HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

two questions

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2005, 04:43 AM
  #26
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoek
Barely made a penny? Didn't the Forbes report say they made $8 million last season? That doesn't make up for all the losses they racked up in the years before, but that's still pretty profitable compared to most teams in the league, though I guess that's more of a comment on the league itself..

Edit: In fact the Lightning had the 4th highest operating income last season. http://www.forbes.com/lists/results....y&passKeyword=

Still they're going to need help to keep the core together with a new CBA.
I stand corrected, thanks. But in the grand scheme of things, only making 8 million profit when your team wins the Stanley Cup is sad. Especially considreing their payroll.

 
Old
02-07-2005, 07:40 AM
  #27
barnburner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHARF1940
1. as far as the parity in the league....is it possible that we already have too much? Haven't the last few finals that involved small market, non-traditional clubs gotten absolutely horrible ratings? I agree that the finances need to be spread around to help certain teams, But don't we want the Detroits and Montreals and Colorados in the later rounds of the playoffs? Shouldn't they be able to put together big clubs but help out others by doing so through a stiff tax? We always need that cinderella team, sure, and that team will always be there when one small market club spends their tax money wisely, But c'mon, if it wasn't for the fact that one of the teams in the final this year was canadian, NOONE would have watched it. The big clubs need to be there.
Spoken as a fan of one of the "big" clubs, I'm sure.
Why not just contract all the the undesirable, unworthy, "small-market" clubs and just have a league with the "big" teams? That way you would never have to undergo the suffering of having the playoffs contaminated by the upstart "small" teams.
Fasten your seatbelt, and take a shot of booze to steady yourself for this shock.
There are in fact, many hockey fans that will watch the Stanley Cup Finals EVEN if there is not a Canadian team involved!!!!! Yeah, hard to believe isn't it??? Guess youneverknow.

I've been watching nhl hockey since the days of the original 6, and I have tremendous respect for the tradition of the Canadian franchises, and I was glad to see Calgary's success last year because of what it would do to help solidfy that franchise's financial situation. I cannot speak for the Canadian fans, but as a fan living in the U.S., your idea that a Stanley Cup Final without
a Canadian team, being somthing not worth watching, is just a bit too much.

As far as ratings - If you want this league to grow and become more popular, then it is essential that changes be made to make regular season hockey more entertaining for the average sports fan, particularly in the U.S. It's only by getting people to become fans of the regular season, that the playoffs are really going to mean anything to them. Why do a lot of U.S. "casual at most" fans watch the playoffs with "big" name teams more? Player recognition.
They have watched these teams in the nationally televised games more so they can relate to the players. As these "small market" teams continue to have success and get national exposure, that dynamic will change.

barnburner is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 03:48 PM
  #28
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
This is not, however. There is nothing inherent in a cap that makes long term success unachievable. There'll still be the bottom feeders with crappy management that are lousy for a decade. And they're still be the great teams, contenders year after year.

All a cap does is adjust *opportunity*. It provides it to all, instead of the select few like exists in (1).
The cap puts everybody into essentially the same situation as the small market teams right now. The conditions under which the teams can have long term success under the cap are the same as the small market teams with no cap:
1. The players are willing to sign for less to stay with the team
2. The team drafting is exceptional, so that the talent drained by the cap can be replaced from the prospect pipeline.

But yes, everyone will be equal. Not in opportunity, but in lack thereof.

shveik is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 03:57 PM
  #29
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
I stand corrected, thanks. But in the grand scheme of things, only making 8 million profit when your team wins the Stanley Cup is sad. Especially considreing their payroll.
Generally the payoff for having a great season comes the following season(s), which is being flushed down the toilet, unfortunate for Tampa.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 05:27 PM
  #30
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shveik
But yes, everyone will be equal. Not in opportunity, but in lack thereof.
Oh spare me the platitudes. Lack of opportunity?

In what possible way is there any lack of opportunity for success, when you *remove* unfair advantages for some, and make everyone play by the same rules?

This reminds me of the calculator arguments of the 70's. The parents of the rich kids argued that taking their expensive calculators away during a math test was unfair. No, it simply put them on the same footing as the rest of the kids in the class.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 08:22 PM
  #31
WHARF1940
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: down in a hole
Country: United States
Posts: 832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnburner
Spoken as a fan of one of the "big" clubs, I'm sure.
Why not just contract all the the undesirable, unworthy, "small-market" clubs and just have a league with the "big" teams? That way you would never have to undergo the suffering of having the playoffs contaminated by the upstart "small" teams.
Fasten your seatbelt, and take a shot of booze to steady yourself for this shock.
There are in fact, many hockey fans that will watch the Stanley Cup Finals EVEN if there is not a Canadian team involved!!!!! Yeah, hard to believe isn't it??? Guess youneverknow.

I've been watching nhl hockey since the days of the original 6, and I have tremendous respect for the tradition of the Canadian franchises, and I was glad to see Calgary's success last year because of what it would do to help solidfy that franchise's financial situation. I cannot speak for the Canadian fans, but as a fan living in the U.S., your idea that a Stanley Cup Final without
a Canadian team, being somthing not worth watching, is just a bit too much.

As far as ratings - If you want this league to grow and become more popular, then it is essential that changes be made to make regular season hockey more entertaining for the average sports fan, particularly in the U.S. It's only by getting people to become fans of the regular season, that the playoffs are really going to mean anything to them. Why do a lot of U.S. "casual at most" fans watch the playoffs with "big" name teams more? Player recognition.
They have watched these teams in the nationally televised games more so they can relate to the players. As these "small market" teams continue to have success and get national exposure, that dynamic will change.
uh, keep reading there pally, I am an islander fan, one of the first clubs you boneheads choose to pick for contraction!

My question was never answered, i probably wasn't real clear, but isn't it beneficial to ratings, which everyone seems to value so highly, to have a "big" club in the finals every year? I for one am not rooting for it, but you would think that numbers-wise, the league would.

WHARF1940 is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 10:33 PM
  #32
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHARF1940
uh, keep reading there pally, I am an islander fan, one of the first clubs you boneheads choose to pick for contraction!

My question was never answered, i probably wasn't real clear, but isn't it beneficial to ratings, which everyone seems to value so highly, to have a "big" club in the finals every year? I for one am not rooting for it, but you would think that numbers-wise, the league would.
Maybe in the short term. But to make ratings go up, you actually need americans to give a rats a$$ about hockey. The best way to do that is to insure every team is playing on an even playing field.

 
Old
02-07-2005, 10:55 PM
  #33
Gary
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Behind enemy lines
Posts: 5,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WHARF1940
1. as far as the parity in the league....is it possible that we already have too much? Haven't the last few finals that involved small market, non-traditional clubs gotten absolutely horrible ratings? I agree that the finances need to be spread around to help certain teams, But don't we want the Detroits and Montreals and Colorados in the later rounds of the playoffs? Shouldn't they be able to put together big clubs but help out others by doing so through a stiff tax? We always need that cinderella team, sure, and that team will always be there when one small market club spends their tax money wisely, But c'mon, if it wasn't for the fact that one of the teams in the final this year was canadian, NOONE would have watched it. The big clubs need to be there.

2. What is with the insistince of linkage? A cap, Ok. I think it is too radical a change all at once, and for the reason stated above, I'd prefer trying a VERY punitive tax at first, but it could work. Not one tied to revenues, however. Based loosely on revenues, sure, but strict to the point of "if we pay you too much, you have to pay us back from an escrow account" is completely insane. If they need that much certainty, they shouldn't be in business. I agree that the players need to HELP fix the game, not run it for the owners. And linkage actually hampers growth. It is the stupid retail way of doing things.....watch this example....

Where I work, sunday is time and a half, so they cut to bare bones staff even though it is the busiest day of the week.
My department does 10 grand on avg on sunday with 24 man-hours
we go down a couple grand on any given Sunday and the store mgr yanks 4 hours away from us....linkage!
result, the following Sunday is almost guaranteed to be busier, but now we are short 4 hours, the job doesn't get done and we lose out on sales and profits. We are barely able to hit the same number as the week before because we simply cannot get enough product out.
now you would think he'd give us those hours back to get sales back up, but today's business men are so focused on the bottom line and the numbers, that all he sees is that we did the amount of business we should with the amount of help that we had. The link to revenues was in balance. They don't look at lost potential sales as lost revenue. Our Sunday "cap" can't be based on one week, and the NHL's can't be based on one season.

If this happens in the NHL, especially if there is a cap this season, (if there is one)
based on the 2.1 billion figure and next years is based on a pro-rated (inflated to approximate 82 games) amount of this season's revenue, the cap is going to get cut almost in half, because I imagine the league will take a big hit from this mess. I am afraid that if the league does not choose to invest in the staff first in order to get bigger profits later, it will start a downward spiral that could eventually cause the NHL to no longer be the top paying league in the world, especially if the game continues to grow at the rate it is in europe. A long shot, but a possibility. Some guys are making as much as 3 million this year over there.

Sorry this is so long winded, but I needed to get all of that out!
1. NO there is'nt parity in the league-Not EXTENDED PARITY if you will. Sure, some teams will come in, light the lamp, ride the hobby horse, have some glory for awhile and THEN what? Players that did well for them want EXTREME raises, the small market teams can't afford...they trade for 'prospects' and the whole cycle begins again. If you're a low-spending team you're timeframe to win the cup is 1 or 2 years tops IMO...HOWEVER, if you got COIN, and are good at drafting you can have a LEGITIMATE shot at the cup for a DECADE OR MORE (see DETROIT RED WINGS). What a cap would do IMO, is allow ANY team that has good scouting and management to become a YEARLY contender. WASHINGTON/BUFFALO/FLORIDA/CAROLINA ETC...TEAMS that had a legitimate chance ONCE , then they faded into the background and all had low budgets (ALL recently-within 10 years. Some may argue the teams were almost the same the next year and still they did'nt make it so it was luck. I don't think that's the case so much as they knew where weaknesses were and were'nt able financially to address them but that's a different issue)

2. You're right-It's unfair for the owners to extract excessive amounts of money from the players knowing how much it will effect them. Unfortunately the owners don't give a damn because that's precisely what the players have done to them for the past 10 years.

Gary is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 11:26 PM
  #34
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Oh spare me the platitudes. Lack of opportunity?

In what possible way is there any lack of opportunity for success, when you *remove* unfair advantages for some, and make everyone play by the same rules?

This reminds me of the calculator arguments of the 70's. The parents of the rich kids argued that taking their expensive calculators away during a math test was unfair. No, it simply put them on the same footing as the rest of the kids in the class.
Hey, how about answering the part of the post that actually means something?

What I am saying is that the cap will hardly make the task easier for the small market teams. It will just make it harder for the big market teams.

As for fair, the big market teams are big market for a reason. They have been around for a long time and have created a great fan base. Maybe it is ok for them to have advantage with respect to newcomers to this league? And the fans there have to pay more money (the competition for tickets is stiffer). So maybe the big team owners should be allowed to buy a better team, as opposed to just lining their pockets? But again, my main point wasn't about the NHL being fair or not, but the fact that the cap will make every team restricted through legislation the same way that some teams now are restricted through economics. Instead of 10 managers crying that they cannot buy a UFA or keep their star, we will hear 30 GMs routinely announcing star player transfers due to cap restrictions. I am not thrilled.

shveik is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:07 AM.

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

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