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.

1997 expansion approval

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2012, 10:46 PM
  #126
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Boots closed with the Freeman group and had about a 28% stake. Are you forgetting that a court trustee had to dispense with his stake after his trial for fraud? Or that Freeman ran into some tax problems, and that Cigarran eventually took over the lead owner role?

Oh, and Leipold and AEG lent money to Boots to help close the sale.
He was a minority owner like Brett Wilson is now. Yes he committed fraud but he was found out quickly and went to jail for it. He fooled everyone involved including Leipold. But he was never the "owner"

Gnashville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 11:19 PM
  #127
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
He was a minority owner like Brett Wilson is now. Yes he committed fraud but he was found out quickly and went to jail for it. He fooled everyone involved including Leipold. But he was never the "owner"

I never said he was the owner. My example of bad ownership decisions by the league included him because it was a setback to the Nashville organization. They had to make several cash calls and renegotiate with the city on some lease items thanks to the fallout from Boots. Heck, you can blame Leipold if you want, seeing he was the seller, a personal bank and on the NHL franchise sales committee.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 12:01 AM
  #128
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
Boots never owned the team!!! I'm just gonna start claiming Bill Butler is the owner of the Oilers. Interesting nobody claims Brett Wilson as the Preds owner now, but continue this Boots owned 100% of the Preds crap. As for the rest of this hatefest. Guess what we ain't going anywhere deal with it!!!!! Hell let's go back to 24 or 21 teams and 2/3 of the teams making the playoffs.
Crappy teams that are 20 games below .500 with the 6th seed that's excitment right there
Over 50% now, so what's the diff?

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 08:48 AM
  #129
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Over 50% now, so what's the diff?
the 1985 NY Rangers made the playoffs with a 26-44-10 record
the 2012 LA Kings finished the regular season with a 40-27-6-9 record
You see the diff??

Gnashville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 09:36 AM
  #130
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That owner can start his own league then. There's no reason why the highest valued franchises should be sacrificed so his $80 investment will flourish through anticompetitive practices.

Everyone had a chance to do their due diligence before buying into the league.

I can't believe I even have to argue something like this...
it really doesn't matter what the current values of the franchises are. I am sure the rangers, maple leafs, and canadians didn't spend much to get in the league. the rangers and maple leafs, and canadians can start a 3 team league. I am sure it work ou fine for them. (sarcasm)

What is important is what is best for the majority of the owners. the top revenue generating owners are not more important than the bottom generating ones. they aren't sharing all their revenue. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with the concept. 27 teams would benefit if the top 3 were removed. no teams would benefit if the bottom 3 were removed.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 09:39 AM
  #131
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Not saying that the Canadian teams want or wanted to give their voice to US team owners, if even hypothetically that would be the case. However, it is possible nevertheless that the Canadian team owners, at the time of Bettman's hiring, were also in favor of the idea of Bettman and that he was US-born. They may have felt, and may still feel, that the US was and is important to the future of the NHL. Just because some Canadian fans don't have that perspective doesn't mean that it doesn't exist among the Canadian owners in the NHL.
i think the canadian owners were thinking about how much money US sports like basketball, pro-football, college football, baseball generate in tv revenue. they wanted a piece of that pie. unfortunately for them it has come to reality. but the league has expanded quite a bit. they have gotten their share of expansion fees. the league generates a ton more revenue than before bettman got there.

the main problem the league has is player salaries being to high. He is trying to fix that yet people blame him for that.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 11:29 AM
  #132
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
it really doesn't matter what the current values of the franchises are. I am sure the rangers, maple leafs, and canadians didn't spend much to get in the league. the rangers and maple leafs, and canadians can start a 3 team league. I am sure it work ou fine for them. (sarcasm)

What is important is what is best for the majority of the owners. the top revenue generating owners are not more important than the bottom generating ones. they aren't sharing all their revenue. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with the concept. 27 teams would benefit if the top 3 were removed. no teams would benefit if the bottom 3 were removed.

27 would benefit under the ridiculous framework the NHL has imposed on itself. The mere fact that this was their solution to the revenue disparity should convince anyone they picked the wrong system. I think it makes all the business sense in the world to walk away from a quarter or a third of revenue potential, and maybe more than half of the profit potential. You do realize that normal businesses cut off the money losing units, right?

Continue with your socialist utopia if you must.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 11:33 AM
  #133
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country:
Posts: 29,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
i think the canadian owners were thinking about how much money US sports like basketball, pro-football, college football, baseball generate in tv revenue. they wanted a piece of that pie. unfortunately for them it has come to reality. but the league has expanded quite a bit. they have gotten their share of expansion fees. the league generates a ton more revenue than before bettman got there.

the main problem the league has is player salaries being to high
. He is trying to fix that yet people blame him for that.

I guess if you keep repeating it, it's going to stick with somebody at some point.

The main problem the league has is the revenue disparity. Maybe he should try to fix that instead.


On the point of Gary growing revenues.... did he 'grow' revenues or did they grow because the league grew by 9 teams? Let's the revenue growth you're attributing to Gary. (Is this where Bettman IS responsible for expansion, but when the expansion strategy is faulted, it wasn't Gary's idea.)

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:16 PM
  #134
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
27 would benefit under the ridiculous framework the NHL has imposed on itself. The mere fact that this was their solution to the revenue disparity should convince anyone they picked the wrong system. I think it makes all the business sense in the world to walk away from a quarter or a third of revenue potential, and maybe more than half of the profit potential. You do realize that normal businesses cut off the money losing units, right?

Continue with your socialist utopia if you must.
I think you don't get it do you? If this were a single business than they wouldn't even be negotiating with the union right now. they would say here are the salaries you will get if you play. you either take them or go play somewhere else.

They nhl doesn't consist of one entity. there are 30 entities. it has nothing to do with socialism. It is a majority rules system. You are right that it might be the wrong system but it is the system the players and the union agreed to and it is the one going forward and it is better in the current system to get rid of the more profitable teams for the majority.

And you can't cut teams anyway. How could you contract? Other than Phoenix you have no option. And you need an even number of teams. where do you think the league has the money to buy out the owners of the least profitable franchises and then pay off the leases? That isn't even an option so the discussion is pointless. But my argument is true. if it were possible to get rid of teams it would be in the vast majority of nhl owners interests to get rid of montreal, toronto, and the rangers.

it isn't socialist at all. it is making the best decision for the individual owners.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2012, 01:18 PM
  #135
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I guess if you keep repeating it, it's going to stick with somebody at some point.

The main problem the league has is the revenue disparity. Maybe he should try to fix that instead.


On the point of Gary growing revenues.... did he 'grow' revenues or did they grow because the league grew by 9 teams? Let's the revenue growth you're attributing to Gary. (Is this where Bettman IS responsible for expansion, but when the expansion strategy is faulted, it wasn't Gary's idea.)
no the salaries are too high. revenue disparity is an issue but the Capitals take in a ton of revenue and still are losing money. Do you think the owners would be willing to throw a second season away if the average teams were actually making money? The teams are drawing in large number of fans. they can't do anymore than sell-out an arena. and tickets aren't cheap.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 12:20 AM
  #136
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,878
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I guess if you keep repeating it, it's going to stick with somebody at some point.

The main problem the league has is the revenue disparity. Maybe he should try to fix that instead.


On the point of Gary growing revenues.... did he 'grow' revenues or did they grow because the league grew by 9 teams? Let's the revenue growth you're attributing to Gary. (Is this where Bettman IS responsible for expansion, but when the expansion strategy is faulted, it wasn't Gary's idea.)
Valid point as well. Also I don't get why the Bettman supporters will use the 'Gary was just doing as he was told' when the NHL looks bad (ie lockout) and that it's the owners telling bettman not to accept a deal/negotiate yet unquestionably assume that any ill act on the players part is Fehr feeding the players nonsense.

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 08:44 AM
  #137
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Because the dynamic is not equal between the BOG and the NHLPA. The BOG is 30 people, the players' association is hundreds. Fehr is the leader of the PA, Bettman is not the leader of the Board of Governors.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 10:00 AM
  #138
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, it makes no business sense. You're giving up massive market share, along with the highest per customer return in the league. That goes against every business doctrine except one outlined by Marx (which may be an oxymoron to call it a 'business' doctrine).
Furthermore, it opens up the inevitability another league would open. If the habs, leafs, and Rangers were all contracted, those teams would not simply cease to exist, they would start their own league and in less than a decade likely surpass the NHL in terms of revenue.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 04:50 PM
  #139
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Just a question to consider.

Let's start in 1993.
What kind of shape would the NHL be in today IF;

Minnesota doesn't move to Dallas
Quebec doesn't move to Colorado.
Winnipeg doesn't move to Phoenix
Hartford doesn't move to Carolina

The rapid southern expansion was a failure. That's not even debatable at this point.
If the owners can not sell their teams to the owners who initiated the relocation's, then the teams would either have been sold to someone else (who would then relocate the team), or they would have been contracted.

But you seem to have made up a completely arbitrary simulation, assumed that it worked in your favor and then have used that assumption as evidence to prove an erroneous point.


Last edited by Finlandia WOAT: 12-25-2012 at 10:52 PM.
Finlandia WOAT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-25-2012, 09:23 PM
  #140
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Because the dynamic is not equal between the BOG and the NHLPA. The BOG is 30 people, the players' association is hundreds. Fehr is the leader of the PA, Bettman is not the leader of the Board of Governors.
Moreover, there's a strong sense that Fehr is just dropping in to fight some court battles before he ditches hockey again, whereas Bettman will be accountable in the long run for the final outcomes. Hockey fans tend to (rightfully) distrust characters who appear to have no vested interest in the health of the sport.

It's kind of bizarre for Bettman to be the "hockey guy" in an argument, but here we are.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 09:30 PM
  #141
jkrdevil
UnRegistered User
 
jkrdevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 30,347
vCash: 500
Hartford is in a better place. They really are. Love the logo and Brass Bonanza, but they are in a better place.

Denver is a place where the league does need to be. Most of their issues right now is bad management. The Kroenke's like to do thing bare bones and it hurts and alienates fans. If you look at all of their team's you see the same issues.

Minnesota should have never left and to this day I don't understand why the Target Center wasn't an option for them. Dallas is probably an up and down market that needs good management. Hicks being overleveraged in everything hurt.

Phoenix was a mistake.

As for expansion, I wonder how differently Atlanta would have turned out if Turner, who the league thought they were bringing in, was there long-term. They team ended up getting sold to a ownership group that had no interest in hockey and were left out to die and finally kicked out to Winnipeg.

Having good management is key to establishing a new franchise. Especially in markets where the NHL was late to (which is basically every non-original 6 market because of a lack of vision by the league's forefathers)

jkrdevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 05:52 AM
  #142
TTOMO
Registered User
 
TTOMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Port Moody, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Considering there's no other NHL hockey in Ohio, while the Bruins dominate the New England market and Hartford is rubbing elbows with multiple New York squads in the other direction?

Yes you can.

The Hartford market was always too small to really succed. I feel bad about saying it, but there's no way on God's green earth that the NHL will ever return to Connecticut again. You'd need to be the Green Bay Packers to even have a chance, and while it's easy to remember the good times after the team is gone, the Whalers were never the Green Bay Packers.
If there was never a team in Hartford in the first place, would someone nowadays think of putting a new one there? I think not.

TTOMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:30 AM
  #143
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
You cannot justify columbus while leaving Hartford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Considering there's no other NHL hockey in Ohio, while the Bruins dominate the New England market and Hartford is rubbing elbows with multiple New York squads in the other direction?

Yes you can.

The Hartford market was always too small to really succed. I feel bad about saying it, but there's no way on God's green earth that the NHL will ever return to Connecticut again. You'd need to be the Green Bay Packers to even have a chance, and while it's easy to remember the good times after the team is gone, the Whalers were never the Green Bay Packers.
Columbus has Detroit nearby and Pittsburgh 2 hours away. Hartford has in a rich area. Columbus has the history but not money like the northeast

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:39 AM
  #144
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 21,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTOMO View Post
If there was never a team in Hartford in the first place, would someone nowadays think of putting a new one there? I think not.
If there was a brand new building & willing ownership Im sure they would.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 10:44 AM
  #145
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Columbus has Detroit nearby and Pittsburgh 2 hours away. Hartford has in a rich area. Columbus has the history but not money like the northeast
[mod]

PHILIDELPHIA is closer to Hartford than either Detroit or Pittsburgh are to Columbus.

Yes, the southern New England area is a rich market in terms of per capita income, but it's also a supersaturated market, with 4 local teams within broadcast radius -- the Bruins and the three New York teams. All the sports money in that area is already going to those teams. If Hartford could exist at all, it would be as a money losing cap floor team. There's better areas to invest than NHL expansion back into Hartford.

Now compare that with Columbus. Detroit and Pittsburgh are hours away, and the Jackets have secondary markets in Cincinatti and Cleveland that are as big themselves as Columbus is, which means that the two regions really aren't comparable as markets because Columbus has a far stronger territory outside its home city.

If Columbus is frequently floundering and leaderless and can't draw flies, imagine how bad Hartford would be.

The only reason Hartford existed at all as an NHL franchise was to even up the numbers when the WHA managed to successfully get Winnipeg included in the merger deal.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 12-27-2012 at 11:11 AM. Reason: no need for snarky comments...
Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 11:02 AM
  #146
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
Just something I've seen across these boards and find puzzling. Why is this expansion not being brought up when discussing the 'blame game' consider the following;
Because when you look at the money, we'd be in the exact same place. Here's a great post by KevFu pointing out the obvious that some people like to ignore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
This statement also blows my mind. Let's just suppose for a second that every team would make the same amount of revenues they do now if all the new markets since 1991 didn't exist.

Right now, with this 2006-2011 CBA, using 2011 dollars:
You have 12 of 30 teams who can't hit the cap floor by spending exactly 57% of HRR on payroll; 8 who are comfy to the cap, and 10 in the payroll range.

Eliminate SJ, DAL, TB, ANA, COL, NAS, CAR, FLA, CBJ, PHX (That's nine of the bottom 12 teams, plus #17 SJ).
Wild instead of North Stars, Jets 2.0 instead of Jets 1.0; Ottawa instead of Quebec; Hartford removed completely.

The midpoint skyrockets.
9 of 20 teams can't hit the cap floor by spending exactly 57% of HRR on payroll (35% of teams instead of 33%)
4 of 20 can spend to the cap comfortably (same 40% as now)
7 of 20 teams are in the payroll range (20% instead of 27%)

In other words: The financially unstable situation with a large disparity between competent owners and franchises and those on the opposite end IS EXACTLY THE FREAKING SAME.

The only difference is that without the 90s expansion/relocation teams, instead of people saying "Hey, we should move PHX, FLA, CBJ, NASH to Hamilton, Quebec and Markham" it would be OTT, NJ, MIN, EDM, WIN, BUF, STL and NYI (the bottom revenue teams in this 20-team league) in these bad financial situations. They'd be exploring relocationÖ you know, virtually the exact same teams that explored relocation IN THE 1990s!

MIN moved to DAL, WIN moved to PHX; NJ almost moved to Nashville, EDM almost moved to Houston;
OTT could fill the role of QUE, who moved to COL.
BUF could fill the role of HART, who moved to CAR.
The Islanders would have needed a new arena the entire time; and now they're moving to Brooklyn.
STL had the Saskatoon thing and a bankruptcy saga; OTT and BUF also had bankruptcies in the 90s.

Can we stop scapegoating "Expansion/Southern" teams as a CAUSE for this? The current [foul]ed up system isn't the byproduct of expansion/southern markets. It's a [foul]ed up system. Period. Regardless of who's in the league.

__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 11:51 AM
  #147
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
In hindsight it was a mistake. Now you need contraction or limits on league wide salaries.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:06 PM
  #148
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
[mod]

PHILIDELPHIA is closer to Hartford than either Detroit or Pittsburgh are to Columbus.
Aww, hold on there...
Columbus to Pittsburgh = 260km
Columbus to Detroit = 264km
Philadelphia to Hartford = 290km

And a couple more of related reference:
Pittsburgh to Buffalo = 290km
Pittsburgh to Philadelphia = 408km
Philadelphia to Washington = 193km

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:09 PM
  #149
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Excellent point, in my opinion. This hasn't stopped either. The most recent attempt at realignment, brought on by a relocation no less, managed to produce a division that had SE teams flying over the Atlantic Division to nestle up to NE Division teams? Are you ****ing kidding me?
Unfair point. You absolutely need to consider regional rivalries. The Penguins need to be in the same division as New York and Philly. New Jersey and the Islanders need to be in the same division as the Rangers. Ottawa and Boston needs to be in the same division as Montreal and Toronto. Now you have Buffalo, Winnipeg, Tampa, Florida, Washington & Carolina that you need to pigeon hole somewhere.

It's too easy to slam how the NHL's done it without actually coming up with a solution.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-27-2012, 12:11 PM
  #150
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,742
vCash: 500
I know its probably not even 1/40th what the NHL is, but how did the CFL handle dissolving their American CFL franchises when Baltimore was still one of the more successful franchises ever in the CFL?

cutchemist42 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 07:56 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.