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.

Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 05:47 PM
  #126
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Your Leafs voted to aide other teams so they could pocket more profits.

Your beef isn't with the league, it's with the Leafs. They choose a system that would make more teams able to compete with them financially, decrease their ability to spend to win, gave them an excuse to jack up prices (which you're falling for), and pocket millions more in profits rather than re-investment.

How is it unfair to someone who has a vote and votes in favor of it?
Stop putting logic out there... it's much easier to just go with emotion.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:48 PM
  #127
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Did you buy your tickets from Scalpers/off-sales?
My guess is yes, you did. You probably paid inflated prices.
Of course... you can just make up a whole different story, and nobody would know the difference.
It's the precise reason that personal stories like that shouldn't be used in such arguments.

Leaf tickets sell out every single game.
They sell out in minutes.
They CLEARLY could sell them for more money.

Beers in the ACC are very expensive.
They're still preposterously long line ups.
They CLEARLY could get away selling them for more money.

And now with all the increased revenue sharing... I'm sure that's PRECISELY what they'll do.
Thanks nhlpa.
Way to look out for the fans.
I think the demand for Leafs tickets is a bit artificially inflated. For many years they have sold a large number of seats to scalpers thus creating an artificial scarcity to their tickets. If the Leafs decided to only sell seats to individuals and corporate buyers for their own use, street prices would drop dramatically.

I also wonder if some fans who would like to eliminate revenue sharing are really thinking about increasing their teams' chances to win the Cup.

Your post indicates you aren't one of them though.

TaketheCannoli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:52 PM
  #128
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post


The "responsibility for growing the game" was taken off their shoulders when the NHL took away their marketing budgets by jacking up the minimum payroll by $39 million ($12 mil before the lockout; $51 million last season).

The reason no one gives you a time frame is because: Pulling the plug on franchises is a PR disaster of epic proportions.

The league has been trying to dispel the notion that the NHL is a niche sport that only belongs in Canada, the extreme North of the United States, and maybe Denver and Los Angeles.

That notion is why the league doesn't get major media time.
That notion is why the league doesn't have a TV deal similar to the other Big Four.s.
I dont see people sheeding tears for the spo's or the vancouver grizzlies. I dont recall people going to the lengths they are currently to save the nordiques or the jets v1.0.

You know what the difference is on the hockey side, the teams that left left from established ( but admittedly smaller) markets for the appeal of larger markets with " potential" ( whatever the hell that means).

Things change and some teams get in bad because they make bad choices, some teams get in bad because of things they cant control but to suggest that a team that has never made a single dime and has to prop up attendance by essentially giving away tickets for more than a decade is not a viable market is not what i would consider a PR disater of epic proportions. I have another word for it, reality.

It is my opinion that the NHL will never break the top three nationally in the US, there is just too much of a geographical swath were ice is meant to cool down libations. It is only top four when you consider pro sports, in many markets it would fall behind college hoops and football and in some markets would fall behind high school football. The NHL should stop chasing this mirage, that people in arkansas and alabama and texas are going to give two spits about the game if only we can get the habs and the leafs to keep dumping money into one fiasco after another.

You know why the NHL doesnt have a deal like the NBA ( although the comcast deal is pretty good) ? Because a huge percentage of the states, the overwhelming majority based on population and geography dont give a rats ass about the game. The notion that the have markets in canada should continue to subsidize this failed experiment in perpetuity is nonsense. The habs and leafs would be better off contributing to linda mcMahons next senatorial campaign and they can put all the money in a dumpster and take turns throwing matches.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:19 PM
  #129
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
"Re-investment" in what Kev?
Payroll.

They gave away their ability to spend $120 million on payroll so they could "buy a championship" (like the Yankees have done) so they could be capped at about $62 million in payroll, pay into revenue sharing, and pocket about $40 million more.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:27 PM
  #130
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Payroll.
Thats it? Thats all you got? There is no "cap" on "payroll" off-ice or "diamond" as per your wont. Toronto didnt "give back" anything, WE TOOKIE. Savvy? Perfectly willing to prop-up a world of inequities & incompetency. Why? Because financially, we win. Stuff your Stanley Cup.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:45 PM
  #131
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Thats it? Thats all you got? There is no "cap" on "payroll" off-ice or "diamond" as per your wont. Toronto didnt "give back" anything, WE TOOKIE. Savvy? Perfectly willing to prop-up a world of inequities & incompetency. Why? Because financially, we win. Stuff your Stanley Cup.
Of course, the Leafs have never needed caps and revenue sharing as an excuse to bilk fans and NOT spend it on players. After all, wasn't it Harold Ballard who said "Why spend money on players when people pay top dollar to watch us no matter how bad a product we put on the ice?"

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:47 PM
  #132
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Thats it? Thats all you got? There is no "cap" on "payroll" off-ice or "diamond" as per your wont. Toronto didnt "give back" anything, WE TOOKIE. Savvy? Perfectly willing to prop-up a world of inequities & incompetency. Why? Because financially, we win. Stuff your Stanley Cup.
Or, as I like to say, "Why buy cows when the fans are giving them milk for free?"

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:57 PM
  #133
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
The Leafs only "have to pay" revenue sharing because THEY VOTED TO so they could make more money in a cap system.



It's not dramatically unfair. It's a system that gives THEM more money.

Your Leafs voted to aide other teams so they could pocket more profits.

Your beef isn't with the league, it's with the Leafs. They choose a system that would make more teams able to compete with them financially, decrease their ability to spend to win, gave them an excuse to jack up prices (which you're falling for), and pocket millions more in profits rather than re-investment.

How is it unfair to someone who has a vote and votes in favor of it?
The leafs voted in favour of revenue sharing as a concession. They would of course had preferred a much lower cap with no revenue sharing.

The players want either
- a completely free market (which is TERRIBLY unfair for fans of small market teams).
- or, if there's a cap, revenue sharing so that the cap is much higher than it should be for a substantial amount of the league (which is TERRIBLY unfair for fans of rich teams).

The league simply wants a very strong cap. This would be fair to ALL fans, and the only people that would take a hit are millionaire players who could now all afford one less sports car. Oh, the horror.

I of course understand that the nhlpa will be trying to protect the players... at ALL costs. That's their job, and I don't even resent them for it.
But as fans? How could anybody possibly side with the players? Why would the fans prefer that the players get more sports cars at the expense of fairness and parity in the league?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 07:12 PM
  #134
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
I of course understand that the nhlpa will be trying to protect the players... at ALL costs. That's their job, and I don't even resent them for it.
But as fans? How could anybody possibly side with the players? Why would the fans prefer that the players get more sports cars at the expense of fairness and parity in the league?
I dislike the work stoppages more than most but I am firmly behind the players because the owners are asking the players to either

1) protect them GM's from themselves
2) shore up their risky if not irresponsible gambles of have not owners solely on the players backs

The PA caved last time, they gave up every one of their big items. Yes they made out better than projected but if the owners get the idea that all they have to do to get salary concessions is cry poor and lock the players out ( again) then it will be more remarkable if there were no stoppages at the end of a CBA.

Asking the players to let the owners out of deals they signed and then asking the players for concessions that will do little to reduce the disparity between the have and have nots is a recipe for perpetual labor strife.

And its been said before, lambasting the millionaire players and siding with the billionaire owners requires a level of cognitive dissonance I cannot fathom

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 07:47 PM
  #135
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I dislike the work stoppages more than most but I am firmly behind the players because the owners are asking the players to either

1) protect them GM's from themselves
2) shore up their risky if not irresponsible gambles of have not owners solely on the players backs

The PA caved last time, they gave up every one of their big items. Yes they made out better than projected but if the owners get the idea that all they have to do to get salary concessions is cry poor and lock the players out ( again) then it will be more remarkable if there were no stoppages at the end of a CBA.

Asking the players to let the owners out of deals they signed and then asking the players for concessions that will do little to reduce the disparity between the have and have nots is a recipe for perpetual labor strife.

And its been said before, lambasting the millionaire players and siding with the billionaire owners requires a level of cognitive dissonance I cannot fathom
I support the fans.

It just so happens that the owners position would be much better for the fans as a whole, than the players position.

I don't care how many millions the players or owners have.
If concessions from any side creates a better league, that's what I'll support.

And I think that a free market (what the players want) is TERRIBLE for fans of small market teams.
And increased revenue sharing (what the players want if they accept a cap) is TERRIBLY unfair for fans of rich teams.

If there's a system where millionaires make a little less money, but is better for the league, that's what I support. If there's a system where billionaires get a little more money, but it's better for the league, that's what I support.

Being that both of these groups will be filthy rich no matter what... I don't care even the slightest how this money is divided.
I care about a healthy league that is good for the fans.
And the owners model is MUCH better for the fans.

If your Dad is a player, I understand supporting the players. If your brother, or best friend is a player, then I understand people supporting the players.
But if you're just a fan of the sport? Why would any fan want millionaires to have more money at the expense of the fans?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:11 PM
  #136
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Or, as I like to say, "Why buy cows when the fans are giving them milk for free?"
... pretty straightforward. Thomas Hardy figured it out.
This class & generation of society?... not so much.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:51 PM
  #137
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
I support the fans.

It just so happens that the owners position would be much better for the fans as a whole, than the players position.

If concessions from any side creates a better league, that's what I'll support.

And I think that a free market (what the players want) is TERRIBLE for fans of small market teams. [so one could say it's worse for the league]
And increased revenue sharing (what the players want if they accept a cap) is TERRIBLY unfair for fans of rich teams.

If there's a system where millionaires make a little less money, but is better for the league, that's what I support. If there's a system where billionaires get a little more money, but it's better for the league, that's what I support.
So I read lots about how you want a better league... yet you can't seem to grasp that RS is one of the mechanisms to bring that about. The league is better off with RS. It allows smaller teams to compete with other teams and not lose their shirt in the process.

You're stuck in some fantasy land that RS is somehow bad for Toronto's fans. I could see one saying the cap is bad (Toronto can't buy success), but RS doesn't affect the fans in any way shape or form. MLSE will still charge what they charge for tickets, beer, hotdogs, etc regardless of RS. Prices will still go up yearly regardless of RS. These two things are NOT related.

So lets get this straight. You want a better league, and support what will bring this about... but only as long as it's fair for the fans... now how does one define 'fair' for the fans?

Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 12:55 AM
  #138
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I dont see people sheeding tears for the spo's or the vancouver grizzlies. I dont recall people going to the lengths they are currently to save the nordiques or the jets v1.0.

You know what the difference is on the hockey side, the teams that left left from established ( but admittedly smaller) markets for the appeal of larger markets with " potential" ( whatever the hell that means).
This is an old, tired and re-hashed discussion.
#1 - The lengths the league has gone to to save franchises has a common denominator that has nothing to do with country (or geography). It has to do with TIME and ARENA BUILDING.

#2 - The appeal of the "larger markets with the potential" had nothing to do with the NHL or Gary Bettman. It had everything to do with the NEW OWNER who was looking to buy the team.

Who'd the league fight for to stay put? Teams that had arenas built for them by local municipalities: PIT, NASH, PHX, NYI.
Who'd the league allow to leave? Teams who's cities didn't get new arenas built: WIN, QUE, HART, MIN (2 CAN, 2 USA). And one who got evicted from their arena: ATL.

Who'd Bettman bring into the league?
Columbus - Was willing to build an arena for the Whalers, got an expansion team.
Nashville - Was willing to build an arena for the Devils, got an expansion team.
Atlanta - Had a team before, built an arena, got an expansion team.
Minnesota - Had a team before, built an arena, got an expansion team.
Winnipeg 2.0 - Had a team before, built an arena, got the Thrashers.
Quebec 2.0 - Had a team before, talking about an arena… ??????

The message the NHL is sending is "If you build it, they will come. If you don't they might leave. If you DID build it, they will STAY until it needs to be replaced."

That last part brings me to Nashville and Phoenix. The NHL didn't let either team move to Hamilton. Not because Hamilton is in Canada, but because Phoenix and Nashville built arenas. And the NHL has to show that building an arena for a team means YOU KEEP THE TEAM. Otherwise, Quebec doesn't build a new arena.

Also, the NHL violated its own ownership rules in order to approve the Oilers staying put in Edmonton, Canada and not moving to Houston, USA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
The NHL should stop chasing this mirage
Once you stop "chasing a mirage," you're still in the desert. And you can't turn around and go back the other way. You need to keep going in the same direction or you're probably going to die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
You know why the NHL doesnt have a deal like the NBA ( although the comcast deal is pretty good) ? Because a huge percentage of the states, the overwhelming majority based on population and geography dont give a rats ass about the game. The notion that the have markets in canada should continue to subsidize this failed experiment in perpetuity is nonsense.
#1 - They say the exact same thing about soccer, yet, all the European teams are trying like mad to tap into the US as a market.
#2 - You're looking at it completely backwards. Other sports share 7 times as much local revenue with each other. No one says it's unfair in those sports. It's a non-issue in those sports. The rich owners agreed to it because it put more money in their pockets, not less AND helped the league as a whole.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 01:23 AM
  #139
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
So I read lots about how you want a better league... yet you can't seem to grasp that RS is one of the mechanisms to bring that about. The league is better off with RS. It allows smaller teams to compete with other teams and not lose their shirt in the process.

You're stuck in some fantasy land that RS is somehow bad for Toronto's fans. I could see one saying the cap is bad (Toronto can't buy success), but RS doesn't affect the fans in any way shape or form. MLSE will still charge what they charge for tickets, beer, hotdogs, etc regardless of RS. Prices will still go up yearly regardless of RS. These two things are NOT related.

So lets get this straight. You want a better league, and support what will bring this about... but only as long as it's fair for the fans... now how does one define 'fair' for the fans?
If the cap ceiling was substantially lowered, the players would still be filthy rich... the small market teams can still compete... and the fans of rich teams don't have to pay for players of their direct competition.
Everyone wins.
Players are still filthy rich.
It's definitely what's most fair for the fans.

If the owners had it their way, this is what would happen.
The players of course stand in the way of that.


Also... the fact that scalpers sell maple leaf tickets at a MUCH higher price than mlse PROVES that mlse is charging less than supply and demand would dictate.
If revenue sharing is increased, i'm sure mlse would simply increase prices to even things out. It's what any business would do.
Thanks nhlpa.
You all simply NEEDED those few extra sports cars... right?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 01:54 AM
  #140
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
The sole "argument" you have in this is "direct competition."

But
a) Parity helps popularity, which helps the league.

b) While the league mandates the minimum salary, the real reason RS exists is because without it, the poor teams are spending 70% of HRR on players... which eliminates their TRAVEL budget, and their MARKETING budget.

Would you be okay with each team paying 10% of HRR into a league-wide "Travel and Marketing Fund" and all 30 teams taking an equal slice of that, so the RS money wasn't "paying the payrolls of direct competition" ??

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:47 AM
  #141
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
The sole "argument" you have in this is "direct competition."

But
a) Parity helps popularity, which helps the league.

b) While the league mandates the minimum salary, the real reason RS exists is because without it, the poor teams are spending 70% of HRR on players... which eliminates their TRAVEL budget, and their MARKETING budget.

Would you be okay with each team paying 10% of HRR into a league-wide "Travel and Marketing Fund" and all 30 teams taking an equal slice of that, so the RS money wasn't "paying the payrolls of direct competition" ??
Having a cap basement/ceiling at... say... (just ballparking)... 35/50 mil would still have the players being ABSOLUTELY FILTHY RICH, would be very good league parity, and neither rich team nor poor team fans would be ****ed over.
This is something the league would DEFINITELY agree to but the nhlpa wouldn't

I support this more than the millionaire players each having a few extra sports cars.

Again... I understand the nhlpa fighting for more than this. Why wouldn't they?
But why would the fans support the nhlpa in that battle? WHY?
Why would the fans POSSIBLY care how many more sports cars the players can get at the expense of the league and fans in general?

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 03:46 AM
  #142
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Having a cap basement/ceiling at... say... (just ballparking)... 35/50 mil would still have the players being ABSOLUTELY FILTHY RICH, would be very good league parity, and neither rich team nor poor team fans would be ****ed over.
This is something the league would DEFINITELY agree to but the nhlpa wouldn't

I support this more than the millionaire players each having a few extra sports cars.

Again... I understand the nhlpa fighting for more than this. Why wouldn't they?
But why would the fans support the nhlpa in that battle? WHY?
Why would the fans POSSIBLY care how many more sports cars the players can get at the expense of the league and fans in general?
I like how rich teams making more money because they decided to pass rules enabling them to make more money is getting "***ked over"

I would like to get "***ked over" like that.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:55 AM
  #143
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
This is an old, tired and re-hashed discussion.

The message the NHL is sending is "If you build it, they will come. If you don't they might leave. If you DID build it, they will STAY until it needs to be replaced."
Hmmm, What about Hamilton, and KC and now Qc? They built it did the NHL come? There are probably others.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:47 PM
  #144
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Hmmm, What about Hamilton, and KC and now Qc? They built it did the NHL come? There are probably others.
The NHL didn't say "If you build it, they will come/stay" to Hamilton or KC. Or Seattle.

They DID say it to Minnesota, Winnipeg and Quebec in the mid-90s.

MIN, WIN and QUE are like the Business Class folks at airport security. They can go to the front of the line.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 03:31 PM
  #145
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
This is an old, tired and re-hashed discussion.
#1 - The lengths the league has gone to to save franchises has a common denominator that has nothing to do with country (or geography). It has to do with TIME and ARENA BUILDING.

#2 - The appeal of the "larger markets with the potential" had nothing to do with the NHL or Gary Bettman. It had everything to do with the NEW OWNER who was looking to buy the team.
.
This isnt a canada vs the US thread ( god knows that there are enough of those) but to argue that losing a team in a non traditional market ( like the spos or the Griz) is not a PR failure of epic proportions. MLB and the NBA decided that those two markets could not support the teams that were there. No one shed a tear when Atlanta all but washed their hands of the Thrashers and they move back to the PEG. How is it okay that the owners of the thrashers walking away from the team is not a PR disaster, but the inability to find a buyer for the yotes or the fiasco that is developing in columbus is something to be avoided at all costs ?

The yotes are an embarassment not because the market cannot support a team but because the NHL itself couldn't make a go of it even after extorting the CoG with that ridiculous arena management subsidy.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 05:33 PM
  #146
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
This isnt a canada vs the US thread ( god knows that there are enough of those) but to argue that losing a team in a non traditional market ( like the spos or the Griz) is not a PR failure of epic proportions. MLB and the NBA decided that those two markets could not support the teams that were there. No one shed a tear when Atlanta all but washed their hands of the Thrashers and they move back to the PEG. How is it okay that the owners of the thrashers walking away from the team is not a PR disaster, but the inability to find a buyer for the yotes or the fiasco that is developing in columbus is something to be avoided at all costs ?

The yotes are an embarassment not because the market cannot support a team but because the NHL itself couldn't make a go of it even after extorting the CoG with that ridiculous arena management subsidy.
Please explain the bolded part.

TaketheCannoli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 06:34 PM
  #147
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
Please explain the bolded part.
My interpretation is that perhaps they blue jackets have turned the corner, but they (along with the isles) have been the worst managed team for many many years. I dont see them being competitive any time soon ( whenever we start back up) and it is my impression that the market is not as fervent as many places that will willingly support bad teams ( the leafs and thr habs last year). If the lockout goes more than a year, teams in established markets know the fans will be back. i am not sure this is the case in colmbus and in many of thr non traditional markets.

I dont think things are rosy looking for the jackets, perhaps being from ohio you have a better idea about the team than I. If I am wrong then I appologize, but if its not the bluejackets its not like there is a dearth of teams that are struggling.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 07:03 PM
  #148
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
My interpretation is that perhaps they blue jackets have turned the corner, but they (along with the isles) have been the worst managed team for many many years. I dont see them being competitive any time soon ( whenever we start back up) and it is my impression that the market is not as fervent as many places that will willingly support bad teams ( the leafs and thr habs last year). If the lockout goes more than a year, teams in established markets know the fans will be back. i am not sure this is the case in colmbus and in many of thr non traditional markets.

I dont think things are rosy looking for the jackets, perhaps being from ohio you have a better idea about the team than I. If I am wrong then I appologize, but if its not the bluejackets its not like there is a dearth of teams that are struggling.
Being from Ohio and knowing ownership I have a very different perspective.

They have been horribly mismanaged. They have drafted poorly, perhaps been even worse at developing talent. Perhaps even worse, they have usually been just bad enough to miss the playoffs, but not bad enough to draft 1st or 2nd overall where it's difficult to screw up. In spite of this, their attendance has been ok. In fact they had over 100 consecutive sellouts with a team that finished last in their division.

Finally, after a terrible 2010 season, attendance began to slip. The Blue Jackets don't inflate attendance. I've been to games that had 14,000 or 15,000 people that looked like 19,000 in some markets.

Yet they have often spent above the cap midpoint. This means they have decided to give up significant amounts of revenue sharing. Their owners are not complaining about their losses, and in fact during the lockout of 2004 ownership decided they would not lay off any employees and did not cut pay either. Due to this, their owner wrote a $17 million check out of his pocket to cover that year's payroll.

The Blue Jackets are a bad team. Their hockey operations department has done a lousy job. Ownership is also committed to competing. It may not work, but they recently hired John Davidson as President of Hockey Operations for over $2 million per year in an attempt to compete.

They are also not a charity case, and not one of those teams that only spends to the cap floor.

TaketheCannoli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 07:46 PM
  #149
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,985
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
Being from Ohio and knowing ownership I have a very different perspective. .
So if the season is lost, what percentage of sth do you think re-up in columbus ? What if (god forbid) we sit out teo years ?

The haves will be hurt in their pockets but they have the luxury of knowing that whenever the game starts up, there wll be butts in the seats ( even if they are not the same butts). My impression is that columbus ( among other non traditional market teams) will not be afforded this luxury.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:02 PM
  #150
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
to argue that losing a team in a non traditional market ( like the spos or the Griz) is not a PR failure of epic proportions. MLB and the NBA decided that those two markets could not support the teams that were there. No one shed a tear when Atlanta all but washed their hands of the Thrashers and they move back to the PEG. How is it okay that the owners of the thrashers walking away from the team is not a PR disaster, but the inability to find a buyer for the yotes or the fiasco that is developing in columbus is something to be avoided at all costs ?

The yotes are an embarassment not because the market cannot support a team but because the NHL itself couldn't make a go of it even after extorting the CoG with that ridiculous arena management subsidy.
"Non-traditional" market is a phrase that exists only in the NHL.

Simply put, the media that covers MLB and the NBA has no agenda towards the success or failure of the Grizzlies, Raptors, Expos or Blue Jays. James Naismith who invented basketball was Canadian.

All four of those teams were expansion teams, and the US media viewed the expansion of the sport into Canada as an imperialistic inevitabilty. The American way of life spreading... like democracy and capitalism... (We tend to be egotistical jerks that way).

The media has not treated hockey the same way. And I am not making a Canada-USA distinction with the media here. The US was full of media skeptics, quick to jump on the "hockey in the desert?" train (because controversy sells in the media, and it's an easier approach to take than to hit the pavement, ask people, talk to economists and do your homework. It's a classic talking heads move... there's no downside if you're wrong).

The Grizzlies and Expos were not cases of "BASKETBALL failed in Vancouver" or "Canadians don't like baseball." It was merely "The Expos were poorly managed and that franchise relocated, like the Washington Senators, Milwaukee Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Philadelphia As, etc.

That can happen in Winnipeg, Quebec, Cleveland, Minnesota, Hartford, Kansas City and Denver -- and it did -- and it was not an indictment on the sport.

It happened in Atlanta. Like you said, no one shed a tear. There were plenty of "the Atlanta hockey experient failed again" stories when the Thrashers moved.

But if PHX and FLA were to move on the heels of Atlanta's relocation, it's an epidemic. It's "The NHL's southern experiment failed. Hockey isn't popular"

Honestly, I think the NHL is super interested in expanding to 32 teams, so that they can steer Phoenix towards Houston. If the Coyotes move within the South, you cut off a lot of those "Southern Hockey failed" stories, because Houston's chances with an NHL team would be compared to Dallas (favorable, since Dallas was killing it before Hicks bought Liverpool).

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 06:16 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.