse and Osama Bid Ladens terrorism and nothing to do with NHL salaries. They were in a huge cash crunch. When they couldnt make their arena payment, Bryden used the part of the deal that said they must now pay up $200mil to get out of the deal for forfeiting payment. This action caused Covanta to go bankrupt. Bryden had little choice but to seize the opportunity to cause it. Not player salaries.

When Bryden owned the team, in spite of the operation apparently making $19mil in annual interest payments, the arena and team were still making a decent return, its prospectus was said to have suggested when trying to sell shares in its tax scheme to save the Sens. Of course the Sens had little chance of running a $45mil payroll with that kind of debt load and low ticket prices and sales. But Bryden came within inches of solving that one too. In the end, things unfolded exactly as Bettman said they would. In an orderly fashion. And proper ownership was finally attained. Through some very sophisticated dealings and thousand of legal documents (Melnyk said he had to sign, more than any other deal he had done), which should allow Melnyk to make out very well overall with the investment he made in the arena and team, especially after the CBA changes from which they have achieved major concessions from the players already, just as an opening gambit.

It probably was foolish granting Ottawa a team when they had no money and no arena. But an incredible group of people made it happen. And lookie-see. They were right. Look ma, no hands. This team has totally captured the city. And still had room to grow. It remains to be seen what Bettmans extortionist lockout and changes will do to that. Melnyk had average families willingly forking out a heck of a lot for tickets before.

Ottawa is by no means without struggles. We are a small market, and things will always be a challenge for us. We knew that when we got a team, what an uphill struggle it would be in a solid habs-leafs market, and all the doubters who would have to be overcome.

But we dont need the right to spend like Toronto or the Rangers. We just need to have a way to do it our way. And we do. Thanks Gary and Bob for last time. Make sure this is your focus when you do it again. You cant make us equal with Toronto. We will never be financially competitive with the Leafs. Right now, we dont need to be.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:13 PM
  #66
Marconius
Registered User
 
Marconius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
How would new stars be created in half a year? The NHL has had approximatley zero players develop into supertars the last 10 years. If they can't do it with superstar level players, how can they do it with replacement players? Would a cap and replacement players automatically make Bettman a marketing genius?

Michael Jordan is probably the most famous athlete of all time, but he didn't acheive that just becuase of his basketball ability. He ahd a great marketing machine in the NBA and Nike behind him. The NHL nor Gary Bettman have never shown a tenth of that ability to market their players.
What exactly is a star? A star is someone who's game is at a level above his peers, in my opinion. If the league fills with replacement players, certainly there will be some who step above and beyond the rest. These will be the new stars.

If you are using superstars in the sense of marketing, well then I agree with you, the NHL will not create any more marketable personalities. But really, I don't think the NHL has ever created a marketable personality. The games most famous 'stars' would be hard pressed to be recognized by the populace at large. I don't watch the NBA, but I know what Lebron James looks like. If you ask a non-NHL watching NBA fan what Sakic or Pronger looks like, I don't they'll have an idea.

Marconius is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:18 PM
  #67
Marconius
Registered User
 
Marconius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
How can you compare a situation where half a season was missed to one where one or two seasons are missed and replacement players are used? The NFL's 1987 situation is the only evidence we have on what happens when replacement players are used. Its the most popular sport in America. Do you honestly think hockey will somehow do better? Has Gary Bettman been saving some magical marketing plan for 10 years?
I think extropolating the effects of using replacement players/missing full year from the last NHL strike is more valid then comparing it to the MBL or NFL strikes.

As has oft been mentioned on these boards, the NBA & MBL are in a completely different position then the NHL. I guess what I'm saying is that the NFl's 1987 situation is so far removed from the NHL's present situation (in terms of initial fan support/tv contracts/basic popularity) that one can not really make any kind of prediction based on how the NFL situation worked out.

Marconius is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:25 PM
  #68
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadoz19
Those that don't know anyone but Gretzky and Lemieux, don't watch hockey as is. I doubt that reduced prices will change that much. Here's a question for everyone who say replacement players will work: Why isn't the AHL, OHL, etc. reporting big gains in attendance with with no NHL???
fans identify with TEAMS. Cheering for an AHL team because he has good talent is quite a change from cheering for the NHL team youve liked for 30 years

txomisc is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:38 PM
  #69
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marconius
I think extropolating the effects of using replacement players/missing full year from the last NHL strike is more valid then comparing it to the MBL or NFL strikes.

As has oft been mentioned on these boards, the NBA & MBL are in a completely different position then the NHL. I guess what I'm saying is that the NFl's 1987 situation is so far removed from the NHL's present situation (in terms of initial fan support/tv contracts/basic popularity) that one can not really make any kind of prediction based on how the NFL situation worked out.
You can't look at the last NHL lockout when talking about replacement players becuase they weren't used. Talking about missing half a year is so much different than missing a full season(or two) and using replacement players. The NFL in 1987 is the only major pro psort to try using them, and it was a disaster. Sure, the NFL was in a completely different posisition than the NHL is now. It was and is the most popular sport in America. How can the NHL expect to do any better than they did?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:41 PM
  #70
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marconius
What exactly is a star? A star is someone who's game is at a level above his peers, in my opinion. If the league fills with replacement players, certainly there will be some who step above and beyond the rest. These will be the new stars.

If you are using superstars in the sense of marketing, well then I agree with you, the NHL will not create any more marketable personalities. But really, I don't think the NHL has ever created a marketable personality. The games most famous 'stars' would be hard pressed to be recognized by the populace at large. I don't watch the NBA, but I know what Lebron James looks like. If you ask a non-NHL watching NBA fan what Sakic or Pronger looks like, I don't they'll have an idea.
You're right, and no matter what, no NHL player will ever have the exposure of Jordan or Lebron. But there have been alot of extremely talented and marketable players come and go in the last 15 years and if the NHL had any marketing ability at all, at least one of them could have become recognizable mainstream.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:42 PM
  #71
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
How can you compare a situation where half a season was missed to one where one or two seasons are missed and replacement players are used? The NFL's 1987 situation is the only evidence we have on what happens when replacement players are used. Its the most popular sport in America. Do you honestly think hockey will somehow do better? Has Gary Bettman been saving some magical marketing plan for 10 years?
there is a bigger dropoff in talent from the NFL to nonNFL players than there is from the NHL to nonNHL players. Sure more kids play football but its very prohibitive. How many 300 plus pounders can move with the speed and power a lineman needs to? How many 6'1" 200 pounders not in the nfl already can run a 4.3 40? In hockey its been proved that smaller guys can be effective...they cant in football.
basically the replacement nflers are a much bigger dropoff in talent and therefore the game was hurt more than the nhl would be

edit: on top of the reasons i gave, there are already 54 players on nfl teams. versus 24? on nhl teams..

txomisc is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:43 PM
  #72
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 10,025
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Ottawa is by no means without struggles. We are a small market, and things will always be a challenge for us. We knew that when we got a team, what an uphill struggle it would be in a solid habs-leafs market, and all the doubters who would have to be overcome.

But we dont need the right to spend like Toronto or the Rangers. We just need to have a way to do it our way. And we do. Thanks Gary and Bob for last time. Make sure this is your focus when you do it again. You cant make us equal with Toronto. We will never be financially competitive with the Leafs. Right now, we dont need to be.
The thing is, the guy that bought the Sens is a billionaire who loves hockey and is intersted in winning. If the team had have been purchased by someone who was really concerned with the bottom line, then the Sens would certainly going in a different direction. It's not so much that they need to spend like the the Leafs or the Rangers, but the fact is they are very much effected by how the Leafs and Rangers spend... as is the rest of the league.

Hossa, Alfredson, Chara, Redden, Philips, et al are all players that in the very near future will be at the top percentile in earning. If New York can't drive up prices, then there is a very good chance that a fair number of these players will stay playing for the Sens. If not, most would be gone in a couple of years.... under the spending conscious management you were talking about.

quat is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:49 PM
  #73
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
there is a bigger dropoff in talent from the NFL to nonNFL players than there is from the NHL to nonNHL players. Sure more kids play football but its very prohibitive. How many 300 plus pounders can move with the speed and power a lineman needs to? How many 6'1" 200 pounders not in the nfl already can run a 4.3 40? In hockey its been proved that smaller guys can be effective...they cant in football.
basically the replacement nflers are a much bigger dropoff in talent and therefore the game was hurt more than the nhl would be
For sure the football was terrible for those 3 weeks in 1987. But I don't think the dropoff in talent has anything to do with attendance. the people saw the replacment players as frauds in the NFL. Hockey fans will see the same thing.

You have to remember that the league isn't going to do anything to make you or me happy. They know(or at least assume) we'll watch, and for the most part, they're right. But I fail to see how people who don't watch now are suddenly going to pay to watch replacment players no matter what their talent level is.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
11-27-2004, 11:58 PM
  #74
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
For sure the football was terrible for those 3 weeks in 1987. But I don't think the dropoff in talent has anything to do with attendance. the people saw the replacment players as frauds in the NFL. Hockey fans will see the same thing.
Not necessarily. Were the fans overwhelmingly on the owners side in 1987 as they are now? Were numerous teams seen as on the edge of bankruptcy? Was the league seen as being on the verge of irrelevancy?

I think not.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 12:09 PM
  #75
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
The thing is, the guy that bought the Sens is a billionaire who loves hockey and is intersted in winning. If the team had have been purchased by someone who was really concerned with the bottom line, then the Sens would certainly going in a different direction.
All teams are owned by billionaires interested in the bottom line. But their bottom line is often not the operational profit and loss statement from the revenues and expenses they have allocated to the team. The reason being a billionaire helps isnt because he is willing to lose money, its because he invested his own money in the team, not borrowed money requiring interest repayment.

Quote:
It's not so much that they need to spend like the the Leafs or the Rangers, but the fact is they are very much effected by how the Leafs and Rangers spend... as is the rest of the league.

Hossa, Alfredson, Chara, Redden, Philips, et al are all players that in the very near future will be at the top percentile in earning. If New York can't drive up prices, then there is a very good chance that a fair number of these players will stay playing for the Sens. If not, most would be gone in a couple of years.... under the spending conscious management you were talking about.
Alfie already signed with us as a UFA for significantly less than Holik cost. Under a cap, any team accumulating that much talent will be forced to be broken up. because no team is allowed to accumulate that many good players under a cap. Under no cap, we can keep more of them if we can afford them. i.e. we are winning. I like our chances better that way.

The Sens are not going to be signing every player who reaches UFA to a contract, only the selected few and only if they keep us winning. For many that is years away. No system will allow us to keep all of them indefintely through their UFA years. Only a non cap gives us chance to keep players who help us win and afford a higher than average payroll.

We already lost Bonk and Lalime this year. Sens need some help lowering salaries to survive, but not a cap. What good is keeping all our expensive players if we are losing and cant afford them. Why should we be forced to cut some if we are winning and can afford it?

NYR only set high prices for UFAs. Why would the Sens care about that market. They could of signed Alfie for more. They have no comparable for Hossa or Havlat or Spezza. Even if they did, why would they pay them more than the values that the small markets have set?

thinkwild 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 07:53 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.