HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Arrogance, Foolishness and Incompetence Playing Lead Role In NHL Lockout Saga

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2012, 01:40 PM
  #26
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
You know, I don't see where what you said and what I said is so far apart, though you used a stronger adjective or two here and there, and you added in a couple more points which I hadn't mentioned.

First, I said that I agree that there should be more Revenue Sharing, which is something that doesn't "normally" exist in other businesses. When I mentioned the word "norm" I was referring to it being normal that businesses expect some sort of profit margin.

As for "huge" profit margins, I never used that word and it's an exaggeration of the point that I was making. I was referring to what I would call "reasonable" profit margins, if a business or a League in this case is working under an economic structure that's functioning. If the scenario is as it is, with so many teams losing money and another large group barely breaking even, then there would appear to be some problem with the economic structure that's in place. Revenue Sharing should be used to fill the gaps, not to fix a flawed structure.

If teams are spending 60+ million in salaries, in addition to all other operational costs, then I'd think that a comparative $ amount that could be a "reasonable" profit margin would be about $10 million. But even at $10 million, which is a relatively small number in this context, only 12 teams last year made that much in profits. For the League to be functioning well economically, there should be at minimum 1/2 the teams experiencing a reasonable profit margin. And no, I wouldn't expect that every team, in any given Season, should have a positive profit margin, but there shouldn't be no more than a maximum of 1/4 of the League losing money in any given Season, not double that amount. And then again, Revenue Sharing is to make up that difference, sharing out to that 1/4 of the League who experienced losses.

And for fans spending money on teams with incompetent management,... Tell Toronto fans to stop doing it, and then that might just bring a bit more balance to the League. Atlanta fans, Columbus fans, Dallas fans, they're acting normal by having decline attendance numbers when the team sucks.
The only way that happens is if there is another team or two in the area. Pretty difficult to do when there are 10 people waiting in the wings for every seat that may become available. Having said that Toronto fans are staying away, if the team ever gets good the rest of the hockey world would be shocked what these people will pay for a seat. Every regular season game would be like a Superbowl ticket.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 02:20 PM
  #27
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
Oh gosh, other than being in the same division as the other four teams mentioned, I don't know what Minnesota has to do with it at all.
It just seemed like you were mentioning Minnesota as though the proposed alignment would've screwed them out of a playoff spot in the last 4 years, when they weren't in the top 8 in the conference in any of those years, and they wouldn't have been in the top 4 in the proposed central conference either. Thought it was weird to list 5 teams, including Minnesota, but not Columbus, Winnipeg, or Dallas.

A couple years ago, using the proposed alignment, the Stars would've made the playoffs over the Kings, even though the Kings had more points. The schedules would be different though, which would alter the point total. And to me, you beat out the teams that you're in a playoff race with. If it's top 8 in the conference, or top 4 in the conference, you do what you have to do to make the playoffs, and no crying at the end of the day.

That's only if there were no East and West though. I think the ultimate idea was to have 4 independent conferences. Not like when the Norris and Smythe were linked together back in the day. 4 independent conferences, and you re-seed all 4 teams in the 3rd round.

The whole realignment was about helping Detroit, Columbus, and the 6 teams in the central time zone with travel and TV start times.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 03:12 PM
  #28
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
The writer blames expansion into unfavorable markets as a leading cause for these teams losing money. OK, so what about teams like Buffalo and St Louis? He fails to even mention them, or to even consider that the problems are much deeper than just locale. Good work.....NOT!
Almost as funny as everyone ranting about "southern" teams and including Columbus in the list. I guess it's south of most of the people doing the arguing. You know, because the lion's share of them are Canadians who hated Bettman years ago for daring to let failing Canadian franchises move.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 04:06 PM
  #29
JMROWE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Arrogance , Foolishness & incompetence describes the NHL. perfectly & somthing has to be done about it because if the NHL. BOG. continue to let Gary Bettman & his lacky Bill Daliy to run rough shot all over the league & somthing needs to be soon or the NHL. might never recover .

I belive the NHL. will have trouble recoverring from this lockout rregardless if there is a season or not the fact is all 7 NHL. teams canada will recover just fine like there was no lockout in the first place . But the USA. markets might take a little longer to recover from this lockout if at all do to the competive nature of american sports markets with the NFL. , NBA. , MLB. , Nascar , Indy car & the NCCA. for the NHL. to compete with & some NHL. markets will just not survive .

JMROWE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 04:10 PM
  #30
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Don't forget about the realignment, which was rejected by the NHLPA for no apparent reason.
yeah it is unfair to the players as teams like winnipeg had to travel outrageous distances. made no sense. Players shouldn't have a say in realignment anyway. Who allowed that to be in the CBA?

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 04:38 PM
  #31
Guru Meditation
Service Unavailable
 
Guru Meditation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Bettman and Jacobs, at their hardline tea party, slap the players in the face, dismiss every offer condescendingly, try to get them to agree to conditions without their representation, suggest trust has nothing to do with it and its all hard bargaining.
I think the players hate Bettman so incredibly much because he comes off like an overbearing, controlling dad. He's the kind of conservative older guy that younger guys (read: most of the NHL) have a very hard time getting along with.

Guru Meditation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 04:40 PM
  #32
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
I found this line funny considering the owners wanted to talk almost a year ago and the players dragged their feet until July.
Although I don't agree with them dragging their feet, there was no way this lockout was going to be avoided. There is no chance they get a "best" offer until Jan, regardless of when they first started talking. This is why we still have no hockey, everybody knows this will come to the middle ground. We'll just have to wait and see when Bettman/Daly want to figure it out and Fehr makes a real go of it.


Last edited by Steve: 12-23-2012 at 04:45 PM.
Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 04:42 PM
  #33
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic View Post
yeah it is unfair to the players as teams like winnipeg had to travel outrageous distances. made no sense. Players shouldn't have a say in realignment anyway. Who allowed that to be in the CBA?
I agree, this shouldn't really concern the players. That being said, if this is supposed to be a "partnership" then they are right to have a say in it.

I thought they declined so they could use it as a 'give' in these negotiations but I've never heard anything about it.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 07:51 PM
  #34
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 60,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Don't forget about the realignment, which was rejected by the NHLPA for no apparent reason.
There were a number of reasons the NHLPA rejected the proposed realignment.

First, was the uneven conferences (impossible to divide 32 by 4). This would mean that teams in the 7-team conferences would have an "easier" time in getting into the playoffs (compared to the 8-team conferences).

Second, the Gerrymandering of the conference layouts (Florida teams lumped in with NY to keep Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in the same conference?)

Third, the two "western" conferences were looking at 8 teams in part because the Western teams did not want to "lose" Detroit to the East. (It's one of the biggest opponent draws in the entire current Western conference. Changing to once/season would reduce the number of visits by 1 for current Pacific or Northwest division teams, and reduction of 3 for Central division teams.)

And, while the proposed alignments did restrict the conference membership to a maximum of two time zones, there was still a lot of travel required for 3 of the 4 conferences.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 08:09 PM
  #35
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,328
vCash: 500
And why realign twice when you only need to to do it once?

Really, they were going to first realign into this horribly uneven pattern for a few years or more until they decided whether to expand or contract, and then hope the alignment they created would best accommodate whatever new teams came in or left? Why not just realign once, when there is new teams? Whats with a couple of asterisk years being fought for as reasonable by fans? Why would you want that other than the almighty said make it so.

There was no consensus on it even amongst owners, let alone fans or players. It was a dumb idea that if it wasnt done in the context of good guys vs bad guys in cba talks, i cant imagine would have ever been supported by the majority of hockey fans or commentators.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 08:35 PM
  #36
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
The norm for franchises in other businesses is really irrelevant though isnt it? Other businesses arent a league with a salary cap and linkage. When you force 30 equal spending teams and link the spending to revenues, you cant then complain the players must be locked out because why should you be forced to revenue share as well? It is the obvious necessary accompaniment that every other league recognized and so IS the primary solution to the current stated problem. They already got player costs under control. They are directly linked to revenues. Completely. That part has been solved.

That many teams arent making huge operational profits, may be true, but is also a very manipulatable number. Im sure if the PA were given the ability to make a decisions, they would create books that showed a much higher operational profit and smaller non-shared franchise values. There is no reason to believe that the operatiopnal profit books are structured in order to maximize that number.

But more than that, i challenge you to justify to me why every team actually deserved a profit last year and every year.

Even more than that, why as a fan would we want a system that grants owners a profit even when they run their team like incompetent fools? I would be upset at our owner if he made any money when the team tried but failed to get past the 2nd round of the playoffs, cause that means to me he didnt try hard enough. I think such an outcome points to a healthy system, not one requiring guaranteed profits.
So, just to be clear, you feel a league where only FOUR teams profit (the number to advance past the 2nd round) is a healthy league?



Last edited by Ducks DVM: 12-23-2012 at 09:42 PM.
Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 08:51 PM
  #37
Aceonfire
Connor McOiler
 
Aceonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,818
vCash: 500
The salaries of players and the cap should not be decided on overall league revenues. The difference between the top 6 and the bottom 6 in revenue is ridiculous.
I understand the players wanting revenue sharing between teams because the disparity is so massive.

But at the same time, that isn't for the players to decide. What business anywhere dictates how it should be run based on the opinions of their employees?

The players say they are owed these massive contracts because the owners offered it. That all of these front loaded deals are the owners fault.

No way, as if they don't have agents trying to squeeze every penny they can from the owners.

Look at the Weber situation, Nashville will have issues paying him but by him signing that offer letter he forced their hand.

Or how about Parise? He was offered massive deals by many teams because that is what his agent was asking for.

The NHL is trying to implement contract changes because both sides were abusing them to the point where Dennis Wideman is getting $5mil a year!

Aceonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 09:43 PM
  #38
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
There were a number of reasons the NHLPA rejected the proposed realignment.

First, was the uneven conferences (impossible to divide 32 by 4). This would mean that teams in the 7-team conferences would have an "easier" time in getting into the playoffs (compared to the 8-team conferences).

Second, the Gerrymandering of the conference layouts (Florida teams lumped in with NY to keep Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in the same conference?)

Third, the two "western" conferences were looking at 8 teams in part because the Western teams did not want to "lose" Detroit to the East. (It's one of the biggest opponent draws in the entire current Western conference. Changing to once/season would reduce the number of visits by 1 for current Pacific or Northwest division teams, and reduction of 3 for Central division teams.)

And, while the proposed alignments did restrict the conference membership to a maximum of two time zones, there was still a lot of travel required for 3 of the 4 conferences.
How many of these concerns were addressed during a back-and-forth with the league, as compared to simply rejecting it at the latest possible date by saying "There wasn't enough information?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
And why realign twice when you only need to to do it once?

Really, they were going to first realign into this horribly uneven pattern for a few years or more until they decided whether to expand or contract, and then hope the alignment they created would best accommodate whatever new teams came in or left? Why not just realign once, when there is new teams? Whats with a couple of asterisk years being fought for as reasonable by fans? Why would you want that other than the almighty said make it so.
I'll point out that the Norris Division once consisted of Minnesota, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay. The next year saw Tampa shifted from the Campbell into the Eastern Conference, which ran with 14 teams compared to the 12 in the West for the next two years. They went to 13:13 when Quebec moved to Colorado, then to 14 (East) and 13 (West) when Nashville entered, then 15 (East) and 13 (West) when Atlanta came in. The next year was when Columbus and Minnesota came in and balanced everything out.

So yeah, that's several different short-term alignments and years with an odd number of teams in the last 20 years. I don't remember any of those years being asterisked either.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 10:11 PM
  #39
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Those 10 to 13 teams are primarily only losing money because the salary levels are too high for them. And on top of those 13 teams is another 9 teams which are only barely breaking even or making minimal profits. How do you or anyone explain that there are about 20+ teams which are either losing money or barely breaking even or with minimal profits?
I Challenge Anyone here to explain that to me!

If you're like me and see the primary variable which puts so many teams barely above, at, or below the profit margin as being the cost of maintaining a competitive team, then Revenue Sharing isn't the primary answer to that problem. YES, Revenue Sharing needs to be better, but player salary costs need also to be under greater control. And the the League can't simply do that because it wants to, it needs the players agreement, or else it can be viewed as colusion.

And Yes, unless teams like Toronto, the Rangers, and Montreal participate in massive Revenue Sharing then those teams will be raking in big profits, but that's just the way of the world. Those teams, among a couple of others, are just lucky to be in those markets. The need the Revenue Share more, but it's not the norm for any successful franchise, in whatever business, to give up the majority of its profit line to sharing, especially when the number of teams, in this case, which would be Sharing out is only about 1/2 of those which would be receiving.
Successful teams spend to the cap and still profit. Therefore the teams are failing because they don't generate interest. It isn't luck that a guy bought Montreal and the team generates money. He bought a hockey team in a hockey market. It was smart. Buying a hockey team in Arizona or Tennessee is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Not bad luck but a stupid investment. The players took a 24% rollback and a cap in 05. They coughed up another 7% to open negotiations this time and yet even if they signed the deal the owners have on the table today the losing teams will still be losing teams. Sharing revenue is the norm in successful leagues including the NFL. The NHL is incredibly mismanaged. Gary Bettman is the worst commissioner in all of sports by a huge margin. Obviously no other league has ever lost a season over a cba. Bettman has lost 1.5 going on 2.5 in his 20 years. The league doesn't have a real tv deal. If Bettman was even a minor success he could have packaged the product in such a way as to secure a tv deal. Of course he hasn't because he is an abysmal failure and his only way out is for the players to pick up the tab.

Actual Thought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 10:51 PM
  #40
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,480
vCash: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
To a point I understood that. There were minor issues however I think they should've just been pointed out and addressed.

Biggest one that stuck out to me was only the top four of each division making it to the playoffs. Should be top eight. To think one of Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, St. Louis, and Nashville would be out is unacceptable.
U r a bit confused. The top 4 from each conference (4 conferences) have a 2 round playoff. The winner is conference champ and goes on to the final 4.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:27 PM
  #41
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,728
vCash: 500
Writs dropped by Rose, and Twitter misgivin's
Bright copper pieces and warm woolen mittens
Multiple players tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things

Cream colored Porsches and warm Euro streudels
GM's and owners paying money in oodles
Wild owners that sign with their eyes on the Wings
These are a few of my favorite things

Men in white jerseys with nasty red gashes
Dried blood that stays on their nose and eyelashes
Silly long lockouts that last until Spring
These are a few of my favorite things

When the dog bites
When the bee stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I don't feel so bad


Last edited by Timmy: 12-23-2012 at 11:41 PM.
Timmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2012, 11:52 PM
  #42
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Successful teams spend to the cap and still profit. Therefore the teams are failing because they don't generate interest. It isn't luck that a guy bought Montreal and the team generates money. He bought a hockey team in a hockey market. It was smart. Buying a hockey team in Arizona or Tennessee is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Not bad luck but a stupid investment. The players took a 24% rollback and a cap in 05. They coughed up another 7% to open negotiations this time and yet even if they signed the deal the owners have on the table today the losing teams will still be losing teams. Sharing revenue is the norm in successful leagues including the NFL. The NHL is incredibly mismanaged. Gary Bettman is the worst commissioner in all of sports by a huge margin. Obviously no other league has ever lost a season over a cba. Bettman has lost 1.5 going on 2.5 in his 20 years. The league doesn't have a real tv deal. If Bettman was even a minor success he could have packaged the product in such a way as to secure a tv deal. Of course he hasn't because he is an abysmal failure and his only way out is for the players to pick up the tab.
Just following from what you said... Then there are only about 10, give or take, successful markets in the NHL. What should the League do, contract to 10? Can it find another 20 markets which are better than the 20 which are either losing money, barely breaking even, or have minimal profits? Also seems like a hell of large group of teams to have to revenue share with in order to keep alive, close to half the League.

Now you say that Bettman hasn't been able to win a really big TV deal. I say the League's troubles are in great part because the hockey fanbase in most cities isn't strong (in comparison to other League sports) and also isn't generally widespread enough, so therefore trying to bring in enough revenue in most cities to support high player salaries just isn't feasible. In addition though, such a reality would also explain why it's been extremely difficult to get a real national TV deal, because there just isn't the fanbase to support it. Also, the fact that the owners haven't fired Bettman's ass for not getting that TV deal would seem to suggest that they too realize that it isn't that easy.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 12:02 AM
  #43
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 23,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It isn't an issue that's being discussed.

But it's the biggest issue facing the league.
I don't think it's an issue, the league just doesn't have enough revenues to be sharing to begin with. Having three bigger markets than the rest doesn't mean these three have to rip up their shirts for the rest. There's just too many weak markets for revenues sharing to be able to solve everything.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 09:56 AM
  #44
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Successful teams spend to the cap and still profit. Therefore the teams are failing because they don't generate interest. It isn't luck that a guy bought Montreal and the team generates money. He bought a hockey team in a hockey market. It was smart. Buying a hockey team in Arizona or Tennessee is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Not bad luck but a stupid investment. The players took a 24% rollback and a cap in 05. They coughed up another 7% to open negotiations this time and yet even if they signed the deal the owners have on the table today the losing teams will still be losing teams. Sharing revenue is the norm in successful leagues including the NFL. The NHL is incredibly mismanaged. Gary Bettman is the worst commissioner in all of sports by a huge margin. Obviously no other league has ever lost a season over a cba. Bettman has lost 1.5 going on 2.5 in his 20 years. The league doesn't have a real tv deal. If Bettman was even a minor success he could have packaged the product in such a way as to secure a tv deal. Of course he hasn't because he is an abysmal failure and his only way out is for the players to pick up the tab.
The bolded is one of the biggest leaps in logic that I've seen. It goes right up there with, "She didn't answer my text within five minutes, so therefore it's clear that she's cheating on me."

If the reports are true that San Jose is losing money (despite continued excellent attendance and interest) and Calgary is barely breaking even (despite the same), is that actually because there's no interest? Or is it because there's something about the conditions of the economic structure that prevent teams from profiting?

I can say with some degree of certainty that at least 28 (out of 30) MLB teams are profiting, but it doesn't mean that MLB is well-run. It doesn't mean that the league is healthy. And it doesn't mean that there's much of a following in all of those markets. We've seen the wholesale conversion of hardcore fans in hardcore markets going shifting down to casual fans in casual markets, due specifically to the broken economic picture in MLB.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 10:18 AM
  #45
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
It just seemed like you were mentioning Minnesota as though the proposed alignment would've screwed them out of a playoff spot in the last 4 years, when they weren't in the top 8 in the conference in any of those years, and they wouldn't have been in the top 4 in the proposed central conference either. Thought it was weird to list 5 teams, including Minnesota, but not Columbus, Winnipeg, or Dallas.

A couple years ago, using the proposed alignment, the Stars would've made the playoffs over the Kings, even though the Kings had more points. The schedules would be different though, which would alter the point total. And to me, you beat out the teams that you're in a playoff race with. If it's top 8 in the conference, or top 4 in the conference, you do what you have to do to make the playoffs, and no crying at the end of the day.

That's only if there were no East and West though. I think the ultimate idea was to have 4 independent conferences. Not like when the Norris and Smythe were linked together back in the day. 4 independent conferences, and you re-seed all 4 teams in the 3rd round.

The whole realignment was about helping Detroit, Columbus, and the 6 teams in the central time zone with travel and TV start times.
No, it was not about helping the teams in the central with travel and tv start times. It wasn't even a fair shot at realignment concerning travel. The Eastern conferences rarely travel out of the Eastern time zone.............and can often take buses or trains to their "out of town" games..... And a 2-3 hour trip in a plane from Boston to Florida, wow, that's hard...
travel costs and travel times for the western conference have never been addressed because 1/2 the league has it so good they don't want to travel more.....

no, the whole realignment was because the jets in winnipeg (and probably canadian hockey broad casters) didn't want to travel one puny time zone to play....... in their division.

well , hello, the central division has been doing that for years......

that being said, having 7 teams in one division and 8 in another was one of the biggest pieces of idiocy that has come out of the nhl......

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 10:48 AM
  #46
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,840
vCash: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Don't forget about the realignment, which was rejected by the NHLPA for no apparent reason.
I kept hearing the Canucks traveled the most out of all teams. This website shows otherwise. They have distance traveled for last year, as well as for the mythical schedule that would have been this year.
http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/6...vel-miles-team

Is that correct?

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 11:14 AM
  #47
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,480
vCash: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The bolded is one of the biggest leaps in logic that I've seen. It goes right up there with, "She didn't answer my text within five minutes, so therefore it's clear that she's cheating on me."

If the reports are true that San Jose is losing money (despite continued excellent attendance and interest) and Calgary is barely breaking even (despite the same), is that actually because there's no interest? Or is it because there's something about the conditions of the economic structure that prevent teams from profiting?

I can say with some degree of certainty that at least 28 (out of 30) MLB teams are profiting, but it doesn't mean that MLB is well-run. It doesn't mean that the league is healthy. And it doesn't mean that there's much of a following in all of those markets. We've seen the wholesale conversion of hardcore fans in hardcore markets going shifting down to casual fans in casual markets, due specifically to the broken economic picture in MLB.
excellent point. Fehr always likes to point to MLB as proof that revenue sharing means success. Baseball is nolonger the American pasttime. more than half the league isn't even trying to compete. Pittsburg and KC make a profit purposefully being terrible. Few American kids even play baseball anymore. the sport is dying in America. Revenue sharing isn't the end-all and be-all. if it makes failure profitable, it can be counterproductive. Why sign Shea Weber if Toronto will pay us anyway?

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 11:47 AM
  #48
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
No, it was not about helping the teams in the central with travel and tv start times. It wasn't even a fair shot at realignment concerning travel. The Eastern conferences rarely travel out of the Eastern time zone.............and can often take buses or trains to their "out of town" games..... And a 2-3 hour trip in a plane from Boston to Florida, wow, that's hard...
travel costs and travel times for the western conference have never been addressed because 1/2 the league has it so good they don't want to travel more.....

no, the whole realignment was because the jets in winnipeg (and probably canadian hockey broad casters) didn't want to travel one puny time zone to play....... in their division.

well , hello, the central division has been doing that for years......

that being said, having 7 teams in one division and 8 in another was one of the biggest pieces of idiocy that has come out of the nhl......
Well when the league finally puts Minnesota and Dallas into a group that makes sense for them, I'd say one of the reasons for it was helping the central time zone teams. Or at least helping a couple of them, who have the worst alignments in the league.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2012, 12:03 PM
  #49
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 7,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
There were a number of reasons the NHLPA rejected the proposed realignment.
only 1 reason.... because they could.

It was rejected by Fehr for the sole purpose of throwing the gauntlet down and sending the message to Bettman... see, I will not just give in to you.

The technical reasons ( # of teams in conferences etc. are all just fluff )

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-26-2012, 01:42 AM
  #50
dirt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Trealor, Mo
Country: United States
Posts: 798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
(impossible to divide 32 by 4)
It's possible in Missouri.

dirt 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 06:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.