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.

With Fehr end-around, owners hit new low—and waste lead

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 12:40 PM
  #226
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
I agree but I disagree. The NHL hasn't really bent. They've conceded from their first proposal, but they haven't conceded from the last CBA. In summary, they've still requested the PA go from 57% to 50% without giving up something in the old CBA to compensate. So in a negotiation from an overall perspective, they've given up nothing.

With that said, those 3 critical items the NHL brought up, one is very bad for the game. The 5% variance, from what I now realize because of Fehr's explanation, will force contracts to be large and small. Getting rid of the middle class of player is very bad for the game. It leads to the Miami Heat model in the NBA which I don't want to see in the NHL. Rather than Bettman and the owners taking the approach of explaining why the NHLPA proposal is wrong, they just lay blame.

To use your analogy, it's like telling a kid he's wrong without telling him why. If I had to mediate that relationship, I wouldn't understand what the parents are mad at the kid for. The NHL isn't explaining anything to me as a fan. The NHLPA is. I know why the items the NHL wants are wrong.

Just saying we want a longer agreement for our sponsors and fans isn't enough.

For more details items, explain to me the dollars because I'm having a hard time understanding the owners' argument.
57% was always ridiculous in the first place.

The NHL can't negotiate for crap, they're a bunch of softies, the NFL and even the NBA would've broken the PA long ago.

Did the NBAPA even get anything like a make whole provision? IIRC the answer is no I believe. The players there just accepted going down to 50%.

The NHL is basically the parent that lets their kid stay up as late as they want and have candy for dinner if they want. They have no control over anything, lol. Just to get a salary cap last time they had to lose an entire season and give the players 57% of revenue, lol after basically 10 years of free willy no-salary cap whatsoever. That's pretty pathetic.

Fehr's already won this as far as I'm concerned. He got the NHL to bite on basically the full make whole. Now he's going to get the NHL to bend on these contract year limits and we're basically done here. He knows it.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:41 PM
  #227
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
While he IS an evil little man. I give him alot of credit. I give the GAME OF HOCKEY more credit.

However, I will blame him for the Coyotes situation. I will blame him for failing to realize that the state of Georgia is not a very good sports town and expanding into that market was a major blunder.

I will blame him for continuing to expand way to fast thus diluting the talent pool and by extension creating the dead puck era.

I blame him for forcing teams down the throats of the sunbelt states alot of which happen to be financially struggling franchises.

If you paid attention to the teams driving the 3.3 billion annually, a monkey could have come in and did his job in that regards.

Bettman has over-seen more negative than positive during his tenure as Commish.

And it's nice you you completely missed the part of my post where I credited him with making the owners alot of money therefore they trust him and his opinion.

And none of that is mentioning he is the voice behind the 3rd lickout in as mand expired CBA's under his belt.
Bettman has also made the players a lot of money. Some of the hardline players should be thanking him.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:42 PM
  #228
ryno23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
How much revenue sharing would be sufficient in order to resolve the league's issue? According to Forbes (I know...) 17 teams earned a collective profit of $380M and 13 teams operated at a collective loss of $130M. The league is already committed to contributing between $150 and $200M. The well may run dry at some point, unless the league finds a way to increase profits for all teams. I think reducing player costs and increasing revenue sharing is a viable long term plan. Certainly not one or the other by itself.
I may see revenue sharing a little different. I am not sure of the % but what should happen is that when you share that revenue it goes directly into players salaries which in turn will allow teams to keep their stars, get better players. Putting a better team on the ice should in turn bring in move revenue from ticket sales, concession sales, parking, merchandise sales, local TV rights, sponsorship.

All the added revenue should be able the team to make money. Maybe not Maple Leaf money but at worse case break even.

But I always bring it back to a competitive team on the ice if your management team puts a ****** product on the ice fans will stay away look at CBJ, Dal.

ryno23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:45 PM
  #229
bigd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartsabres View Post
Huh?

I am sure Bettman saw Fehr´s resume. Did you?

Bettman is not rattled because of Fehr he is pissed because it is damaging the NHL.
Oh, he is most definetly rattled.

bigd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:46 PM
  #230
THW
Registered User
 
THW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartsabres View Post
the deepest pockets were not in the room on tuesday....just saying
And everything seemed to progress, because players talked with owners...the owners who were there to get the game back on the ice. I think that if the wealthiest owners were in the room, they would not have made as much progress. The rich stay rich by not spending the money they have and the less rich get more rich by getting the game back on the ice and making money. If you look at it with an eye of fundamental economics, it gets clearer, but as fans we look with our heart and it muddles our vision.

THW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:47 PM
  #231
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
I may see revenue sharing a little different. I am not sure of the % but what should happen is that when you share that revenue it goes directly into players salaries which in turn will allow teams to keep their stars, get better players. Putting a better team on the ice should in turn bring in move revenue from ticket sales, concession sales, parking, merchandise sales, local TV rights, sponsorship.

All the added revenue should be able the team to make money. Maybe not Maple Leaf money but at worse case break even.

But I always bring it back to a competitive team on the ice if your management team puts a ****** product on the ice fans will stay away look at CBJ, Dal.
Has Dallas really been all that much worse than say ... Calgary the last few years? Yet the Saddledome is sold out every night at a pretty hefty ticket price.

You can't be a Cup contender every year, every franchise has its lulls (it's coming Detroit).

If a team in the US needs to be within earshot of a Stanley Cup to pull a profit, then Bettman is absolutely right in insisting on a system wherein parity is paramount.

Because it's fairly obvious in many US markets, no one gives a crap when the team is decent-poor and only give half a hoot even when they're good.

The NHL cannot have a system like Major League Baseball does, because baseball is inherent in the fabric of American culture. Hockey most certainly is not. And now that the glow of the 1990s/early 2000s is over, where ice hockey was kinda new trendy novelty for warm weather markets (like the Mighty Ducks movies and roller blading with neon spandex, lol), these markets have to rely on actual hockey fans. And that's where they're getting in trouble.


Last edited by Soundwave: 12-07-2012 at 12:52 PM.
Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:52 PM
  #232
oilexport
Registered User
 
oilexport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Well the Leafs owner walked out yesterday. So...
4 Moderate owners left the building yesturday, all said the same thing. We made progress with the players only to be stopped by Donald Fehr the next Day. Thier is not a P.R. spin on that. These owners where considered good, honorable people.

The players claim they are still behind Donald 100%. Something does not add up with the players and thier leadership.

Most Owners just want to make things work, Players are greedy and being influenced too much by Donald. Thats the jest of my view. I will say the Owners have not respected the Players enough. Players need to be respected, that's where Gary and the Owners went wrong.

oilexport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:53 PM
  #233
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,083
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by THW View Post
I believe that the biggest pockets dictate how things go. There are owners that would rather see the game on the ice, but since Bettman only needs 8 owners on his side(if I remember correctly) he will listen to the deepest pockets because the teams losing money are taking handouts to keep afloat. But that is just what I believe. I could be wrong.
you are.

The big money making teams want to play. The marginal money making teams want to play.

It's the 10-12 teams that are in poor markets and do not operate their franchises properly that are driving the discussion.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:57 PM
  #234
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
you are.

The big money making teams want to play. The marginal money making teams want to play.

It's the 10-12 teams that are in poor markets and do not operate their franchises properly that are driving the discussion.
I would not call the Bruins, Caps, Flames and Wild, "poor" markets. These are the hardliners.

Habtchum* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:57 PM
  #235
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 500
Fehr has gotten the owners to bend on the $300 milion make whole, why stop now?

He is going to get the NHL to bend on the contract lengths, probably up to 7 years (and dump the 5 year thing entirely).

The NHLPA in the end is going to end up with a pretty nice deal IMO, compared to NBA and NFL players who got diddly squad in make whole and have never had to be compensated hundreds of millions of dollars for accepting a 50-50 split.

Yesterday was a good day for Fehr.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 12:58 PM
  #236
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Has Dallas really been all that much worse than say ... Calgary the last few years? Yet the Saddledome is sold out every night at a pretty hefty ticket price.

You can't be a Cup contender every year, every franchise has its lulls (it's coming Detroit).

If a team in the US needs to be within earshot of a Stanley Cup to pull a profit, then Bettman is absolutely right in insisting on a system wherein parity is paramount.

Because it's fairly obvious in many US markets, no one gives a crap when the team is decent-poor and only give half a hoot even when they're good.

The NHL cannot have a system like Major League Baseball does, because baseball is inherent in the fabric of American culture. Hockey most certainly is not. And now that the glow of the 1990s/early 2000s is over, where ice hockey was kinda new trendy novelty for warm weather markets (like the Mighty Ducks movies and roller blading with neon spandex, lol), these markets have to rely on actual hockey fans. And that's where they're getting in trouble.
Be careful, someone is sure to use that argument to say that many of those US-based teams shouldn't then be in the League to start with.

Is there any other sport in which there are so many fans who continually argue that certain cities in the League shouldn't have teams? I don't truly know for sure, but hockey seems to be the only sport that has this unique fan characteristic.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:00 PM
  #237
CrAzYNiNe
Registered User
 
CrAzYNiNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,959
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CrAzYNiNe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sure he can. He won't close a deal that let's the NHL bend the players over.




Which other version is there?
It's funny how a lot of your comments echo the same sound, players [mod: getting bent over]

The things hurting the players more is not playing. Look at the previous lockout, the money they lost was from not playing, not because of the salary cap. If you think the owners are looking out for their best interest, well you are correct. This is why both sides have negotiations.

Everyone thought the players gave in on the last lockout yet they are making record salaries... Again the only thing hurting the players is not playing and growing the game.

A deal is there to be made, it was there in the summer, it was there in September, it has been there all along. Unfortunately neither of us can pretend to have the true details, but I won't believe that Steve Fehr would of stayed in the room and allowed his members to get their hopes up for nothing.

Anyways we can both be right, both be wrong, we are simply puppets of what the media is fed.

CrAzYNiNe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:00 PM
  #238
vatali
Life Long Slacker
 
vatali's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Middle of nowhere
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
Bang on.

What also happens now is my Leafs will make an extra 7 million under Gary's deal since the cap will go down roughly 7 million. So CBJ may only lose 30 million instead of 37 million. How does $7 million help any failing markets?

How is taking money from the players going to solve the huge disparity in marketplaces?

I know how......revenue sharing meaningful revenue sharing just like all the other leagues do.
Profit sharing, not Revenue sharing. All the other leagues have a meaningful national contract which makes teh league in general profitable. Then on top of that you have profits from each of the eneties. A team making a massive profit can then divide some of its profits to the teams making less or none and the system works. In the NHL you have a few teams that make a profit and a lot of others that do not. Revenue sharing (taking the pot and dividing it up) actually hurts the lesser teams (teams that are not in the top 7 but do make money or break even) into sharing what little profit they make along with additional revenue they dont make profit on with teams that are even worse off.

This is why cost reduction is important to the owners. Reduce costs, increase profit, share the increased profits with teams that need money to survive.

Revenue sharing without profit increases hurts everyone.

vatali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:01 PM
  #239
OVs Gold Chain
Registered User
 
OVs Gold Chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Now he's going to get the NHL to bend on these contract year limits and we're basically done here.
This is the biggest issue for the owners.. the owners don't want to be locked into the long-term deals they made because they see the potential to save millions, and now they have the opportunity to do so. They've been waiting months to do so and there isn't much evidence to suggest they're about to cave.

The "Make Whole" concession is one of numerous "concessions" the owners have in store for the players to distract the public from the main issue, backing out of contracts the league doesn't like.

Your boss tells you "Yeahhhhh... so about that raise of 40% we gave you for the next 10 years... we're actually gonna need about half of that money back and there's no guarantee we'll want anything to do with you after. I know we legally told you otherwise, but we'd like a redo."

Cya in 2013

OVs Gold Chain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:04 PM
  #240
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Fehr has gotten the owners to bend on the $300 milion make whole, why stop now?

He is going to get the NHL to bend on the contract lengths, probably up to 7 years (and dump the 5 year thing entirely).

The NHLPA in the end is going to end up with a pretty nice deal IMO, compared to NBA and NFL players who got diddly squad in make whole and have never had to be compensated hundreds of millions of dollars for accepting a 50-50 split.

Yesterday was a good day for Fehr.
Yup, for Fehr personally. That's the weakness of the owners, they want to get a deal done and not have the Season totally lost; and Fehr is using that against them, convincing the players that more concessions from the owners can be had.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:08 PM
  #241
ryno23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Be careful, someone is sure to use that argument to say that many of those US-based teams shouldn't then be in the League to start with.

Is there any other sport in which there are so many fans who continually argue that certain cities in the League shouldn't have teams? I don't truly know for sure, but hockey seems to be the only sport that has this unique fan characteristic.
Actually your wrong on that end. The NBA pulled out of Vancouver pretty quick when it was evident it was not a basketball market mainly due to the Canadian Dollar at the time.

I am not saying moving all of the southern teams but there is no way in the world Phoenix should be still a viable franchise when its evident it will never work.

How much of the NHL revenue was feed into that sinking ship. What would have the profits been if that team was moved back to Quebec City or Hamilton?

The NFL is full of teams moving. Baltimore to Indy. Houston to Tenn. Raiders to LA to Oak. LA to STL. Now some of these markets are viable football markets cause its part of the American tradition of football.

You don't think Winnipeg is a better place for the franchise then Atlanta?

There is a time you gotta cut bait and move them to a market where it will thrive.

ryno23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:09 PM
  #242
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yup, for Fehr personally. That's the weakness of the owners, they want to get a deal done and not have the Season totally lost; and Fehr is using that against them, convincing the players that more concessions from the owners can be had.
NHL is soft and they've always been soft are the fall out from the Allan Eagleson stuff of the 1980s.

- No salary cap whatsoever for the entire 1990s + first half of 2000s

- Just to get a salary cap, had to burn an entire season and agree on a 57-43 revenue split (lol)

- Now to get 50-50, like the NBA and NFL have, the NHL agrees to a make whole provision where they pay $300 million of a requested $390 million (lol, great negotiating there, guys).

They'll bend on the contract length stuff too.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:09 PM
  #243
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,083
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
Bettman has also made the players a lot of money. Some of the hardline players should be thanking him.
I would like to point out that the players making a lot of money are the players that would be making alot of money in any Salary Structured System.

The money THEY generate makes them alot of money.

The Sidney's and Malkins and AO's and the Richards of the NHL would still be here if the NHL was a 26 team league and in that 26 team league, Sid and those guys would still get his 8.5-9 million per year salary.

If Bettman was a GOOD commish, we would have a better TV deal.

If Bettman was a GOOD commish, we would have more than ONE TV deal.

If Bettman was a GOOD Commish, he would have recognized that expanding from 21 teams to 30 teams over a 9 year period was not a good move.

Had he been a Hockey guy, he would have realized that adding over 200 players (40% increase based on a 23 man roster) in player population would have significantly diluted the player base placing a major drag on overall Talent in the NHL. Not to mention filling the AHL with minor league talent.

The NHL should have stayed at 26 teams after the Panthers for at least 10 years to allow the pool to be re-juvinated.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:11 PM
  #244
THW
Registered User
 
THW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
you are.

The big money making teams want to play. The marginal money making teams want to play.

It's the 10-12 teams that are in poor markets and do not operate their franchises properly that are driving the discussion.
I dont think so. I think they have voices and they are just now being trotted out as a show, but money talks. I think the owners saw how badly they screwed up the last CBA in regards to contract length and HRR split. They are trying to put that money back in their pockets. I think trying to fix the money losing teams is a minor proposition because you dont make a team better with a CBA, you give the owner better position to make the team better with more money to spend on that team, but the split and revenue sharing is an owner issue, not a CBA issue. The big money owners will try to put money back into their pockets by reducing contract costs and gaining HRR and then they will have to pay less in revenue sharing and reducing the payout and keeping length of contracts, thus helping lower tier teams to put better product on the ice. The lower tier owners want hockey back and are willing to keep the CBA the same so the money starts to flow again. Like I said, thats just my opinion based on the contracts that I negoiated.

THW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:13 PM
  #245
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,083
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yup, for Fehr personally. That's the weakness of the owners, they want to get a deal done and not have the Season totally lost; and Fehr is using that against them, convincing the players that more concessions from the owners can be had.
and why is this bad now that the players are doing this to the owners this time, when this was the EXACT tactic taken by the owners in 2005?

I'm trying to figure out when If it's good for the Goose, it's NOT good for the Gander?

hmmm

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:14 PM
  #246
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
Actually your wrong on that end. The NBA pulled out of Vancouver pretty quick when it was evident it was not a basketball market mainly due to the Canadian Dollar at the time.

I am not saying moving all of the southern teams but there is no way in the world Phoenix should be still a viable franchise when its evident it will never work.

How much of the NHL revenue was feed into that sinking ship. What would have the profits been if that team was moved back to Quebec City or Hamilton?

The NFL is full of teams moving. Baltimore to Indy. Houston to Tenn. Raiders to LA to Oak. LA to STL. Now some of these markets are viable football markets cause its part of the American tradition of football.

You don't think Winnipeg is a better place for the franchise then Atlanta?

There is a time you gotta cut bait and move them to a market where it will thrive.
I think in actuality, there simply aren't 30 hockey friendly markets in North America. Supply/demand is the basic fundamental of any economic system ... there just aren't enough people that give a crap about ice hockey in North America.

Every market in the US is a football market, lol, high school football is more popular than NHL ice hockey in some American markets.

Yes they can relocate more teams to Canada, but how many more cities in Canada are there to put teams in? At what point are you try to shoe horn an NHL franchise in say ... Regina?

Also US networks don't want more Canadian teams, you think ESPN is going to come running to sign a TV deal where the playoff semis every other year might be stocked with Canadian clubs? There go what's left of your TV ratings.

I understand what Bettman is trying to do -- he knows ice hockey is a tough sell in the US, so he's trying to create parity, because then at least a lot of these US clubs have a fighting chance as the NHL is a gate driven league. The players are just looking at it from the POV of "what do I get paid"?

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:15 PM
  #247
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Therein lies a differentiation of perspective that could soundly be at the heart of a lot of what's going on.



Hey, can I borrow that?

There, Model62, is an argument presented by Soundwave to show you that Revenue Sharing isn't the problem. Player costs are the problem. Player salaries have skyrocketed out of the range of a great many teams in the League.
It is as if the PA hasn't already agreed to the 50-50 split....

Carry on.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:15 PM
  #248
ryno23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Yup, for Fehr personally. That's the weakness of the owners, they want to get a deal done and not have the Season totally lost; and Fehr is using that against them, convincing the players that more concessions from the owners can be had.
No what that is, is Fehr standing up to the bully Bettman and Bettman now knows he will not be able to crush the union like in 04-05 and get the head guy removed.

This will not happen in this negotiation and Bettman is getting mad.

He cannot control the terms of the deal and the deal he promised to crush the union again is not happening.

The owners see their buildings empty and losing billions vs the players losing what a couple of million

Gotta remember these are not the players of the 60's, 70's and 80' or even the 90's many of these players have already made millions and with financial advise and being told to get ready for another lockout have saved money.

If a player for any Canadian team makes say $1 million almost half will go to taxes so in reality he is only losing 500k....maybe a bit more if his tax shelters are not good.

Owners meanwhile are need to service the debt on their buildings and losing up to 44 dates a year for hockey along with all the other revenue is hurting them more.

Players can go and play in Europe or other leagues and still make some good money.....stars will make millions and 3/4 liners make well over 200k a year....still good money.


Last edited by Fugu: 12-07-2012 at 02:03 PM. Reason: Bettman, let's not do that on the business board
ryno23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:15 PM
  #249
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
you are.

The big money making teams want to play. The marginal money making teams want to play.

It's the 10-12 teams that are in poor markets and do not operate their franchises properly that are driving the discussion.
Do you have a link to that? Or is that just your opinion?

heartsabres* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2012, 01:16 PM
  #250
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryno23 View Post
Actually your wrong on that end. The NBA pulled out of Vancouver pretty quick when it was evident it was not a basketball market mainly due to the Canadian Dollar at the time.

I am not saying moving all of the southern teams but there is no way in the world Phoenix should be still a viable franchise when its evident it will never work.

How much of the NHL revenue was feed into that sinking ship. What would have the profits been if that team was moved back to Quebec City or Hamilton?

The NFL is full of teams moving. Baltimore to Indy. Houston to Tenn. Raiders to LA to Oak. LA to STL. Now some of these markets are viable football markets cause its part of the American tradition of football.

You don't think Winnipeg is a better place for the franchise then Atlanta?

There is a time you gotta cut bait and move them to a market where it will thrive.
You're talking about Leagues moving teams, which is a valid point in itself; but I was talking about fans within the League, any league, pointing to other teams and constantly arguing that those teams shouldn't be in the League. Do fans in other leagues do that? I don't think so; all they usually do is care about how well their own team is doing, and of course have rival hate against other teams.

But as to your point; Yes, I don't see why the NHL isn't a bit more open to relocations. But then hey, when it allowed a couple of Canadian-based teams to get relocated, all it got was grief (defined as hate againt Canada).

MoreOrr 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 05:36 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.