HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Notices

After the lockout...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2012, 10:09 PM
  #51
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
why are we convinced that the penguins will always spend to the cap? right now they have great players, a winning product, and a new arena. they are taking in a lot of money. so they are willing to spend to the cap now.

but maybe 5, 10 years from now that will be old news. decent chance the penguins are a mediocre team. they wont be taking in as much money. other teams in bigger markets with wealthier owners (yeah yeah burkle, but he hasnt shown hes willing to incur huge losses like some other ownership groups) will be able to dwarf the penguins spending.

i feel like people are forgetting that the penguins are not a big market team. they are a small market team that basically got lucky with sid and geno and a new arena, creating a perfect storm for temporarily breaking the bank and being among the leagues biggest spenders.
+1000, nail meet head.

Ugene Malkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 10:18 PM
  #52
TravisUlrich
Eternal Optimist
 
TravisUlrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
please explain.
Pretty self-evident really.

Let's say we want a UFA and the best 2 teams in position are us and the Florida Panthers (for example). Under the current CBA, maybe Florida can't be a player because of actual dollars. Under a new CBA, maybe they are a player and can match every bit as much as we can.

TravisUlrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 10:46 PM
  #53
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisUlrich View Post
Pretty self-evident really.

Let's say we want a UFA and the best 2 teams in position are us and the Florida Panthers (for example). Under the current CBA, maybe Florida can't be a player because of actual dollars. Under a new CBA, maybe they are a player and can match every bit as much as we can.
Let's say The Rangers want a UFA and the best 2 teams in position are The Rangers and the Pittsburgh Penguins (for example). Under the current CBA, both teams can probably compete for the player. Under a new CBA, The Rangers can outbid us every single time.

We are closer to Florida than NYR, Toronto, Montreal, or Philly in terms of money. As good as we are right now, we are a small (maybe middle) market team.

Ogrezilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 12:30 AM
  #54
SkullSplitter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,845
vCash: 500
What effect does a year long lockout have on players' contracts? Does it burn a year or are they frozen? They're not getting paid so I'm not sure why it should burn a year.

SkullSplitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 12:32 AM
  #55
MetalheadPenguinsFan
Disco Is Dead!!!
 
MetalheadPenguinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,956
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66 View Post
I actually think the league can support 20 teams. I think the problem with that is more about where than if. Does FLA really need 2 teams? I would rather see teams in both Quebec and Hamilton than 2 FLA teams. Not only will great teams sell out there but even if a team is on the cusp of being good, like the Yotes and Panthers, they'll do great. There's less downside.
I agree. Cut the league down a bit.

Although if they start re-locating or terminating teams, then there's gonna be alot of "Why does Team X stay but I can't believe I'm gonna lose my Team Y" whining, and *****ing going on.

It's a no-win situation really. Personally I think the league has gotten too big for it's britches. I mean as ridiculous as Florida having two teams is, California has 3 of them.

MetalheadPenguinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 12:33 AM
  #56
WhatsaMaatta
Registered User
 
WhatsaMaatta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
You're assuming a lot and the Penguins' financial situation is a lot better than it used to be, without or without Crosby. The team has much deeper pockets now, a new arena, etc. You can't assume just because we're not Philly or NY that any player proposal is going to be "bad for the Penguins".

To answer your other question, there is no fundamental problem the league faces financially. The problem is the owners decided to make a money grab and won't back down from a ridiculous position. They have intended to lock the players out from the beginning of the summer IMO. They knew there was no chance in hell the proposal they made would fly, on any of the major points.
How is it a money grab? The players currently take in well over half the league revenue. I don't see what's so wrong with a 50/50 split, especially when the owners are the group currently losing money on a yearly basis, not the players.

This isn't about greed; this is about making an NHL franchise a wise investment across North America so that the league can be more sustainable.


Last edited by WhatsaMaatta: 08-25-2012 at 12:42 AM.
WhatsaMaatta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 12:44 AM
  #57
SkullSplitter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,845
vCash: 500
A couple things:

1. If the cap goes any higher, the point of the cap is going to be moot soon, because only a handful of teams will be able to spend up to the cap when you want to have it at a point where every team can afford to spend to the cap & be able to be in the black. For that reason, Fehr's proposal in this kind of scares me.

2. Regardless of point 1, maybe Bettman needs to accept that there are better markets for hockey teams than some of the small markets in the league. I feel yeah, some teams going through troubled waters just need a little bit of faith & help from the league & they'll be fine so long as the cap stays reasonable. But maybe some other teams can't make it, and as hard as it is to give up on a market & admit a failure, maybe it's that time for Phoenix (& possibly Nassau county & Miami)

SkullSplitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 02:03 AM
  #58
KaylaJ
Tungsten!
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 14,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullSplitter View Post
2. Regardless of point 1, maybe Bettman needs to accept that there are better markets for hockey teams than some of the small markets in the league. I feel yeah, some teams going through troubled waters just need a little bit of faith & help from the league & they'll be fine so long as the cap stays reasonable. But maybe some other teams can't make it, and as hard as it is to give up on a market & admit a failure, maybe it's that time for Phoenix (& possibly Nassau county & Miami)

Give Florida a chance. They were suffering with bad management for years, but Tallon and company have really cleaned them up well. They have a plan going forward, some good players, and high rated prospects. Of course a lockout and a blow to the CBA won't help (it won't help a lot of teams beyond the ones you mentioned), but I don't think you can throw them out too easily just yet.

KaylaJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 02:23 AM
  #59
Alesle
Registered User
 
Alesle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 530
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fictionzero View Post
Pardon my ignorance, I know there are all kinds of insane legalities that would be massive headaches. But what's the likelyhood of contraction after this lockout (if it does take place)?
Extremely unlikely. From an economical point of view the remaining owners would have to spend a lot of money to buy out the other teams, while the players would lose a lot of potential jobs.

Alesle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 04:23 AM
  #60
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
Let's say The Rangers want a UFA and the best 2 teams in position are The Rangers and the Pittsburgh Penguins (for example). Under the current CBA, both teams can probably compete for the player. Under a new CBA, The Rangers can outbid us every single time.

We are closer to Florida than NYR, Toronto, Montreal, or Philly in terms of money. As good as we are right now, we are a small (maybe middle) market team.
Right on, as almost always.

Milliardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 04:26 AM
  #61
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
Googled up some more Data today in my futile attempts to talk The Chancellor into taking a more Penguin friendly position on the impending lockout.

Turns out Forbes is the only newscorp doing yearly financial reviews of the NHL (I know-surprise surprise) and there is a 4 year trend that was easy to identify, while quite disturbing.

The number of teams in the red has been steadily increasing for years; 12 in 2008, 14 in 2009, 16 in 2010, and 18 in 2011. So in 4 years we went from 12 teams losing money to only 12 teams making money.

That is a horrifying trend for any League. It's especially bad given the record breaking increases in net revenue over the same time period.

The NHL business model as presently designed in the CBA is completely unsustainable. I did not know it was this bad. The owners literally can't give in to Donald Fehr and the players, it would be like slitting their own throats.
Thanks for looking up the exact numbers. People need no read this again and againg. 18 of 30 teams are losing money at that was with the cap at 64, it would have been over 70 with the current CBA for next season, which probably puts the numbers of money losing teams at over 20. It's getting out of hand, plain an simple, so changes need to be made to keep the cap from rising even further. A cap around 60 (without the possibility of a raise of several millions each season) should be the max IMO.

Milliardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 06:05 AM
  #62
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 68,713
vCash: 50
The league would never contract let alone reduced it's number of teams to 20. People made the point that Florida has two teams and California three but It's worth remembering that of those 5 teams - 3 have won the cup within the last 10 years. Of the other teams San Jose has qualified for every post-season since 2003. Florida Panthers are the only "failing" team.

Shrimper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 08:26 AM
  #63
bathroomSTAAL
The halcyon days
 
bathroomSTAAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: **** Mountain
Country: United States
Posts: 9,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
The league would never contract let alone reduced it's number of teams to 20. People made the point that Florida has two teams and California three but It's worth remembering that of those 5 teams - 3 have won the cup within the last 10 years. Of the other teams San Jose has qualified for every post-season since 2003. Florida Panthers are the only "failing" team.
Well there's a big difference between success on the ice and financial solvency. Remember Howard Baldwin? The fact that the Lightning won the Cup 8 years ago isn't doing anything for their financial health right now.

bathroomSTAAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 09:52 AM
  #64
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
The league would never contract let alone reduced it's number of teams to 20. People made the point that Florida has two teams and California three but It's worth remembering that of those 5 teams - 3 have won the cup within the last 10 years. Of the other teams San Jose has qualified for every post-season since 2003. Florida Panthers are the only "failing" team.
There are also more people living in California than in Canada

Ogrezilla is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 09:59 AM
  #65
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
Chancelor - in the face of market data clearly showing a league at risk fiscally - your position on this is quite stunning. Where is your data supporting the theory of a fiscally sound League that is just out to take advantage of players and fans?
If the league is in such bad financial straights that the owners would be right to propose another roll-back etc, why is this the first we're hearing of it? Also your Forbes numbers don't really tell the full story AFAICT. I'm not a banker so maybe some of the numbers mean more than I think they do but I don't buy this idea that all of a sudden the league is in big trouble. ALl we've heard until about a month ago was how financially strong the league is as a whole. If some teams are in trouble the answer is revenue sharing, not pretending this is 2004.

Also where is the info how how individual teams choose to spend money, what their owners are contributing, etc? If the owners chose to, they could invest a few million more of their billions into some of these teams. The reality is these teams are a "side-business" for some of these guys and they don't treat the organization the way they would with other corporations and businesses they own.

For now let's keep this thread on target as to fan behavior and choices. All CBA talk to the CBA thread (I'll try to do the same). Thanks!

Darth Vitale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 02:30 PM
  #66
WhatsaMaatta
Registered User
 
WhatsaMaatta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
If the league is in such bad financial straights that the owners would be right to propose another roll-back etc, why is this the first we're hearing of it? Also your Forbes numbers don't really tell the full story AFAICT. I'm not a banker so maybe some of the numbers mean more than I think they do but I don't buy this idea that all of a sudden the league is in big trouble. ALl we've heard until about a month ago was how financially strong the league is as a whole. If some teams are in trouble the answer is revenue sharing, not pretending this is 2004.

Also where is the info how how individual teams choose to spend money, what their owners are contributing, etc? If the owners chose to, they could invest a few million more of their billions into some of these teams. The reality is these teams are a "side-business" for some of these guys and they don't treat the organization the way they would with other corporations and businesses they own.

For now let's keep this thread on target as to fan behavior and choices. All CBA talk to the CBA thread (I'll try to do the same). Thanks!
This is far from the first time we're hearing of financial issues in the NHL. Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, all are prime examples of financial instability in the league.

The fact that you think owners don't treat thesas franchises as businesses. . . I don't know what to say. It takes a shrewd mind to get to the point where you can afford even a small stake in a sports franchise. Even in the most "charitable" situations currently, such as the one in San Jose, owners are assuredly doing whatever they can to get back to a black bottom line. These guys didn't get to where they are today by just throwing money away.

WhatsaMaatta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 04:13 PM
  #67
KaylaJ
Tungsten!
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 14,124
vCash: 500
This is the Minnesota Wild's owner speaking after they signed Parise & Suter:

“We’ve been losing money and the way we were going, we were going to have another year of ‘keep losing more money and more money and more money.’ So if I’m going to make the kind of financial commitment to keep this team and move this forward, I’d rather do it growing it.

“Ultimately that was the decision. As a result of this move, it’s not going to cause us to be financially stable. I believe it will be within a year or two. This is a move to get us out of the hole that we’ve been digging. And as I spoke with some other owners in the league as to why I did it, they totally get it. They understand it. At some point you have to make that kind of commitment in order to turn your franchise around. If we didn’t, then we would just keep losing more going forward without any plan of changing it.”


We talk about teams like PHX, the Islanders, Florida, etc, but Minnesota has a good market and a healthy attendance record. If they're losing money and may not even think they'll be stable until a year or two, what does that say about not just the league, but could even say about Pittsburgh?

The owners are not giving out these contracts because they want to hurt themselves. They are having to shoot themselves in the foot so that the head survives. And if they don't take that gamble, they risk not only losing more money, but losing these big FA name to the big market teams that they already cannot keep up with.

KaylaJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 04:44 PM
  #68
invictus
Registered User
 
invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,818
vCash: 500
I've decided that if games have not commenced by Thanksgiving 2012, I am done with the hockey watching portion of my life.

invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 04:56 PM
  #69
Sideline
Registered User
 
Sideline's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invictus View Post
I've decided that if games have not commenced by Thanksgiving 2012, I am done with the hockey watching portion of my life.
I thought I wouldn't come back after he last lockout. I learned that I will always come back.

Sideline is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 05:12 PM
  #70
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invictus View Post
I've decided that if games have not commenced by Thanksgiving 2012, I am done with the hockey watching portion of my life.
If you enjoy watching hockey, this is a dumb position to take (and one of entitlement) imo. I'll watch regardless of when it comes back, because I enjoy watching it. I really hope there's no lockout or at least, no regular season missed. However, I realize it's a business and you can't expect over half the owners to be fine with continuing to lose money. And likewise, while I'm much more on the owners side, the players are going to fight massive wage cuts to make sure they don't get trampled.

PensFanSince1989 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 05:53 PM
  #71
invictus
Registered User
 
invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideline View Post
I thought I wouldn't come back after he last lockout. I learned that I will always come back.
Last one didn't matter much to me as I had just entered the military and didn't even finish all my training until May of 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
If you enjoy watching hockey, this is a dumb position to take (and one of entitlement) imo. I'll watch regardless of when it comes back, because I enjoy watching it. I really hope there's no lockout or at least, no regular season missed. However, I realize it's a business and you can't expect over half the owners to be fine with continuing to lose money. And likewise, while I'm much more on the owners side, the players are going to fight massive wage cuts to make sure they don't get trampled.
How is it entitled? I don't think I am entitled to have hockey start by October X date. I just have a lot of varied interests and such, and hockey being delayed too long will simply push it out of a spot high enough to be worth following.

Edit: Think of it like two shows you enjoying being in the same time slot and not having DVR. You start watching one and stick with it. Hockey has been that #1 choice for a while, but once it gets passed up, who knows when it'll be back at the top of the rotation!


Last edited by invictus: 08-25-2012 at 05:59 PM.
invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:17 PM
  #72
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
The league would never contract let alone reduced it's number of teams to 20. People made the point that Florida has two teams and California three but It's worth remembering that of those 5 teams - 3 have won the cup within the last 10 years. Of the other teams San Jose has qualified for every post-season since 2003. Florida Panthers are the only "failing" team.
Fully agree that the league would never contract. That doesn't make it right though. Through the 90's the NHL expanded way to fast. How does a league expand when it can't support teams like Quebec and the Whale? And to go back to Hotlanta no less.

I don't have a problem with the West coast teams. Hockey is huge out there and the 90's Kings teams showed what kind of support the league could get.

My big thing is... why have any dead teams? Contract to 28 or 26 teams, get the league healthy and make sure its health for the long haul.

#66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:15 PM
  #73
Vos
Registered User
 
Vos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis IN
Country: United States
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
I'm letting Center Ice go too. I might just take in a few more USHL games this year, since the team in Indy is moving downtown to the Pacer's arena, while their arena gets a two year rebuild. Even after the lockout, I can just watch NHL network and their highlight show to keep up on things.

Vos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:16 PM
  #74
Vos
Registered User
 
Vos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis IN
Country: United States
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66 View Post
Fully agree that the league would never contract. That doesn't make it right though. Through the 90's the NHL expanded way to fast. How does a league expand when it can't support teams like Quebec and the Whale? And to go back to Hotlanta no less.

I don't have a problem with the West coast teams. Hockey is huge out there and the 90's Kings teams showed what kind of support the league could get.

My big thing is... why have any dead teams? Contract to 28 or 26 teams, get the league healthy and make sure its health for the long haul.
Plus, just thnk of the awesome 3rd and 4th lines!

Vos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 09:23 AM
  #75
Le Magnifique 66
Let's Go Pens
 
Le Magnifique 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sideline View Post
I thought I wouldn't come back after he last lockout. I learned that I will always come back.
ya I wouldn't be able either, pissed at them big time and probably would stop purchasing tickets and memorabilia, but never watching again is impossible, love hockey too much

Le Magnifique 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:16 AM.

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.