The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
With Fehr end-around, owners hit new low—and waste lead
If there is no floor there should be no rev sharing. How silly would that be collect 10 million in rev sharing and have a payroll of 10 million. The 4 or 5 rich teams may as well just own the league
Stix the owners want profits, that's how it will be done. That's the only way to eliminate losses, we both know this.
No. Read it again. it's about the dead puck era. Which started after 1992-93.
Actually I think its you who need to read your own posts again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch
Wow an accomplishment. Lose less money by not playing. Really? Amazing
So Pepper. You don't really care about the NHL, because if you did the crappy hockey since 2007 you would be against it.
Oh and Bettman is just one vote on the BOG. And he voted for expansion, which cause the Dead Puck Era because there were too many crappy teams with crappy players. Why don't you tell me, Rangers fan what I'll lose if teams are contracted. Keep in mind when contraction is on the table, it won't be the teams NBC shows...
So I ask once again are you really trying to use teams that were allowed membership into the NHL before Bettman was hired as Commissioner as to why he has helped ruin the NHL??????
Actually I think its you who need to read your own posts again.
So I ask once again are you really trying to use teams that were allowed membership into the NHL before Bettman was hired as Commissioner as to why he has helped ruin the NHL??????
Bettman was also responsible for creating the trap also......dam him
Actually I think its you who need to read your own posts again.
So I ask once again are you really trying to use teams that were allowed membership into the NHL before Bettman was hired as Commissioner as to why he has helped ruin the NHL??????
No but I blame him for Columbus problem's and the like. What made you think I was referring to those specific teams when I was talking about that. Why are trying to start a fight?
Bettman has this delusion that parity is great for sports -- even in a sport where hard work can defeat advanced skill in a seven game series.
We know Bettman believes this.
My question is, did Bettman instruct officials to allow all the hooking and holding that led the most boring era of regular season hockey in NHL history? (prior to the newNHL)
Yeah you are. You want an unrealistic ideal: 30 healthy teams. Get over it, it will never happen.
All expansion teams are garbage when they win. I have no idea what this has to do with NJ. The clutch and grab started in that years regular season. Florida, Tampa, Anaheim 3 teams that sucked right off the bat.
Rarely if ever will there be 100% healthy teams in this league, or almost any league that has 20+ teams for that matter.
Last edited by ThirdManIn: 12-08-2012 at 04:16 PM.
Reason: take it to PM
Why do you need 30 teams to enjoy this? 21 wasn't enough 24?
12 was better than 6, 18 was better than 12, and 24 was better than 18. 28 would be fine. I think 40 would be too many.
Variety is the spice of life. Plus, why shouldn't hockey get a wide audience?
Bettman has this delusion that parity is great for sports -- even in a sport where hard work can defeat advanced skill in a seven game series.
i believe parity is great for sports. with that added wild card in the mlb last year, a lot more teams were close to the playoffs, and i'm sure their markets benefited from it.
i think when it's a team game, hard work always defeats advanced skill, but hard work can't defeat those with advanced skill when they work just as hard.
12 was better than 6, 18 was better than 12, and 24 was better than 18. 28 would be fine. I think 40 would be too many. Variety is the spice of life. Plus, why shouldn't hockey get a wide audience?
In this case not really.
My feeling is there are too many teams now. It's just too difficult to know most of the 1st liners on all the teams, let alone all the players. In a 12 to 15 team league a fairly decent fan would know something about almost all the players and the game would be more enjoyable to follow. Now you see some teams once a year, and they may even not visit your city some years.
However I realize there is no going back to 12 teams now, too bad.
Rarely if ever will there be 100% healthy teams in this league, or almost any league that has 20+ teams for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr
12 was better than 6, 18 was better than 12, and 24 was better than 18. 28 would be fine. I think 40 would be too many.
Variety is the spice of life. Plus, why shouldn't hockey get a wide audience?
MO, I am not trying to offend you at all, you're my friend. But only the NHL and NBA have this problem. The MLB has all teams making money. The NFL has one team losing due to straight in competence. The NHL does not show all its teams on NBC so how is that growing the game, to see NYC teams, BOS, PHI, BUF, WAS, DET, CHI all the time. Growing the game is a sham.
More to the point as a Canadian, do you need to share everything with the US? Serious question.
Bettman has this delusion that parity is great for sports -- even in a sport where hard work can defeat advanced skill in a seven game series.
We know Bettman believes this.
My question is, did Bettman instruct officials to allow all the hooking and holding that led the most boring era of regular season hockey in NHL history? (prior to the newNHL)
Quote:
Originally Posted by raifers
i believe parity is great for sports. with that added wild card in the mlb last year, a lot more teams were close to the playoffs, and i'm sure their markets benefited from it.
i think when it's a team game, hard work always defeats advanced skill, but hard work can't defeat those with advanced skill when they work just as hard.
Thing is people always want to see NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago. That will never change. Parity reduces that and thus causes low ratings
MO, I am not trying to offend you at all, you're my friend. But only the NHL and NBA have this problem. The MLB has all teams making money. The NFL has one team losing due to straight in competence. The NHL does not show all its teams on NBC so how is that growing the game, to see NYC teams, BOS, PHI, BUF, WAS, DET, CHI all the time. Growing the game is a sham.
More to the point as a Canadian, do you need to share everything with the US? Serious question.
Well, Melrose, I don't know if you read my previous post before part of it was modulated, but I too don't wish to offend you. It just seems as though you've got a burr in your saddle these days. But I'll stop there before I get modulated again. So, are you saying then that no league should have struggling teams, and if they do then they should be openly looking for relocation sites or possibly even considering contraction? In other words, are you saying that both the NHL and NBA have overextended their reach in the effort to have a 30-team League?
And as for sharing with the US... Come on, Melrose, the NHL has always been at least 2/3 US-based. The NHL shares US cities, and the US cities share Canadian-born talent. It's been a shared League essentially since its conception. Besides, people in the US aren't any different from Canadians; many of them can be just as passionate hockey fans. The only real difference is that Canada is primarily a hockey culture, whereas in the US they have a wider diversity of sports that occupy their sports culture. But again, great fans of hockey exist on both sides of the border.
Well, Melrose, I don't know if you read my previous post before part of it was modulated, but I too don't wish to offend you. It just seems as though you've got a burr in your saddle these days. But I'll stop there before I get modulated again. So, are you saying then that no league should have struggling teams, and if they do then they should be openly looking for relocation sites or possibly even considering contraction? In other words, are you saying that both the NHL and NBA have overextended their reach in the effort to have a 30-team League?
Sadly yes, they have. 5 or 6 problem teams(which both leagues have) is too much for me to digest. I apologize though for becoming short with you and others in recent days. I realize I can be grating at times. I am trying to change, it's not easy
And as for sharing with the US... Come on, Melrose, the NHL has always been at least 2/3 US-based. The NHL shares US cities, and the US cities share Canadian-born talent. It's been a shared League essentially since its conception. Besides, people in the US aren't any different from Canadians; many of them can be just as passionate hockey fans. The only real difference is that Canada is primarily a hockey culture, whereas in the US they have a wider diversity of sports that occupy their sports culture. But again, great fans of hockey exist on both sides of the border.
Fair enough. I just think that we're here at this point. The current system is not working. And if the owners get their way, it will be another band aid. I want real change, which is why I was proposing all those ideas before
Last edited by Killion: 12-08-2012 at 05:34 PM.
Reason: Missed quotes; bolded instead...
Sadly yes, they have. 5 or 6 problem teams(which both leagues have) is too much for me to digest. I apologize though for becoming short with you and others in recent days. I realize I can be grating at times. I am trying to change, it's not easy
Fair enough. I just think that we're here at this point. The current system is not working. And if the owners get their way, it will be another band aid. I want real change, which is why I was proposing all those ideas before
I see nothing seriously wrong with the League accepting the task of trying to deal with a couple/few struggling franchises, if that's what they collectively wish to do. Besides though, I'm still of the opinion that there are/have been certain franchises struggling primarily due to very poor management, not strictly due to a fanbase problem. But anyway, and until we hear from the players saying that they don't want their salaries effected in any way indirectly as a result of teams that are struggling financially, I don't even think we should assume that the players themselves are up in arms over this issue. So, if the owners and players are both willing to deal with this issue, then who are we to complain, really.
Besides, you certainly know that the players don't want there to be fewer teams and thus fewer jobs. And then there's that other point that's been made many times in various threads recently... The League has extreme economic disparity, not only effecting 2, 4, 6, 10 teams at the bottom of the economic ladder. And if the economic weaker teams at the bottom were somehow eliminated, the resulting effect on the revenue baseline going upward would simply put another group of teams at the bottom into the economic hardship category.
This problem that you see in the League, it can't be solved just by knocking out a half a dozen of the economically weakest teams in the League. It just can't, it's not as simple as that. Again, unless you want a League of only 6 to 10 teams. Not saying it exists in all sports, but unfortunately hockey in NA, Yes.
Jacksonville has not lost money. The only team that has lost money in the last couple years was Detroit in 2010. Not far removed from their 0-16 season. It's obviously the exception, they've already recovered and are raking it in again.
Jacksonville was trying to prove they were losing money, but they aren't. They made nearly $30M last year. If they had lost money recently, they would be in Los Angeles in all likelyhood. It's no secret the owner wants to move the team there, but there are big penalties for moving your team unless you can prove that you 1) lost money in a season and 2) was followed up by 2 years of below average revenue.
