HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Are Fans of Big Market Teams Annoyed At the Money-Losing Teams?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2012, 07:36 PM
  #301
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
It seems like Bettman really caters to them in these negotiations. There's no way the rich teams can behappy about no hockey being played again. They open their doors and make money. There are teams losing less money by not playing.

A lot of the teams losing the most money are teams Bettman brought in via expansion in the 90's. He can't have these teams fold. It will make him look like a huge failure.

The fact is, the reason revenues are up is because the Canadian dollar has skyrocketed since the last lockout, as well as big market teams like Chicago and Boston doing so much better and raking-in much more revenue.

The revenues aren't up because Columbus, Nashville, Florida, Anaheim are making more money. Nothing has changed for these teams at all.

This "Revenues are up" argument is a mirage. It's still about helping the same teams as it was 7 years ago.
Big market/revenue owners have no one to blame but themselves. They were the ones were ok'd expansion into those cities.

Expansion teams since the 21 teams at the beginning of the 90's, plus the 5 relocations have been:

San Jose
Ottawa
Tampa Bay
Anaheim
Florida
Nashville
Atlanta (moved to Winnipeg)
Minnesota
Columbus

Relocation:
Colorado
Dallas
Phoenix
Carolina
Winnipeg (from expansion Atlanta)

Of this list, which teams are not doing well? How many from the 21 prior to the 90's expansion are doing poorly?

As always, short term thinking on the owners part, taking their few millions in NHL expansion fees while not realizing that once these teams got into the league, they have the same voting rights as they do now. Nashville, Florida, Columbus, etc. vote is worth the same as Philly's, Toronto's, New York Ranger's, Detroit's, etc.

Did the NHL need to expand as much as they did? No, but they wanted to artifically hit that 30 team number. They were still trying to build up the game to accommodate the extra 100 NHL jobs they created in a span of 3 years from 1991-1993, then they thought it would be a great idea to add another 80 regular jobs in a span of another 3 years.

Add to that, the NHL has done a lousy job of ensuring that the teams get out of the gate well. SJ, TB, Ott, and FLA all played in inadequate arenas when they first broke into the league. NHL needs to be more proactive with their owners on building arenas/or at least work with them on where an arena should be built. Why on Earth did the NHL allow the Coyotes to accept the deal in Glendale? Didn't they understand that if the owner ever wanted to sell the team, they would have to remain in Glendale due to the lease? Have to have each franchise located in the right place. If Seattle is an attract market for the NHL, they should be doing their own research to determine if the proposed arena in the area by Safeco and the Seahawk's stadium is the right location for hockey fans in the Puget Sound area. There's been talk that a location in Bellevue might be better.

Too many teams too soon. NBA is suffering from that too, worse even. Ever see a home game from a small market team like Milwaukee, Minnesota, Charlotte, etc. from the past couple of seasons? The upper bowl is completely dark, as the cameras never give a wide shot of the arena since the stands are empty. NBA is getting worse as top end players only want to go to a handful of big market teams like the Lakers, Heat, Knicks, Bulls, Celtics, etc.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 07:38 PM
  #302
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,798
vCash: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
But fans are fans. Just because they aren't high paying fans doesn't make them fans. I wouldn't pay to go to a Leafs game in Toronto! Am I not a fan?
You do understand this is the business board, correct? Allow me to put it this way, fans mean nothing at the bank, only money. If some markets are more capable of paying their own way versus others, then those markets are certainly worth more. If markets like QC and GTA are able to replace a few of the largest league revenue drains and actually contribute to earnings versus drain them, then both the league and players are better off as a result.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 07:39 PM
  #303
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerRoeper View Post
It seems like Bettman really caters to them in these negotiations. There's no way the rich teams can behappy about no hockey being played again. They open their doors and make money. There are teams losing less money by not playing.

A lot of the teams losing the most money are teams Bettman brought in via expansion in the 90's. He can't have these teams fold. It will make him look like a huge failure.

The fact is, the reason revenues are up is because the Canadian dollar has skyrocketed since the last lockout, as well as big market teams like Chicago and Boston doing so much better and raking-in much more revenue.

The revenues aren't up because Columbus, Nashville, Florida, Anaheim are making more money. Nothing has changed for these teams at all.

This "Revenues are up" argument is a mirage. It's still about helping the same teams as it was 7 years ago.
As a fan of a large market team.

The short answer to this question is: Yes, it is annoying to see so many teams hemorraging money.

The longer version goes something like this:

Large market teams have a larger responsibility to the game. They have deeper roots, more fans, and make more money. So yes, they do have a certain responsibility to grow the game.

The question is: At what point do they say, "Enough is enough?"

Here you have a team like San Jose, who last year spent 65M dollars on player salaries and reported a -7.8M dollars in operating income.

Let's be clear: I'm not trying to pick on the Sharks, they're one of my favorite teams in the Western Conference, I just think they're an excellent example to make my point.

The Sharks are your ideal expansion franchise: They've been in existance since 1991 and have grown a solid and knowledgeable fanbase, are perennial contenders and are loved by Northern Californians as evidence they've posted attendance records of 100%+ for the last 3 years running (and probably further back than that). They sell merchandise, get nationally televised games, and have one of the most recognizable brands in all of hockey.

So why can't they turn a profit!?!!

My point is this:

If teams like San Jose are doing everything RIGHT and STILL losing money. How the **** do we ever expect a team like Phoenix (who went to the WCF and still lost 20M) or Columbus (whose management blunders and poor scouting, among other things have run it into the ground) or Minnesota (who report losses of 6M last year, then go sign Parise and Suter to identical 7.5M dollar deals).

At what point do they start becoming self sufficient and either raise ticket prices or stop spending so friggin much on players? At what point do you pull them off the teat, and say... "No more milk for you."

Last year 17 out of 30 teams LOST money. Teams in the black made ~250M. Teams in the red lost ~100M. Those who lost money come to the "revenue sharing line" with their hand out saying "Times are tough."

If your neighbor, who just bought a $50K car, had a large addition put onto his house, leaves the lights on all night, and sends his kids to the most expensive schools in the country came and knocked on your door and said, "I'm behind on my mortgage. Since you're doing well. I'm going to need about $70K, PLZ & THANK YOU!" You'd probably slam the ****ing door in his face. Now imagine if it wasn't just him, but 17 of the 30 homeowners in your neighborhood.

If it were only a few teams that were losing, I could understand; but not 17/30. It is not sustainable nor acceptable to expect the large market teams to subsidize the small market teams as much as they currently are.

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 07:52 PM
  #304
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Here you have a team like San Jose, who last year spent 65M dollars on player salaries and reported a -7.8M dollars in operating income.

Let's be clear: I'm not trying to pick on the Sharks, they're one of my favorite teams in the Western Conference, I just think they're an excellent example to make my point.

The Sharks are your ideal expansion franchise: They've been in existance since 1991 and have grown a solid and knowledgeable fanbase, are perennial contenders and are loved by Northern Californians as evidence they've posted attendance records of 100%+ for the last 3 years running (and probably further back than that). They sell merchandise, get nationally televised games, and have one of the most recognizable brands in all of hockey.

So why can't they turn a profit!?!!
There's a difference between "can't" and "didn't."

You said it yourself: "last year spent 65M dollars on player salaries and reported a -7.8M dollars in operating income."

They spend $57 million on salary, and they make money. They CHOSE to spend $65 million and CHOSE to lose $7.8 million. The choice was made because they wanted to put a better team on the ice and they wanted to win.

AND because they're not living and dying on profit/loss. NO TEAM IS. THESE ARE NOT MOM & POP STORES, THESE ARE PARTS OF CORPORATE EMPIRES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
If it were only a few teams that were losing, I could understand; but not 17/30. It is not sustainable nor acceptable to expect the large market teams to subsidize the small market teams as much as they currently are.
In the National Football League, National Basketball Association, and Major League Baseball, it is sustainable, and it is acceptable. And no one pisses and moans about the Texas Rangers, Houston Astros, San Diego Padres, Atlanta Braves (or Toronto Blue Jays) having teams in their cities.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 07:57 PM
  #305
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Just like all the Canadian teams (save Montreal and Toronto) during the 1990s...if there's no excuses for Columbus, then there's certainly no excuses for Edmonton and Winnipeg.
The difference is, is that the problems the Canadian teams had were outside of hockey. The problems that many teams today have stem from a lack of demand of hockey itself.

The answer, of course, is to grow the game in those areas. Aggressively.

I don't desire to contract or move teams. Expansion I can get on board with, but I wonder how much more one can cram into the Canadian market.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:05 PM
  #306
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Flyerfan, I assume you're a Philadelphia Flyers and, and also a Philadelphia Phillies fan.

-- Can your Phillies afford to compete in Major League Baseball? Yes, just like the Flyers.
-- Are your Phillies screwed because they lost $11.6 million in 2011? No, they were spending to try and win a championship.
-- Did you actually notice, or care, that the Phillies put in about $30 million than they got back in MLB's revenue sharing model the year they won the World Series?

What about revenue sharing is unacceptable or unsustainable?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:09 PM
  #307
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
...The answer, of course, is to grow the game in those areas. Aggressively.... I don't desire to contract or move teams. Expansion I can get on board with, but I wonder how much more one can cram into the Canadian market.
Nor do I quite frankly. Ideally, a planned Expansion over the next decade of 6 teams. 3 in Canada (QC/Markham/Hamilton) and 3 in the US (Seattle/Portland/Houston).... and ya, aggressive marketing & promotion in all markets, including the financial support by the NHL & the local franchises in conjunction with the PA & Sponsors in building community arenas, outdoor synthetic ice facilities, establishing amateur leagues etc. Shouldve been doing it 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago already.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:16 PM
  #308
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
The difference is, is that the problems the Canadian teams had were outside of hockey. The problems that many teams today have stem from a lack of demand of hockey itself.

The answer, of course, is to grow the game in those areas. Aggressively.

I don't desire to contract or move teams. Expansion I can get on board with, but I wonder how much more one can cram into the Canadian market.
What about bad leases in Columbus, Nashville and Long Island is "inside of hockey" ?

How do you define "demand" for hockey? Is it attendance? Gate revenue? What?

You can't make an index of "demand for hockey" because of a myriad of factors that influence gate revenue. Everytime I point out that FLA, TB, DAL, NASH, CBJ, ANA, etc have had a higher attendance average in their entire existence the the MAXIMUM attendance Winnipeg can have, someone brings up ticket prices and revenue. Then we have places like Buffalo and St. Louis. Who have high attendance for prices that aren't dirt cheap… and they still have low revenue.

So, if it can't be attendance, and it can't be revenue, and it can't be market, how are you determining who is a problem and who is? And the answer is: A lot of you guys are basing it on geography, cherry picking your stats and hiding from the actual problem the league faces: The CBA contains an extremely flawed formula.

If you eliminated the southern teams and struggling northern teams like NYI, STL and COL… We'd all be very happy in a nostalgia-filled 18-team league. And the CBA would turn the bottom third of THAT league into an economic wasteland. Only then, it would be BUF, OTT, EDM, etc who would begin to wither and die.

Fix the formula in the CBA, and it doesn't matter where your franchises are located, they can all be successful. Then we can expand into underserved markets.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:32 PM
  #309
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,798
vCash: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
As opposed to meaningless profit/loss statistics?
Well, you've certainly offered no profit and loss statistics but rather simply generally referenced that a single team made money every year over a defined period, which is also near meaningless in scope given that on a net basis a few teams also likely made tens of millions during the entire period, and a few others likely lost a similar amount. The losers are sure to come from the list of teams that received revenue sharing each year; it would sure be nice to see an actual accounting.

I'm not averse to the revenue sharing concept as it currently stands and would like to see the cap floor drop precipitously in fact. At some point though some of the welfare earners need be declared lost causes, because currently good money is annually being thrown away after bad and the NHL is using the player share of revenues to finance some poor markets. What I'd prefer to see would be a league with teams situated in the strongest hockey markets, where demand is the highest (judged by actual revenues, not attendance), and by extension for the league to stop propping up a few of the clearly failed markets that they tried to create.

You continually advocate the further taxing of businesses that make money to pay for those that do not. Taxes don't need to be raised, some teams just need to be relocated to wealthier hockey climes.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:52 PM
  #310
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Nor do I quite frankly. Ideally, a planned Expansion over the next decade of 6 teams. 3 in Canada (QC/Markham/Hamilton) and 3 in the US (Seattle/Portland/Houston).... and ya, aggressive marketing & promotion in all markets, including the financial support by the NHL & the local franchises in conjunction with the PA & Sponsors in building community arenas, outdoor synthetic ice facilities, establishing amateur leagues etc. Shouldve been doing it 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago already.
I would absolutely support this. Realignment would be a massive pain the taint, though.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:54 PM
  #311
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
As a fan of a large market team.

The short answer to this question is: Yes, it is annoying to see so many teams hemorraging money.

The longer version goes something like this:

Large market teams have a larger responsibility to the game. They have deeper roots, more fans, and make more money. So yes, they do have a certain responsibility to grow the game.

The question is: At what point do they say, "Enough is enough?"

Here you have a team like San Jose, who last year spent 65M dollars on player salaries and reported a -7.8M dollars in operating income.

Let's be clear: I'm not trying to pick on the Sharks, they're one of my favorite teams in the Western Conference, I just think they're an excellent example to make my point.

The Sharks are your ideal expansion franchise: They've been in existance since 1991 and have grown a solid and knowledgeable fanbase, are perennial contenders and are loved by Northern Californians as evidence they've posted attendance records of 100%+ for the last 3 years running (and probably further back than that). They sell merchandise, get nationally televised games, and have one of the most recognizable brands in all of hockey.

So why can't they turn a profit!?!!

My point is this:

If teams like San Jose are doing everything RIGHT and STILL losing money. How the **** do we ever expect a team like Phoenix (who went to the WCF and still lost 20M) or Columbus (whose management blunders and poor scouting, among other things have run it into the ground) or Minnesota (who report losses of 6M last year, then go sign Parise and Suter to identical 7.5M dollar deals).

At what point do they start becoming self sufficient and either raise ticket prices or stop spending so friggin much on players? At what point do you pull them off the teat, and say... "No more milk for you."

Last year 17 out of 30 teams LOST money. Teams in the black made ~250M. Teams in the red lost ~100M. Those who lost money come to the "revenue sharing line" with their hand out saying "Times are tough."

If your neighbor, who just bought a $50K car, had a large addition put onto his house, leaves the lights on all night, and sends his kids to the most expensive schools in the country came and knocked on your door and said, "I'm behind on my mortgage. Since you're doing well. I'm going to need about $70K, PLZ & THANK YOU!" You'd probably slam the ****ing door in his face. Now imagine if it wasn't just him, but 17 of the 30 homeowners in your neighborhood.

If it were only a few teams that were losing, I could understand; but not 17/30. It is not sustainable nor acceptable to expect the large market teams to subsidize the small market teams as much as they currently are.
f they're selling out every single time they play, they likely have room to increase ticket prices.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:58 PM
  #312
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 10,514
vCash: 500
OT (then again, this whole thread is by now), but keep in mind that a lot of the financial gain for owners isn't year to year, but buying to selling.

For instance, Owner x buys a team for, say, 300mil. They lose 5mil per year (a HUGE amount compared to current teams). 10 years later, he sells the team for 400mil. Even though he "lost" 50mil over those 10 seasons, he still actually gained 50mil due to the difference in purchase and sale price. Simple example, but the point remains.

Keep in mind that profit per season =/= actual money gained.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:04 PM
  #313
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Well, you've certainly offered no profit and loss statistics but rather simply generally referenced that a single team made money every year over a defined period, which is also near meaningless in scope given that on a net basis a few teams also likely made tens of millions during the entire period, and a few others likely lost a similar amount. The losers are sure to come from the list of teams that received revenue sharing each year; it would sure be nice to see an actual accounting.
It would be. Of course, every attempt is met with "Forbes is estimates!"

I still haven't heard why it matters, though. You're judging franchises based on their self-reported numbers that have zero consistency in accounting practice and plenty of agendas behind them.

Rich owners want to hide as much profits as they can. Poor owners want to show as much poverty as they can (Well, towards the end of a CBA. At the beginning, they trumpet how they're on the road to riches!). Amazing how the reports immediately AFTER a CBA are overwhelmingly positive, and how overwhelmingly negative they are at the END of a CBA. Hmmmmm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I'm not averse to the revenue sharing concept as it currently stands and would like to see the cap floor drop precipitously in fact. At some point though some of the welfare earners need be declared lost causes because currently good money is annually being thrown away after bad
At what point, financially? The argument seems to be based solely on geographic location or date of franchise establishment, and not by any measurable metric that applies to all franchises. It wasn't dumping good money after bad in PIT, OTT, EDM, BUF, etc, but it is in NASH, PHX, CBJ. Show some consistency. Give us a proposed policy that is actually meaningful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
and the NHL is using the player share of revenues to finance some poor markets.
So the poor markets have money to give to players!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
What I'd prefer to see would be a league with teams situated in the strongest hockey markets, where demand is the highest (judged by actual revenues, not attendance), and by extension for the league to stop propping up a few of the clearly failed markets that they tried to create.
Again, let's see a uniform definition of a failed market. Judging by your definition of high demand, New York is a flourishing, average and failed market at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
You continually advocate the further taxing of businesses that make money to pay for those that do not. Taxes don't need to be raised, some teams just need to be relocated to wealthier hockey climes.
I actually haven't advocated anything besides a CBA based on median and the difference put into revenue sharing.

You keep calling revenue sharing "taxes," but a system of economic Darwinism you appear to be advocating will continually thin the herd into extinction.

Again, why do you care if MLSE, Cablevision or Comcast pockets $18 million or it promotes NHL hockey elsewhere?

What benefit is it to the fans of big market teams to "stop propping up" other franchises? There's one I can think of, and it's a selfish, nostalgia-driven reason (that I totally agree with and would love, for the record). And that is "fewer games against teams I don't care about, and more games against traditional teams."

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:09 PM
  #314
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top 6 Spaling View Post
OT (then again, this whole thread is by now), but keep in mind that a lot of the financial gain for owners isn't year to year, but buying to selling.

For instance, Owner x buys a team for, say, 300mil. They lose 5mil per year (a HUGE amount compared to current teams). 10 years later, he sells the team for 400mil. Even though he "lost" 50mil over those 10 seasons, he still actually gained 50mil due to the difference in purchase and sale price. Simple example, but the point remains.

Keep in mind that profit per season =/= actual money gained.
Eventually that house of cards collapses, someone is left holding the bag and the downward spiral begins.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:12 PM
  #315
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 10,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Eventually that house of cards collapses, someone is left holding the bag and the downward spiral begins.
Maybe, but it isnt often that pro sports teams lose value over any period of time.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:19 PM
  #316
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,304
vCash: 500
Not only we're fed up with them but nobody up wants to see these teams plays when they come to town. Nobody wants to see Columbus or Florida.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:20 PM
  #317
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Not only we're fed up with them but nobody up wants to see these teams plays when they come to town. Nobody wants to see Columbus or Florida.
Florida was a playoff team. Montreal and Toronto weren't.

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:23 PM
  #318
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Eventually that house of cards collapses, someone is left holding the bag and the downward spiral begins.
You're saying that if a team had large losses for say, 15 straight seasons, and didn't get a dime of revenue sharing, that would be a "failed market," the team would go bankrupt or relocate?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:23 PM
  #319
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,798
vCash: 2203
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
At what point, financially? The argument seems to be based solely on geographic location and not by any measurable metric that applies to all franchises. It wasn't dumping good money after bad in PIT, OTT, EDM, BUF, etc, but it is in NASH, PHX, CBJ. Show some consistency. Give us a proposed policy that is actually meaningful.
The teams you mention are hardly analogous. Some were in short term trouble, while others are perennial money losers.

Quote:
So the poor markets have money to give to players!
Remove a few of those poor markets and allow richer teams located in areas where the sport is most popular to take their place. More money for all involved.

Quote:
Again, let's see a uniform definition of a failed market. Judging by your definition of high demand, New York is a flourishing, average and failed market at the same time.
Unsure of how you came to that conclusion; using the poorest of the current revenue sharing recipient crop is a good start. NYI is a special case; not really applicable to this discussion.

Quote:
You keep calling revenue sharing "taxes," but a system of economic Darwinism you appear to be advocating will continually thin the herd into extinction. Again, why do you care if MLSE pockets $18 million or it promotes NHL hockey elsewhere?
MLSE could use that 18 million to pay down the construction of their arena or as a return to the folks that just spent money to buy the team. How in your world is someone in Nashville for example entitled to the ownership returns due Rogers and Bell?

Quote:
What benefit is it to the fans of big market teams to "stop propping up" other franchises? There's one I can think of, and it's a selfish, nostalgia-driven reason (that I totally agree with and would love, for the record). And that is "fewer games against teams I don't care about, and more games against traditional teams."
The benefit is to replace those teams with stronger markets and for the sport to be sold in areas where it is most popular. Thanks for trying to paraphrase my words though but I frankly would not care if an NHL team was located in Paraguay... as long as is wasn't sustained near solely by taxes taxes applied to the other franchises (and by extension, their fans).

Carry on without me; I'm out for the evening.


Last edited by Gump Hasek: 10-08-2012 at 09:32 PM.
Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:27 PM
  #320
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
You're saying that if a team had large losses for say, 15 straight seasons, and didn't get a dime of revenue sharing, that would be a "failed market," the team would go bankrupt or relocate?
I'd say

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:34 PM
  #321
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 26,169
vCash: 500
In hindsight I think it's clear that the NHL (and even the NBA) bought into their own hype too much in the late 80s/early 90s and over expanded into too many markets.

Especially the NHL. I think "growing the game" has its limits and the NHL unfortunately has learned this the hard way.

I also think the one falacy of the 90s argument with Calgary/Edmonton/Ottawa is this -- those Canadian markets unlike Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver to an extent are very young franchises effectively. By 1998, they still had may one generation of fan base.

Today with the added time you have multi-generational fanbases, ie: half the fans at a regular Oilers game nowadays never even saw Gretzky play for the Oilers (their parents did). Ditto for the Flames, lots of the new Flames fans never saw that '89 team that won the Cup in person, they know the Flames as Iginla + Kipprusoff, not Fleury + MacInnis + Nieuwendyk.

But their parents are still fans too (the ones who watched Gretzky + MacInnis etc.). Hence now you effectively have 2-3 "generations" of fans. This is why the Oilers can still sell out every night even when the team is in last place, the range of the fan base has increased. The people who watched Gretzky are now grown up, had kids of their own, and they are the new "generation" of fans.

Toronto and Montreal benefit greatly from this obviously as some families have 3-4 generations of fans.


Last edited by Soundwave: 10-08-2012 at 10:45 PM.
Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:36 PM
  #322
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalGodAOD View Post
********. I was born in Dallas, Texas and grew up 100 miles North of Sunrise, Florida. I played ball hockey in the streets and loved watching the Panthers. I moved to Orlando, 100 miles East of Tampa for college, and started watching the Lightning. Once I really started getting into hockey I switched my allegience to my hometown, but still made an effort to support the local Florida teams.

Saying a Sunbelt kid can't appreciate the game is ****ing ridiculous. I fell in love with the game on the streets in roller skates. I grew that love watching local "failing" markets. Now I'm a diehard adult hockey fan, supporting Sunbelt teams 1000 miles away from where I live. My kids will grow up hockey fans, whether of my teams or the local NE teams who knows, but I've grown the sport. The Sunbelt expansion grew the sport.
You might say it grew the sport by having one more fan in Florida because of Florida teams but if the sport, the league would be healthier the sport would grow even more, even if there's no team in Florida. Take the NFL, there's no teams in Quebec but the sport is popular in this province because the NFL is a league that is admired everywhere, everyone wants to be a part of it. There's been an enormous growth of kids playing Football over here in the last 15 years.

Having a team Florida made you a new fan but if you look at that big picture it doesn't matter because a team in Florida is hurting the NHL. If the NHL had NFL-type success they would have thousands more fans in Florida, maybe even more than now, even if they had no teams.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:36 PM
  #323
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,116
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
What benefit is it to the fans of big market teams to "stop propping up" other franchises? There's one I can think of, and it's a selfish, nostalgia-driven reason (that I totally agree with and would love, for the record). And that is "fewer games against teams I don't care about, and more games against traditional teams."
You forgot "quality players on teams I hate maybe arriving on my team via dispersal drafts." But otherwise, yes.

* * *
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
MLSE could use that 18 million to pay down the construction of their arena or as a return to the folks that just spent money to buy the team. How in your world is someone in Nashville for example entitled to the ownership returns due Rogers and Bell?
Because without teams like Nashville to play against, there wouldn't be any ownership returns.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:37 PM
  #324
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,265
vCash: 500
I posted this in another thread and I'm reposting it here as it seems to be pertinent to this discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Look at the NFL for an example of how a business model makes all franchises viable: Since the 1960s all television revenue in pooled and divided equally between all teams in the league. Live gate is split 60/40 between the home and visiting teams. There's a reason you don't hear about failing NFL franchises. Long ago the NFL owners made the choice to operate as business partners. NHL owners have yet to make that step.
People need to realize that it's ok to be fans of your team but that competitiveness needs to end when it leaves the ice. The long-term health of any sports league is only ensured when those teams act as business partners in a single enterprise. Fans need to realize that without the league they don't have a team. Saying "Maple Leafs (or Rangers or Flyers ect) forever and let the other teams die" is ultimately self-defeating because it's the league as a whole that ends up dying and YOUR team along with it.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:37 PM
  #325
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
Florida was a playoff team. Montreal and Toronto weren't.
It really doesn't matter. Look at all the Habs and Leafs jerseys you see everywhere in North America when they go to a place.

Kimota 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 04:46 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.