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.

Contraction a necessary evil for survival of NHL says economist

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-02-2012, 09:38 AM
  #151
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper View Post
Here's the problem with contraction. The weakest teams today, aren't the same as the weakest teams tomorrow.

Outside of Montreal, Toronto, and the NYR, I'd say just about every team has had a point in its history where it looked bleak.

Lets contract Chicago, or Detroit. How about Pittsburgh or New Jersey. Maybe the NYI or Boston need to go.

Contraction is a non starter.
Exactly this too, 5 years ago every thread about contraction had the Predators as one of the teams that needed to go, a lot of those also kept Phoenix in the mix because they had good crowds when the Coyotes first came to town. Today the Preds are never included in contraction talks, but the Coyotes are #1 on everyone's list.

Contraction isn't a topic for discussion because there will always be a "worst" franchise. Even in the NFL where everyone is banking, people talk about moving the Jaguars, Vikings, Bills or Chargers.

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 09:49 AM
  #152
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
The Leafs Habs rivalry is dead.
No, not dead, but not what it once was...except between the 2 fanbases...

MTL/BOS is a more real rivalry...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 09:53 AM
  #153
checkerdome
Registered User
 
checkerdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
No, not dead, but not what it once was...except between the 2 fanbases...

MTL/BOS is a more real rivalry...
That's only because they've met in the playoffs regulalry and have been in the same division for as long as the Leafs were inserted into the Western Conference.

That will change now that the Habs and Leafs are in the same division.

checkerdome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:04 AM
  #154
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,682
vCash: 500
PA: Keep 30 teams - Relocation (Drop Southern Strategy for TV rights)

NHL: Keep 30 teams - Stay put (Keep Southern Strategy for TV rights)

Reality: Someone needs to pay to keep those 30 teams or contraction will happen...
1-Players don't care about and don't want to pay for the League's Southern Strategy.
2-If NHL wants to keep Southern Strategy, NHL needs to pay for it through Revenue Sharing. However, good luck convincing NYR, Mtl to pay to keep Phoenix, Florida, etc... alive.
3-NHL can try PA's Relocation strategy (might or might not work better than Staying put)
4-If both fail, Contraction is inevitable.

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:08 AM
  #155
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester9881 View Post
I'll bet my house, right now, that a vast majority of the people calling for contraction are both fans of large market teams, and did so after checking the rosters of the bottom teams to see what players they wanted.
Life Friend, that's like. Sometimes you have to crush others to get ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TieClark View Post
lol... no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
No, not dead, but not what it once was...except between the 2 fanbases...

MTL/BOS is a more real rivalry...
Only some of the fans care as much. The Leafs are in the Great Lakes which is why they were out west.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:21 AM
  #156
TieClark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
No, not dead, but not what it once was...except between the 2 fanbases...

MTL/BOS is a more real rivalry...
There's a big difference between a team having a rivalry because of a playoff series or a dirty play and a historic rivalry that has been around since the leagues inauguration

TieClark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:24 AM
  #157
echlfreak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Contraction is not needed at all. The NHL just has to recognize a dying team in Phoenix...they have tried to keep this dying coyote alive for too long. After Phx finally gains some momentum with a great playoff run, they lockout and kill any chance of growth. They are killing their own team!

Moves instead of contraction:

Phx to Quebec
Carolina to Markham
Columbus to Seattle


Why would you contract when you can move the exact same team to a more traditional hockey market first?

Re-location makes NHL more money with re-loc fee. Plus a hockey market creates more ticket sales and all the revenue of new merch, business sponsors etc.

echlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:44 AM
  #158
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by echlfreak View Post
Contraction is not needed at all. The NHL just has to recognize a dying team in Phoenix...they have tried to keep this dying coyote alive for too long. After Phx finally gains some momentum with a great playoff run, they lockout and kill any chance of growth. They are killing their own team!

Moves instead of contraction:

Phx to Quebec
Carolina to Markham
Columbus to Seattle


Why would you contract when you can move the exact same team to a more traditional hockey market first?

Re-location makes NHL more money with re-loc fee. Plus a hockey market creates more ticket sales and all the revenue of new merch, business sponsors etc.
I would much rather relocation, than contraction also...the Atlanta to Winnipeg move proves it can work big time....

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:55 AM
  #159
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by echlfreak View Post
Contraction is not needed at all. Phx to Quebec,
Carolina to Markham, Columbus to Seattle
I see. So now Carolinas' in deep trouble as well is it? Not even close to it. Meanwhile in Columbus, they've finally straightened their mess of a Lease out, hired a new team President who knows what he's doing, finally, after 10+ years of management taken from the playbook of Don Waddell & ASG.... While I agree it looks bleak for the Coyotes, and for that I blame the league, the rest of the teams arent going anywhere, though it remains to be seen how the Islanders fare in Brooklyn over the next few seasons. All that being said, so long as there are markets going hungry for NHL hockey, 3 in Canada alone, Seattle and possibly others of whom nothings been reported, surfaced, then Contraction is simply not happening. Relo is problematical to the extreme, as your parachuting a club into a market and receiving a pittance of a fee in comparison to what youd get through Expansion, those dollars arriving unencumbered, free money for all.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:32 AM
  #160
JetsFlyHigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
It's ok to copy the NFL in terms of economics. But keep in mind it's not just the economics that made the NFL so successful. You have to be a popular as football for it to work.

You won't see barbecue saturdays in the NHL. Hockey is just a lazy saturday sit-all-day-and-watch-a-play-by-play type of sport, where every other whistle blown, you can get more hotdogs and beer. It just doesn't appeal that way on TV.

For some that might say, "its for the growth of the game". Well if you really want it to grow, then why would you need an NHL team, when you can introduce hockey thru a personal level, like building 30 rinks in a "untapped" market. North Dakota doesn't even have a team, yet college hockey is popular there. You would think you're in Canada if you watch a game. It is because they don't need to have an NHL team to say that hockey "can thrive here". It's like building a house without a foundation. You don't just put a house down, and expect itself to grow roots right? You don't build a stable building from top to bottom. They didn't build the pyramid from top to bottom. If you wanna grow the game, you have to copy what Minnesota, and North Dakota is doing to the college hockey there.

JetsFlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:42 AM
  #161
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
North Dakota has 700,000 in the ENTIRE STATE...

"Growth" is basically capturing a larger share of entertainment/sports money. You do that by having a major league presence in major league markets. And it takes longer than 10 years to establish yourself in those markets, it's a lengthy and difficult process, but the payoff at the end is worth it. The survival of the NHL basically depends on it, without a national footprint in the States the NHL will slowly die off. Choose to believe that or not, any league short of that however will not be a major player for the billions that are now on the table.

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:42 AM
  #162
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson View Post
There is no lack of talent, it's very much the opposite. The lower-end has improved, hence scoring going down. A lack of talent leads to superstars scoring extremely high numbers while even the good guys put up quite a lot of points, see the 80s for reference.
A higher talent-level among the bottom of the rosters leads to less mistakes and thus less scoring by the good players, with a slightly lower amount of scoring by the superstars. The slightly improved offense by the bottom players isn't making up for the loss of the more talented ones, so you end up with scoring going down.

You want to see more offense, expand the league, contraction would lead to the opposite reaction and reduce scoring even more.

Using the Allstar game as an example for increased scoring by increased talent-level is just useless. No one puts effort into that game, pretty much every game has no hitting and virtually no defense. Beyond that, removing 2-4 teams is not moving every team to allstar-level, nor to Olympic level rosters. That amount of talent could possibly add a bit of scoring, but to reach that level you would need to cut about 2/3s of the league, which makes no sense at all.
With more talent on other rosters, the better teams with more offense will have to be matched. Therefore other teams replace checkers with scorers on a limited basis which improves the product across the board. Scoring would not go down. Maybe initially but very short term. Just the inverse with expansion as we've seen.

Also, the bottom end teams would have a better product and more likely to attract customers.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:48 AM
  #163
Top 6 Spaling
Registered User
 
Top 6 Spaling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Smashville
Country: United States
Posts: 10,151
vCash: 500
I think it would increase scoring VERY marginally. One thing to keep in mind is the top defensemen would also dispersed, and with only 28 teams, the two worst starters would likely become backups. Goalies and defense get better as well.

To truly increase scoring, there are a few options. Not recommending these, but just throwing them out there.

1. Make the nets taller (as a goalie I hate this), 2. Eliminate offsides, 3. Allow handpasses and kick-ins, 4. Move to Olympic size rinks.

Contraction won't make a noticable difference.

Top 6 Spaling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:48 AM
  #164
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
North Dakota has 700,000 in the ENTIRE STATE...

"Growth" is basically capturing a larger share of entertainment/sports money. You do that by having a major league presence in major league markets. And it takes longer than 10 years to establish yourself in those markets, it's a lengthy and difficult process, but the payoff at the end is worth it. The survival of the NHL basically depends on it, without a national footprint in the States the NHL will slowly die off. Choose to believe that or not, any league short of that however will not be a major player for the billions that are now on the table.
I dunno. Six teams survived for a really long time without any expansion.


Those billions you allege are on the table right now.... are you sure about that? There is no low lying fruit, and if you have to spend $2 billion over ten years to reap another $2 billion, I don't see how you're getting ahead.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:53 AM
  #165
Jester9881
Registered User
 
Jester9881's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 5,398
vCash: 500
Everyone is talking like contraction is as easy as paying off an owner and having a dispersal draft.

Look at what happened in MLB with the Twins.

You're also going to have to convince local government who profits from a pro team, as well as whoever owns the stadium they play in if there is a lease... also cable contracts etc.

You're not going to see contraction, and it's also very unlikely you're going to see another team move. Expansion is possible, but that would just be compounding the problem IMO. Sure, Seattle might want a team.... but so did Miami, so did Phoenix, so did Atlanta. Cleveland and KC had teams too once upon a time.

Just because there's interest now, does not make that market viable long term. Just like because certain markets struggle now, doesn't mean they will struggle in the future.

If it were up to some of you, the Islanders would have been contracted a long time ago. They just might be a team that pays revenue sharing in the near future. Detroit, Pittsburgh, NJD Chicago........ all teams that struggled not too long ago.

Besides, lop off the bottom two teams.... and the next two become a "drag to the NHL".

All these problems can be attributed to a bad economy mixed with poor management at both the team level and league level. Face it, the NHL has done a poor job marketing the league in the US. Every time they start making headway, we get a lockout which further hurts the league. The Winter Classic is the best thing they've done for the game, but it needs to happen every single year at the same time for awhile to build tradition and gain interest. They really need to build off of outside interest from the Olympics.... but it will never happen if they stop playing every 5 years.

Jester9881 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:55 AM
  #166
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I dunno. Six teams survived for a really long time without any expansion.
This is a different age in sports and entertainment. While the "Original Six" was stupidly resisting expansion, the other leagues were putting teams into place that built tradition and put a foothold into markets across the nation before the demand for professional sports ballooned.

Now not only is the NHL behind the curve in building their fanbases, but they have to fight against the other leagues already having dibs on the sports dollars in many of those markets.

So keep trumpeting the glory days of the O6 as you fail to realize how damaging that era was to the NHL.

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:01 PM
  #167
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper View Post
Here's the problem with contraction. The weakest teams today, aren't the same as the weakest teams tomorrow.

Outside of Montreal, Toronto, and the NYR, I'd say just about every team has had a point in its history where it looked bleak.

Lets contract Chicago, or Detroit. How about Pittsburgh or New Jersey. Maybe the NYI or Boston need to go.

Contraction is a non starter.
THIS.

The only team in any serious danger right now is Phoenix, full stop. Florida is in no danger. Tampa is in no danger. Nashville is in no danger, I have no idea why people are even talking about Carolina and Anaheim. There's some fissures in Columbus, but contraction for Columbus would be like euthanasia for a head cold. You have to get beyond all hope for salvation before a team needs to be contracting.

Once the decision is made at the top level that the Phoenix experiment is for-good dead, and there's no reason to keep a team there, I can think of about 5 different markets, right off the top of my head, that Phoenix could move to and be more economically viable than they are now, and 3 of them have big market potential. Seattle is one, Quebec is grudgingly another (although that move is too "safe" with a midmarket ceiling high end and little growth potential), and the other two I'd point out as potential contenders are Houston and Baltimore.

The fifth location I have in mind is KC, but I don't think you move a team in Phoenix's situation to KC. There's just not enough stability there, and when you're taking a franchise that's already bleeding, you want to put it somewhere a bit less experimental.

My two personal choices from that list? if that's not clear already, first Houston, then Seattle, then look to add a new, reasonably solid team to the Southeast Conference, and then look to the already-failed-once Canadian markets, and then after that, the world's your oyster.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:06 PM
  #168
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
This is a different age in sports and entertainment. While the "Original Six" was stupidly resisting expansion, the other leagues were putting teams into place that built tradition and put a foothold into markets across the nation before the demand for professional sports ballooned.

Now not only is the NHL behind the curve in building their fanbases, but they have to fight against the other leagues already having dibs on the sports dollars in many of those markets.

So keep trumpeting the glory days of the O6 as you fail to realize how damaging that era was to the NHL.
What you fail to realize is that Americans love baseball and football.

I doubt that expansion earlier on would have somehow preempted MLB or NFL growth.

You also conveniently sidestep the original point that without some continuous expansion program, a league will die. Maybe there's an optimal number given a country's size and make-up for certain sports to flourish.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:24 PM
  #169
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
This is a different age in sports and entertainment. While the "Original Six" was stupidly resisting expansion, the other leagues were putting teams into place that built tradition and put a foothold into markets across the nation before the demand for professional sports ballooned.... Now not only is the NHL behind the curve in building their fanbases, but they have to fight against the other leagues already having dibs on the sports dollars in many of those markets. So keep trumpeting the glory days of the O6 as you fail to realize how damaging that era was to the NHL.
Well, as you know Legion, what predicated the original expansion had more to do with the possibility of anti-trust suits being launched, cities finding the doors barred, most notably Cleveland. This combined with the turnover within the ranks of ownership, the younger generations in New York, Toronto & elsewhere having designs to truly nationalize the game. First came up in the late 50's and gained speed around 1962, the rise of the new medium of television. Broadcast contract. Securing tenants for buildings they either owned or managed (St.Louis for eg). The IHL & old WHL actually threatening the NHL's supremacy, particularly so on the West Coast.

Your quite correct that the so called "Golden Age" circa 1952-67 was anything but "glorious" if you were a player, but from a fans perspective, those were indeed the days. I was around at that time, at first rejecting outright the original expansion, however, the interesting players the incoming employed soon turned my displeasure to acceptance & appreciation. What followed however truly was a Dogs Breakfast, teams created to block WHA interests in gaining a foothold; others simply awarded teams based on divisional alignments, the size of someones checkbook etc. Random, happenstance, left to their own devices.

The argument for Contraction is interesting, as with a well thought out footprint, teams remaining in California, the Southwest, a return to Atlanta in order to strengthen the South etc, but a smaller, more exclusive NHL all-round, well, its pretty to argue against it, that such a model just might not very well find itself vastly wealthier than what it is, could be.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:50 PM
  #170
Erik Estrada
One Country United!
 
Erik Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Habs
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,682
vCash: 500
Regarding the difference in city populations... To put things in perspective... Someone in Quebec City is 90X as likely to watch an NHL playoff game than someone from an average American city. Those numbers are probably more extreme if we're talking about a Southern market with no hockey tradition... What that means, is if you want the same viewership as Quebec City (pop: 500,000) , you need a given American City having 45 Million people.

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:53 PM
  #171
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
North Dakota has 700,000 in the ENTIRE STATE...

"Growth" is basically capturing a larger share of entertainment/sports money. You do that by having a major league presence in major league markets. And it takes longer than 10 years to establish yourself in those markets, it's a lengthy and difficult process, but the payoff at the end is worth it. The survival of the NHL basically depends on it, without a national footprint in the States the NHL will slowly die off. Choose to believe that or not, any league short of that however will not be a major player for the billions that are now on the table.
Neither major football league has expanded across countries and they are fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
This is a different age in sports and entertainment. While the "Original Six" was stupidly resisting expansion, the other leagues were putting teams into place that built tradition and put a foothold into markets across the nation before the demand for professional sports ballooned.

Now not only is the NHL behind the curve in building their fanbases, but they have to fight against the other leagues already having dibs on the sports dollars in many of those markets.

So keep trumpeting the glory days of the O6 as you fail to realize how damaging that era was to the NHL.
Hockey will never be baseball or football. Again do you see the Preds on NBC? No it's the northeast. The Northeast pays the bills with the south cries when you call them out. In any southern market, attendance drops when there is a mediocre team. Look at the Browns they have sucked for 30 years. If the Titans went through that, they would be in relocation talks. Hell they still want to move the Jags. 200 people showing up for games in Miami. 9600 for basketball. Sounds like all the big 4, not just hockey.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:55 PM
  #172
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clown Baby View Post
The Islanders, Stars, Avalanche, Oilers, Wild, and Panthers can't develop defensemen.
Wait? What?

Minnesota can't develop a scoring forward. Our defense has been fine. Scandella, Burns, Schultz, Skoula, Mitchell, Kuba...

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 01:10 PM
  #173
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, as you know Legion, what predicated the original expansion had more to do with the possibility of anti-trust suits being launched, cities finding the doors barred, most notably Cleveland. This combined with the turnover within the ranks of ownership, the younger generations in New York, Toronto & elsewhere having designs to truly nationalize the game. First came up in the late 50's and gained speed around 1962, the rise of the new medium of television. Broadcast contract. Securing tenants for buildings they either owned or managed (St.Louis for eg). The IHL & old WHL actually threatening the NHL's supremacy, particularly so on the West Coast.

Your quite correct that the so called "Golden Age" circa 1952-67 was anything but "glorious" if you were a player, but from a fans perspective, those were indeed the days. I was around at that time, at first rejecting outright the original expansion, however, the interesting players the incoming employed soon turned my displeasure to acceptance & appreciation. What followed however truly was a Dogs Breakfast, teams created to block WHA interests in gaining a foothold; others simply awarded teams based on divisional alignments, the size of someones checkbook etc. Random, happenstance, left to their own devices.

The argument for Contraction is interesting, as with a well thought out footprint, teams remaining in California, the Southwest, a return to Atlanta in order to strengthen the South etc, but a smaller, more exclusive NHL all-round, well, its pretty to argue against it, that such a model just might not very well find itself vastly wealthier than what it is, could be.
The Smaller the NHL gets, the less broadcasting and sponsorship dollars are available. Which creates more "have nots" and the need to contract further.

The only way for the NHL to survive long term is to build a presence in the larger markets. Any argument that is made against that is only looking at the past, present and very short term future. The successes of the 90's expansions won't begin to be felt until probably another 25-30 years. If the more established clubs are willing to play right and keep working together to build the newer markets, it will pay off for everyone in the long run.

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 01:12 PM
  #174
Legionnaire11
Registered User
 
Legionnaire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hendersonville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Neither major football league has expanded across countries and they are fine.
You're WAAAAAAAAAAAAY mistaken when you refer to the CFL as a major football league and goes to show what kind of misguided views some fans have when they believe that a smaller or Canadian/Regional US only NHL can be competitive.

Legionnaire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 02:28 PM
  #175
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
The Smaller the NHL gets, the less broadcasting and sponsorship dollars are available. Which creates more "have nots" and the need to contract further.

The only way for the NHL to survive long term is to build a presence in the larger markets. Any argument that is made against that is only looking at the past, present and very short term future. The successes of the 90's expansions won't begin to be felt until probably another 25-30 years. If the more established clubs are willing to play right and keep working together to build the newer markets, it will pay off for everyone in the long run.
NYC, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia Boston, Bay Area Washington >>>> Those are largest markets and provide more viewers then any southern market. You keep playing to the choir on the fact the NHL will ever pass the NBA or MLB. It won't happen.

Melrose Munch 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 06:41 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.