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.

Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-31-2012, 06:03 PM
  #51
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 32,120
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
So basically, mostly the markets Gary was responsible for introducing to the league, and the 1 team he has owned for 3 years......
Anaheim - founded in 93, Bettman took over Feb of 93. Does anyone know when the expansion bid for the team was actually approved? IIRC it was approved under Gil Stein.
Columbus - Bettman era.
Florida - awarded team before Bettman became commish.
Islanders - pre-Bettman by about 2 decades
Phoenix - moved on Bettman's watch
St. Louis - pre-Bettman by about 25 years
Washington - pre-Bettman by about 2 decades
Dallas - moved under Bettman, but had solid relocation rumors well before he took over.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:05 PM
  #52
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
I think people want to paint it like this, but I don't think this is actually what's happening, despite some members in the media trying to push this angle.

If I'm Montreal or Toronto, I'm not going to die if there's no season this year.

When ever the NHL resumes, they know their arena will be full again, and neither even made the playoffs last year so a year of development for their younger players will probably only help.

I don't think Toronto/Montreal or some of the other big teams are naive enough to not understand that there has to be a CBA that works for everyone, otherwise it's going to be Toronto/Montreal ending up holding the tab for Phoenix/Columbus, etc.

Better to get a favorable CBA now than have to bail out other teams constantly for 8 years.

I don't think there are very many owners who are so desperate to play a 60-game season that they'd be willing to accept a CBA that doesn't give them true 50-50 revenue split for the next 8 years.
You're assuming that they miss the season AND THEN get a better deal for themselves because of it.

That is not guaranteed.

If you read Friedman's article, one thing he didn't mention was what happened to force the NBA and NFL to settle. It was the anti-trust lawsuits.

Which, sooner or later, is going happen with this lockout. The owners aren't going to lose an entire season AND then possibly see the entire economic system they already had a yearlong lockout to impose go up in smoke. Nope. Way too risky.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:09 PM
  #53
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
I think people want to paint it like this, but I don't think this is actually what's happening, despite some members in the media trying to push this angle.

If I'm Montreal or Toronto, I'm not going to die if there's no season this year.

When ever the NHL resumes, they know their arena will be full again, and neither even made the playoffs last year so a year of development for their younger players will probably only help.

I don't think Toronto/Montreal or some of the other big teams are naive enough to not understand that there has to be a CBA that works for everyone, otherwise it's going to be Toronto/Montreal ending up holding the tab for Phoenix/Columbus, etc.

Better to get a favorable CBA now than have to bail out other teams constantly for 8 years.

I don't think there are very many owners who are so desperate to play a 60-game season that they'd be willing to accept a CBA that doesn't give them true 50-50 revenue split for the next 8 years.
If the successful owners ran the league, Columbus and Phoenix would be gone. In their place would be markets that could function properly under any system.

You are right though, the owners are in a position to think long term. But nothing that has been put on the table (including immediate 50-50 split) will prevent Columbus and Phoenix from being drains on the league. This will continue to happen in more and more markets until the league takes more drastic measures to fix the finances of the game.

The CyNick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:13 PM
  #54
PanthersHockey1
Bond.
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,687
vCash: 500
We might as well blame the poor southern teams for the lockout. Everyone already hates us just pile it on, we won't lose sleep over it.

PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:15 PM
  #55
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
I don't know why there's hate. The NHL put franchises in those places. It's up to them to either make those markets work (read: revenue sharing), or move them to other places. Trying to gouge the players to support them while using that gouging to churn out massive profits for the wealthy teams is not a solution the players are going to accept.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:15 PM
  #56
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
Sadly, he offers no evidence to support his claim other than "some sources". Well, my sources told me specifically that Bettman and Fehr have already come to an agreement, and are just posturing so that they can get more out out of NBC.
Now if you used your real name and earned your money as a hockey analyst for 10 years or so. I may give your words as much credibility.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:16 PM
  #57
Guru Meditation
Service Unavailable
 
Guru Meditation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,700
vCash: 500
If Jacobs is leading the hardliners, I have to think Ilitch (through Holland) is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. No love lost between those two.

It doesn't hurt that Detroit's window is closing. They can't afford to lose a season where they can still compete.

Guru Meditation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:16 PM
  #58
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Now if you used your real name and earned your money as a hockey analyst for 10 years or so. I may give your words as much credibility.
yup, and would lose his job if he was claiming to have sources he didn't.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:17 PM
  #59
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
We might as well blame the poor southern teams for the lockout. Everyone already hates us just pile it on, we won't lose sleep over it.
You guys need more fans willing to shell out top dollar for tickets. If you dont, you shouldnt be in the league IMO

The CyNick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:18 PM
  #60
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
We might as well blame the poor southern teams for the lockout. Everyone already hates us just pile it on, we won't lose sleep over it.
Obviously, but hey it is what it is.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:19 PM
  #61
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,250
vCash: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
You guys need more fans willing to shell out top dollar for tickets. If you dont, you shouldnt be in the league IMO
That's why you see huge attendance in California and other places from Canuck fans. Buying plane tickets and game tickets is cheaper than watching it here, and we still sell out.

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:19 PM
  #62
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Because those teams are the backbone of the league. They should make the rules, and everyone else should fall in line.

The problem is you have a commissioner who wants a 30+ team league, but he's in a sport that should be no more than a 24 team league.

The franchises that are the ones holding up a deal, or maybe better stated willing to wait forever for a new deal, are the same teams that will always be failures no matter what system they play under.

The sooner that is realized, the best for all involved.
Under this laughable system, we'd be looking at entire pro leagues of nothing more than 6 teams each. Why? Because everyone else would have gone under at the first sign of trouble, for one reason or another.

Let's say that the NFL had locked the door on Green Bay in 1922 rather than allowing them back into the league. Without the Packers, the Bears don't have a source of loan money, causing them to fold. Without the Bears, Red Grange never signs in the NFL, and the NY Giants fold (no one cared about them until the Bears, featuring Grange, came to town). Without the Giants, there's no progressive owner in the Maras who help to stabilize the league throughout the 1930s. Without that progressive ownership, the Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Cardinals, and Philadelphia Eagles all fold. The only team left would be the Boston Redskins, and they wouldn't have anyone to play against. And without the Grange-led Bears and then the famous Giants-Notre Dame game, pro football is permanently regarded as a game for illiterate ruffians.

If the NHL's premier owners were actually willing to acknowledge the importance of every other team in the league instead of constantly trying to engage in cannibalism, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:20 PM
  #63
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
I would have to think that Leopold is the moderate of the executive committe. Spending 24 million on two players was really about peaking interest in the wild and putting butts in the seats. Thats hard to do when you lock out the two players you just paid 10 million each.

He probably is in line with moderates who are looking for a fair deal. Keep in mind fair is from the owners perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
If you read on, you'd see that both the Flyers and the Wild situations were addressed later in the column.

Snider might be a hardliner, but Comcast owns the majority of the team, and its chairman is not pleased.

Thing with Leopold is that the way he structured the contracts, he's paying them lockout or not. And the Wild is not a money losing team regardless.
The quote from Comcast was good. However to get Leipold's take, it is better to go back to his days as a Preds owner. He was pretty hawkish at the time. Big contracts and being a hawk are not mutually exclusive. Many others have made this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Friedman is usually bang on with his columns.

Sure, it's speculation, but based on sources that he clearly has and from someone who is in the best position to speculate.

But how does Phoenix factor into things? Does Bettman also wear the hat of owner?
Answered above. Jamison is still BOG whether it is Sharks or Phoenix. Jamison is a hawk.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:27 PM
  #64
PanthersHockey1
Bond.
 
PanthersHockey1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UF & Boca Raton
Country: United States
Posts: 5,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
You guys need more fans willing to shell out top dollar for tickets. If you dont, you shouldnt be in the league IMO
You produce where supply equals demand. Demand in Canada is inelastic owners can charge whatever they want. Demand in southern markets is near perfectly elastic consumers dictate the price. Simple economics.

PanthersHockey1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:30 PM
  #65
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Under this laughable system, we'd be looking at entire pro leagues of nothing more than 6 teams each. Why? Because everyone else would have gone under at the first sign of trouble, for one reason or another.

Let's say that the NFL had locked the door on Green Bay in 1922 rather than allowing them back into the league. Without the Packers, the Bears don't have a source of loan money, causing them to fold. Without the Bears, Red Grange never signs in the NFL, and the NY Giants fold (no one cared about them until the Bears, featuring Grange, came to town). Without the Giants, there's no progressive owner in the Maras who help to stabilize the league throughout the 1930s. Without that progressive ownership, the Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Cardinals, and Philadelphia Eagles all fold. The only team left would be the Boston Redskins, and they wouldn't have anyone to play against. And without the Grange-led Bears and then the famous Giants-Notre Dame game, pro football is permanently regarded as a game for illiterate ruffians.

If the NHL's premier owners were actually willing to acknowledge the importance of every other team in the league instead of constantly trying to engage in cannibalism, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Meh- don't worry, there are people here who actually believe Columbus is a "Southern" team.

There are people here who believe there is something noble in what either side is doing.

This is a high stakes negotiation. Billion dollar negotiations are tough. No one just does a deal to get it done when the stakes are this high.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:31 PM
  #66
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
However to get Leipold's take, it is better to go back to his days as a Preds owner. He was pretty hawkish at the time. Big contracts and being a hawk are not mutually exclusive. Many others have made this point.
And the Predators being a perpetual money loser doesn't have anything to do with it?

Leipold is losing money by not playing right now. He still has to service all the debt. He still has to pay the arena lease. AND he still is out the $20m he forked over to Suter and Parise as signing bonuses and which he'll get no return on if he doesn't have hockey this season.

If he's not pushing for hockey to come back ASAP, he's seriously working against his own interests.


Quote:
Answered above. Jamison is still BOG whether it is Sharks or Phoenix. Jamison is a hawk.
Jamison doesn't own any part or parcel of an NHL team right now. He hasn't bought the Coyotes (and odds are won't be any time soon.) And he gave up his stake in the Sharks to pursue the Coyotes.

If Bettman is going to go for broke over the Coyotes... well, he'll have dug his own grave.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:32 PM
  #67
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Under this laughable system, we'd be looking at entire pro leagues of nothing more than 6 teams each. Why? Because everyone else would have gone under at the first sign of trouble, for one reason or another.

Let's say that the NFL had locked the door on Green Bay in 1922 rather than allowing them back into the league. Without the Packers, the Bears don't have a source of loan money, causing them to fold. Without the Bears, Red Grange never signs in the NFL, and the NY Giants fold (no one cared about them until the Bears, featuring Grange, came to town). Without the Giants, there's no progressive owner in the Maras who help to stabilize the league throughout the 1930s. Without that progressive ownership, the Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Cardinals, and Philadelphia Eagles all fold. The only team left would be the Boston Redskins, and they wouldn't have anyone to play against. And without the Grange-led Bears and then the famous Giants-Notre Dame game, pro football is permanently regarded as a game for illiterate ruffians.

If the NHL's premier owners were actually willing to acknowledge the importance of every other team in the league instead of constantly trying to engage in cannibalism, we wouldn't be in this situation.
You had a no cap system prior to the last lockout. How many teams were going under?

They brought in a cap system, and here we are 7 years later, more teams than ever are in trouble, Atlanta's ownership team gave up and they moved to Winnipeg, and we are faced with another lockout. Beautiful system there.

Talk to me in seven years when we're in the same boat again, and more teams have relocated.

Its classic putting a band-aid on a wound that requires surgery.

The CyNick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:33 PM
  #68
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanthersHockey1 View Post
You produce where supply equals demand. Demand in Canada is inelastic owners can charge whatever they want. Demand in southern markets is near perfectly elastic consumers dictate the price. Simple economics.
Yes, and the economics suggest that you shouldnt have a team. Thanks for making my point.

The CyNick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:35 PM
  #69
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
You had a no cap system prior to the last lockout. How many teams were going under?
Short term? 5-10.
Long term? Probably around 20.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:35 PM
  #70
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
You had a no cap system prior to the last lockout. How many teams were going under?

They brought in a cap system, and here we are 7 years later, more teams than ever are in trouble, Atlanta's ownership team gave up and they moved to Winnipeg, and we are faced with another lockout. Beautiful system there.

Talk to me in seven years when we're in the same boat again, and more teams have relocated.

Its classic putting a band-aid on a wound that requires surgery.
Your suggestion, then, is...what? Remove the cap, and allow the NHL to revert back to what it was in the 1990s with half the league acting as a feeder system for the other half?

The cap isn't the problem. The rapid acceleration of mandatory payrolls is a big problem, and the inability to offset that is a bigger one. The unwillingness of certain owners (read: "traditional markets") to adopt an NFL-style system of revenue sharing directly relates to that.

Also, ASG didn't "give up". They admitted to trying to dump the Thrashers less than six months after taking over the team, which is hardly indicative of actually exerting any effort.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:36 PM
  #71
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Yes, and the economics suggest that you shouldnt have a team. Thanks for making my point.
What an awfully simplistic outlook.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:47 PM
  #72
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
And the Predators being a perpetual money loser doesn't have anything to do with it?

Leipold is losing money by not playing right now. He still has to service all the debt. He still has to pay the arena lease. AND he still is out the $20m he forked over to Suter and Parise as signing bonuses and which he'll get no return on if he doesn't have hockey this season.

If he's not pushing for hockey to come back ASAP, he's seriously working against his own interests.




Jamison doesn't own any part or parcel of an NHL team right now. He hasn't bought the Coyotes (and odds are won't be any time soon.) And he gave up his stake in the Sharks to pursue the Coyotes.

If Bettman is going to go for broke over the Coyotes... well, he'll have dug his own grave.
Jamison is still BOG, read the fine print. He will have to give up the Sharks if he buys the Coyotes but hasn't yet.

Leipold's interest is making money. If he makes more with a hawkish stance and a lockout, it may be worth the temporary loss. And, Minny is very close to being a money printing machine even with the big contracts, even more so with a owner-friendly CBA. It is not as simplistic as you portray with Jacobs being the best case in point for an owner making out yet maintaining a hawkish stance.

Your best bet to find stances of individual governors is to watch what they say when there isn't a lockout (Leonsis). Look for quotes regarding employees around their other businesses (Jacobs).

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 06:55 PM
  #73
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
Anaheim - founded in 93, Bettman took over Feb of 93. Does anyone know when the expansion bid for the team was actually approved? IIRC it was approved under Gil Stein.
Columbus - Bettman era.
Florida - awarded team before Bettman became commish.
Islanders - pre-Bettman by about 2 decades
Phoenix - moved on Bettman's watch
St. Louis - pre-Bettman by about 25 years
Washington - pre-Bettman by about 2 decades
Dallas - moved under Bettman, but had solid relocation rumors well before he took over.
Under his watch though, a few of these teams as well have had inflated declarations of value to the public concerning resales.

Stern would not have let so many franchises flounder around for so long.....

cutchemist42 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 07:08 PM
  #74
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
Are you thinking of the draft? NJ has it in 2013 and Philadelphia has it in 2014.

They haven't announced the location of any future ASGs yet - and IIRC they only announced Columbus at last year's ASG.

If the players go to the 2014 Olympics then there won't be an ASG that year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
In both cases where an ASG was cancelled, the host team was awarded the second subsequent ASG. The next years ASG had already been awarded(*).

The Sharks lost the 1995 ASG due to the '94-'95 Lockout - they got the game back in 1997.

The Thrashers lost the 2005 ASG due to the '04-'05 Lockout - they got the game back in 2008 (there was no ASG in 2006 due to the Olympic Shutdown).

I don't believe the 2014 ASG was awarded - under the expired CBA there was no ASG in Olympic years.

(*) edit: the 2007 ASG in Dallas was announced after the Lockout (Jan 2006). I haven't found the date when the 1996 ASG in Boston was announced.
Yep, evidently I did. My mistake.

Had actually forgotten about the possibility of the Olympics in 2014.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2012, 07:36 PM
  #75
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Because those teams are the backbone of the league. They should make the rules, and everyone else should fall in line.

The problem is you have a commissioner who wants a 30+ team league, but he's in a sport that should be no more than a 24 team league.

The franchises that are the ones holding up a deal, or maybe better stated willing to wait forever for a new deal, are the same teams that will always be failures no matter what system they play under.

The sooner that is realized, the best for all involved.
No, the owners (including the owner of your team) wanted a 30 team league. They made that decision when they accepted the expansion fee from each of the new teams. If you want these teams gone then your owner will have to participate in buying those franchises and then folding them.

The teams that are "hardliners", and we really don't know who they are, because Snider has been a hawk in the past as has Jacobs, and even Ilitch to some extent, are not all failures. Most likely they understand the economic reality of the situation.

Thankfully, fans from big market teams, that for some reason love to pay top dollar for the crap sandwich their GM serves up year after year, don't have much of a say in all this.

KINGS17 is online now   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 03:29 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.