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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2012, 08:40 PM
  #326
Viqsi
caution: bite hazard
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 28,183
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
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.
I spend money that I frankly cannot afford to spend on the NHL because of the Blue Jackets' presence. No other teams mattered at first because hockey didn't matter to me. Indeed, when the Jackets first arrived here I deliberately ignored them for about six or seven years, and only started paying attention as a result of games on the radio that I would end up catching largely by accident.

I strongly challenge this assumption that growth is possible without inviting new markets. Especially when it's a sport that already has a reputation as being extremely regional like hockey (unlike, say, basketball).

Also, USA Hockey registration has been really taking off over the last few years. It used to be that nobody talked hockey around here, and nowadays I frequently run into parents whose kids are insisting on playing the game despite the expense. It's pretty awesome to see, actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
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.
The Habs and Leafs have 50-year or more head starts on most of the league. Of course they're going to be ahead.

Ohio State's football program has been around for well over a century. They're a pretty big deal over here. Does that mean that Quebec's football programs are irrelevant? Not at all.

EDIT: also, haven't the Alouettes being doing well recently or something?
EDIT #2: Holy crap, "doing well" is a bit of an understatement. Seven Grey Cup appearances and three wins in the last decade? DAYUM.

__________________
"I don't care if it's a shutout, so long as it's a win." --Anton Forsberg, after his 1-0 OT game-, series-, and Cup-winning shutout in the 2016 Calder Cup Finals

Congratulations to all Las Vegas area hockey fans, present and future!
Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:41 PM
  #327
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 24,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I posted this in another thread and I'm reposting it here as it seems to be pertinent to this discussion:


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.
But most of these old "classic" teams created the league. Hell it's a crime they don't run it as they should. I don't think the league commish should tell the Habs how to run things.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:42 PM
  #328
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevfu View Post
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.
You're right that it is their choice to lose that money and that ultimately they are parts of corporate empires.

Doesn't mean that its okay to lose 7.8M dollars a year and then turn around and ask your competition to foot the bill for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevfu View Post
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
No one *****es about these cities having teams, they ***** about them NOT being profitable. NHL owners are no exception. The only reason you don't hear about it is because the owners don't air their dirty laundry to the media.

Secondly, let's compare the 4 major sports leagues in North America:

In the NFL there are 3/32 teams losing money (Steelers, Lions, Raiders).
In MLB there are 3/30 teams losing money (Phillies, Angels, Mets).

In the NBA there are 14/30 teams losing money (go check forbes).
In the NHL there are 17/30 teams losing money. (again, check forbes).

To compare revenue sharing the NFL and MLB to the NHL and NBA is a ****ing JOKE!

Furthermore, if you honestly believe that it is sustainable and acceptable for ~1/2 of the teams in your league to be losing millions of dollars, then you must not understand how a business works.

If everything were perfectly fine and working as intended do you think the NBA and NHL experiencing work stoppages that last for a majority of, or entire seasons and why are so many NBA and NHL teams being relocated (or on the chopping block?)

I don't care if you're a mom and pop, or a billion dollar empire. How many of them can say this:

It is perfectly acceptable and sustainable to lose ____ Million dollars per year?

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:43 PM
  #329
Kimota
CONTROL THE BEAST
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 24,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
I spend money that I frankly cannot afford to spend on the NHL because of the Blue Jackets' presence. No other teams mattered at first because hockey didn't matter to me. Indeed, when the Jackets first arrived here I deliberately ignored them for about six or seven years, and only started paying attention as a result of games on the radio that I would end up catching largely by accident.

I strongly challenge this assumption that growth is possible without inviting new markets. Especially when it's a sport that already has a reputation as being extremely regional like hockey (unlike, say, basketball).
There are new markets available: Quebec, Southern Ontario. That is growth.

And hockey would be more successful if it were more regional. That is the model they should thrive for.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:44 PM
  #330
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
But most of these old "classic" teams created the league. Hell it's a crime they don't run it as they should. I don't think the league commish should tell the Habs how to run things.

The NFL commissioner tells the Chicago Bears how to run things. The MLB commissioner tells the Boston Red Sox how to run things. More to the point, the ownership bodies as a whole in those leagues tell those teams how to run things.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:45 PM
  #331
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I posted this in another thread and I'm reposting it here as it seems to be pertinent to this discussion:

Quote:

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.
Splitting the gate still leaves you with the haves and have nots. Toronto, Montreal, Boston Bufalo split with each oth 12 times a year. Rangers Flyers Pitt split with each other 12 times a year. Whoever ends up splitting with the sunbelt 12 times a year, heck they'd all be broke. Imagine making Nashville take 40 percent of Phoenix's gate. Teams like the Leafs may only see Phoenix once a year in the ACC, if that.

The National televised games are already evenly split. It gets harder to split local games as a few of the bigger clubs are owned by companies which broadcast games. Easy to hide money in that case. For example they only pay themselves minimal cash to broadcast.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:46 PM
  #332
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I posted this in another thread and I'm reposting it here as it seems to be pertinent to this discussion:


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.


I understand that it's frustrating to see teams losing money, but I don't understand why people feel like they need to eliminate these teams to make the NHL more successful. What are you going to do with the extra, say, 5mil you get from not having Phoenix in the league?

I'm not happy that teams are losing money either, but taking hockey away from people isnt a good solution.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:47 PM
  #333
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Splitting the gate still leaves you with the haves and have nots. Toronto, Montreal, Boston Bufalo split with each oth 12 times a year. Rangers Flyers Pitt split with each other 12 times a year. Whoever ends up splitting with the sunbelt 12 times a year, heck they'd all be broke. Imagine making Nashville take 40 percent of Phoenix's gate. Teams like the Leafs may only see Phoenix once a year in the ACC, if that.
The difference? Teams like the Rangers would be splitting their television revenue with the league as a whole. You have to look at the entire business model.


Last edited by Fugu: 10-08-2012 at 09:51 PM. Reason: if everyone did the color thingy, this board would be unreadable
Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:53 PM
  #334
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 9,429
vCash: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Because without teams like X to play against, there wouldn't be any ownership returns.
Sure there would be... if replaced with a team in QC, GTA, Seattle, etc. Replacing a few teams isn't suggesting Armageddon but rather is representative of nothing other than change of a few locales and of improved league finances - generated by placing teams in markets capable of standing on their own merit.

Gump Hasek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:53 PM
  #335
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
But most of these old "classic" teams created the league. Hell it's a crime they don't run it as they should. I don't think the league commish should tell the Habs how to run things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
There are new markets available: Quebec, Southern Ontario. That is growth.

And hockey would be more successful if it were more regional. That is the model they should thrive for.
I'm not even sure how to respond to these. So, because I wasn't, by pure chance, born in Quebec, I somehow don't deserve hockey? Only people born in the right area of the world are worthy of enjoying it?

Because the Habs are old, the rules don't apply to them? That's the whole point of a league. Sure, the Habs can leave the NHL and be an independent team and make their own rules, but if you are going to be in a league, you have to abide by it. That's like saying the most veteran player in a hockey game doesn't have to listen to the refs, because he's older.

Can you tell the supremacist attitude bugs me a little?

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:53 PM
  #336
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The difference? Teams like the Rangers would be splitting their television revenue with the league as a whole. You have to look at the entire business model.
They do split their Nationally televised games. I think they're owned by a conglomerate that owns tv stations, I can't imagine they are charging themselves an arm and a leg to broadcast the game.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 08:59 PM
  #337
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,757
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.
If I had a monthly income of ~$200K/month, and we were charging millions of people to come look at our neighborhood generating that $200K/month, and those people wouldn't come unless the entire neighborhood had fancy new cars, with big houses, and our kids in the best schools, I probably would.

Your point you made about teams in the black making $250M and teams in the red losing $100M drives right to the heart of the issue. Overall, based on those numbers, the NHL made $150M last year.

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:06 PM
  #338
James Franco
Registered User
 
James Franco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Anaheim, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Poorer teams are there to help keep salaries lower for all teams.

Besides, if the rich teams want to be annoyed with the non-profit teams, then they're annoyed with half the League. And half the League doesn't make a profit because the top 3-6 teams have pushed salaries too high for the great majority of the teams in the League.
this this this. The "rich" teams are the reason for the lockout because of their massive free agent contracts they give out like candy

James Franco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:08 PM
  #339
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
They do split their Nationally televised games. I think they're owned by a conglomerate that owns tv stations, I can't imagine they are charging themselves an arm and a leg to broadcast the game.
The point is, using the NFL business model, that ALL television revenue would be pooled and divided equally between the teams. At that point there would be no such thing as an "unprofitable franchise" as all the teams would essentially be in the same financial ballpark as each other. That's why you never hear about NFL franchises being "unprofitable": They're ALL profitable because they pool revenues.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:10 PM
  #340
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
If I had a monthly income of ~$200K/month, and we were charging millions of people to come look at our neighborhood generating that $200K/month, and those people wouldn't come unless the entire neighborhood had fancy new cars, with big houses, and our kids in the best schools, I probably would.

Your point you made about teams in the black making $250M and teams in the red losing $100M drives right to the heart of the issue. Overall, based on those numbers, the NHL made $150M last year.
A league of homes... competing against each other. Maybe we could pitch the idea to NBC?


Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:14 PM
  #341
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 15,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The point is, using the NFL business model, that ALL television revenue would be pooled and divided equally between the teams. At that point there would be no such thing as an "unprofitable franchise" as all the teams would essentially be in the same financial ballpark as each other. That's why you never hear about NFL franchises being "unprofitable": They're ALL profitable because they pool revenues.
That works due to the NFL not having regional television deals

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:19 PM
  #342
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
That works due to the NFL not having regional television deals
When they first started that business model their television was regional deals. The franchises gave those up to control by the league office and they were subsequently merged into national TV deals.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:36 PM
  #343
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,783
vCash: 500
Hope you had a good night, Gump. Welcome back:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
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.
How does that bring in more money for the remaining teams that don't match the revenue streams of TOR, MON, NYR, CHI, DET, BOS, PHI?

If the Quebec Blue Jackets, Hamilton Predators, Markham Panthers, and Seattle Coyotes all made $150 million in revenue, how does that translate to a better financial picture for St. Louis, NY Islanders and Buffalo? Through revenue sharing? Through TV dollars? Please explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
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.
You said using revenues to determine which markets are working and which ones aren't (not attendance). Using revenues, the Islanders are a special case… where does STL fall? Failed market or "special case" ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
The benefit is to replace those teams with stronger markets and for the sport to be sold in areas where it is most popular…. as long as is wasn't sustained near solely by taxes taxes applied to the other franchises (and by extension, their fans).
Using current revenue sharing recipients as a start, teams 16-30 in revenues (not excluded for market size) get revenue sharing. No matter who you get rid of or move, the bottom half of the league will always get revenue sharing payments. They will always have below average revenues.

Tell me how every team in the NHL can be profitable. How would it be financially possible under the 2006-12 CBA?

Here's an analogy to help you along: If you had a classroom of 30 kids, and the teacher said "Any child who gets below the class average on a test will fail the class." What is the only way for all of them to pass?

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?
I never said they were entitled. I asked why you cared. You're the one who has taken the approach of revenue sharing being unacceptable welfare. I don't understand why it's not acceptable to you.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:41 PM
  #344
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,341
vCash: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper View Post
This is a hilarious question when it's a fact that the idiots running the big market teams such as Jeremy Jacobs and Ed snider are the ones steering the owners ship and prolonging this lockout. The question should be, are smal market team fans annoyed that the big market teams are creating this lockout.
I highly doubt Francesco Aquilini is in favour of the lockout like you so think he is.

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 09:51 PM
  #345
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 16,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
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.
Not necessarily. Teams have transcended their leagues before.

In 1917, the teams of the National Hockey Association, fed up with the owner of the Toronto Blueshirts, voted to suspend the league's operations and form the National Hockey League. Three of those teams would play in the NHL's inaugural season (Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, and Ottawa Senators) alongside an expansion Toronto club that would be renamed the Maple Leafs 10 years later. A fourth (Quebec Bulldogs) would join the following year.

And, in 1981, the WHA ceased to exist as the NHL absorbed four of the league's strongest teams: New England (later, Hartford) Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets (I), and the Edmonton Oilers.

That should be besides the point though. The majority of posters are not advocating contraction or hoping that teams fail but rather are for a select group of struggling franchises to be relocated to stronger markets. Those that are advocating contraction do not want to go back to the 6-team league that existed between 1942-1967. Instead, and similar to those advocating relocation, they want to remove a select group of markets to increase the talent pool and reduce the drag that certain teams have on the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The difference? Teams like the Rangers would be splitting their television revenue with the league as a whole. You have to look at the entire business model.
Why would the owners of the Leafs and Rangers, who paid upwards of $500 million to purchase their franchise, be willing to split their TV revenues with an owner who paid $90 million?


Last edited by Fugu: 10-08-2012 at 10:01 PM. Reason: 1981
htpwn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 10:00 PM
  #346
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
I don't care if you're a mom and pop, or a billion dollar empire. How many of them can say this:

It is perfectly acceptable and sustainable to lose ____ Million dollars per year?
Sports owners can.
When you buy a team losing millions a year, you bought it a certain price because it was losing millions ayear.


The losing-money part was built in to the price.

Now, maybe you thought you were Captain Awesome and thought you were going to start making money.


Or maybe you didn't care because you just wanted to win the cup because you're a competitive guy.

Or maybe you don't mind losing $5M a year on your sports venture because you're making money hand-over-fist everywhere else.

Or maybe you don't mind losing $8M a year because you're not buying this to make money, you're buying it because it's part of the puzzle in your grand empire.

Or maybe you don't mind losing $7M a year because you think that the NHL is about to become a real player in the American market


Then again, maybe you bought that money-losing team in the south because expected to make money.

If that's the case, then you deserve to lose money.

The NHL was the party that locked out the players because they the wanted Salaries Tied to Revenue.

The PA's plan didn't include a salary floor. The NHL's did.

Drop the salary floor. Increase the salary cap. Keep the link to HRR if you have to.

The age of parity comes to an end.

It's obvious that Parity didn't lead to small market financial success, so let's cut the BS once and for all.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 10:03 PM
  #347
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Not necessarily. Teams have transcended their leagues before.

In 1917, the teams of the National Hockey Association, fed up with the owner of the Toronto Blueshirts, voted to suspend the league's operations and form the National Hockey League. Three of those teams would play in the NHL's inaugural season (Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, and Ottawa Senators) alongside an expansion Toronto club that would be renamed the Maple Leafs 10 years later. A fourth (Quebec Bulldogs) would join the following year.

And, in 1971, the WHA ceased to exist as the NHL absorbed four of the league's strongest teams: New England (later, Hartford) Whalers, Quebec Nordiques, Winnipeg Jets (I), and the Edmonton Oilers.

That should be besides the point though. The majority of posters are not advocating contraction or hoping that teams fail but rather are for a select group of struggling franchises to be relocated to stronger markets. Those that are advocating contraction do not want to go back to the 6-team league that existed between 1942-1967. Instead, and similar to those advocating relocation, they want to remove a select group of markets to increase the talent pool and reduce the drag that certain teams have on the league.
This isn't 1917. A sports league can't survive in this day and age using a turn of the nineteenth century business model.

And what happened to those WHL teams? They got merged into ANOTHER league. They didn't exist on their own.


Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Why would the owners of the Leafs and Rangers, who paid upwards of $500 million to purchase their franchise, be willing to split their TV revenues with an owner who paid $90 million?
For the same reason George Preston Marshall agreed to split HIS revenues with the rest of the NFL despite the fact he had a multi-million dollar media empire spread across the American South. For the same reason Dan Reeves agreed to split HIS revenue despite the fact he had the extremely lucrative Los Angeles market locked up. For the same reason the Mara's gave up THEIR monopoly over the New York market: Because it was in the best interest in the league as a whole, a league that was in fact their business partners.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 10:06 PM
  #348
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Franco View Post
this this this. The "rich" teams are the reason for the lockout because of their massive free agent contracts they give out like candy
Yeah, the Detroit Red Wings and their $57M payroll....

Rich teams only cause the lockout because their owners are loathe to share with poor teams.
The only solution they support is to take the money from the players because that's pure instant profit.

And if you're a player, you're thinking about the concessions you'r giving up, and you think, OK, well I'm helping the poor teams, I guess I can see that... but why is my check 18 percent lower going right to the Leafs' owners bank accounts?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 10:15 PM
  #349
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Shouldn't there also be some reasonable expectations if you are a fan of a small market, or unestablished market team?

If I am a fan of the Habs and my team is financially healthy, I expect them to max out and go for it every year.

If I am a fan of the Predators and my team will lose money unless I make the conference finals if I am near the cap... then maybe I don't go balls out for the cup every year.... Is that tough for the fans? Sure it is.

But it's reality. Jack up those ticket costs...Find more local sponsorships...get more people watching on TV and buying jerseys... and you'll be in better shape.

But it's not going to happen over night. And if you're spending to the max thinking you're a rich team, then it's your god damn fault you lost money.

For the teams spending to the floor and losing money .... it's either time for a move or new management

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2012, 10:21 PM
  #350
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 4,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
I'd say
Yet, I can find published reports of the Islanders losing SIGNIFICANT money every single season dating back to 1996 (and while I can't find published reports of losses before that, I can't find published reports of MAKING money, either. It's highly likely that the last time the Islanders made money was in 1990).

They haven't gone bankrupt. They haven't moved. And New York isn't a "failed market."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
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.
Please explain how the Florida Panthers hurting the NHL (cough, record-breaking revenues, cough).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
You're right that it is their choice to lose that money and that ultimately they are parts of corporate empires. Doesn't mean that its okay to lose 7.8M dollars a year and then turn around and ask your competition to foot the bill for it.
According to Forbes, the Sharks lost $7.8 million in 2010-11.
Their payroll was above the midpoint, and their revenues were exactly at the midpoint. This would make the Sharks ineligible from one batch of revenue sharing, and eligible for revenue sharing in the second batch, at a sum equaling $0. Aside from the generic 30-way split of league-wide revenues everyone received, the Sharks got no revenue sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
No one *****es about these cities having teams, they ***** about them NOT being profitable. NHL owners are no exception. The only reason you don't hear about it is because the owners don't air their dirty laundry to the media.
You mean, like how the owners of Boston called Yankees "the Evil Empire" and said they were ruining baseball, while the Yankees owner issued press release in response?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Secondly, let's compare the 4 major sports leagues in North America:

In the NFL there are 3/32 teams losing money (Steelers, Lions, Raiders).
In MLB there are 3/30 teams losing money (Phillies, Angels, Mets).

In the NBA there are 14/30 teams losing money (go check forbes).
In the NHL there are 17/30 teams losing money. (again, check forbes).

To compare revenue sharing the NFL and MLB to the NHL and NBA is a ****ing JOKE!
Revenue sharing is already included in Forbes numbers, so you'd have to reverse engineer MLB numbers to see who's using revenue sharing payments to be profitable. It's not hard to guess who that's been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
Furthermore, if you honestly believe that it is sustainable and acceptable for ~1/2 of the teams in your league to be losing millions of dollars, then you must not understand how a business works.

If everything were perfectly fine and working as intended do you think the NBA and NHL experiencing work stoppages that last for a majority of, or entire seasons and why are so many NBA and NHL teams being relocated (or on the chopping block?)

I don't care if you're a mom and pop, or a billion dollar empire. How many of them can say this:

It is perfectly acceptable and sustainable to lose ____ Million dollars per year?
It's clear you don't understand how sports business works. If what you're saying is true, how come having 20 teams per league losing money year-to-year has resulted in no teams folding since the 1970s?

Sports teams are part of corporate empires. The Islanders haven't made money since at least 1996. To quote the New York Times and their owner:

As for multimillion dollar losses, Mr. Wang said he supposed he could use them as a tax write-off. "I don't know how my accountants will do it, but I'll be O.K.," he said.


Last edited by KevFu: 10-08-2012 at 10:30 PM.
KevFu 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 11:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.