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.
Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL?
The USA is at this minute trying to find ways to announce they are broke. The financials in the US are going to be smoking craters compared to previous years. Some teams are going to be in real, not media-created, trouble! Raising taxes and austerity measures everywhere is not going to help the NHL and their costly events.
Canada is safe haven for NHL teams because they won't be competing with other major sports with the lone exception of Toronto. Pittsburgh, for example is three hundred thousand people and support MLB and NFL teams in addition to the Penguins.
The NHL will be very lucky to maintain their current teams and may very well claim foriegn markets (read national) to strengthen the survivors.
Not in the circles I travel in Kimota. And that includes Quebec.
That's strange, outside of message boards i've not seen or heard one Canadian(or ANY hockey fan for that matter) saying they liked southern teams or wanted them to exist(that includes Columbus). There's always been a lot of "what are they doing there?" And a lot of "oh crap the Habs are playing the Panthers tonight". Although there has always seemed to have a certain respect for Dallas for their past success.
Montreal and the NY Rangers are still in the NHL in this scenario. Although, I think Montreal could handle a WHL team along with the Habs.
While I'm still pissed at the NHL for this lockout, the new WHL would have the following rule changes:
- Olympic size ice
- Hybrid icing
- Goals CAN be kicked in
- Penalty shots are worth TWO points. If it is missed or saved, a power play follows.
- Goals scored from beyond the blue line are worth two points.
- Five men in the neutral zone without the puck is ruled an illegal defense.
- Goalies who play puck outside an enlarged crease CAN be checked.
- There is NO goaltender interference outside the enlarged crease.
- OT is 4v4. Second OT is 3v3. And THEN the shootout.
- Standings are 3 points for win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regulation loss.
It would be interesting if there would two leagues with completly different rules. Putting the fighting debate to bed for good, one league would allow fighting, the others would outlaw it completly.
Cut all teams with an average annual deficit over the last 10 years.
Reading responses in threads like this makes me wish we'd done this in 2004.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota
That's strange, outside of message boards i've not seen or heard one Canadian(or ANY hockey fan for that matter) saying they liked southern teams or wanted them to exist(that includes Columbus). There's always been a lot of "what are they doing there?" And a lot of "oh crap the Habs are playing the Panthers tonight". Although there has always seemed to have a certain respect for Dallas for their past success.
Yeah, this sounds a lot like reading the populist literature from the Jim Crow era to me too.
That's strange, outside of message boards i've not seen or heard one Canadian(or ANY hockey fan for that matter) saying they liked southern teams or wanted them to exist(that includes Columbus). There's always been a lot of "what are they doing there?" And a lot of "oh crap the Habs are playing the Panthers tonight". Although there has always seemed to have a certain respect for Dallas for their past success.
I have friends in Calgary and their second favorite team is the Lightning. They've traveled down here for games and we've gone up there. So, while I don't know how they feel about other southern teams, I can personally vouch for the fact that there are 2 Canadians who want at least one southern team to exist!
I have friends in Calgary and their second favorite team is the Lightning. They've traveled down here for games and we've gone up there. So, while I don't know how they feel about other southern teams, I can personally vouch for the fact that there are 2 Canadians who want at least one southern team to exist!
I live in Quebec, you think the Bolts are not popular over here with guys like Vinny and Marty?
That's strange, outside of message boards i've not seen or heard one Canadian(or ANY hockey fan for that matter) saying they liked southern teams or wanted them to exist(that includes Columbus). There's always been a lot of "what are they doing there?" And a lot of "oh crap the Habs are playing the Panthers tonight". Although there has always seemed to have a certain respect for Dallas for their past success.
And what about Carolina, Tampa, Anaheim & LA? All Stanley Cup winners. San Jose' has been more than respectable for all of its history; and look at what happened in Nashville when they got with the program & started icing competitive teams; while Phoenix, post Gretzky, boring or not with their Left Wing Lock packed the job the past two consecutive springs. Though not as rich in history and therefore somewhat less glamorous than any of the 06 Teams, I think its somewhat facile & disingenuous to discount any expansion or relo'd team simply because their newer kids on the block, make them feel unwelcome, wish they'd go away or as Mayor Bee suggest....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee
Yeah, this sounds a lot like reading the populist literature from the Jim Crow era to me too.
... outright segregation & compartmentalization, to be treated as 2nd class citizens. Disenfranchised.
And what about Carolina, Tampa, Anaheim & LA? All Stanley Cup winners. San Jose' has been more than respectable for all of its history; and look at what happened in Nashville when they got with the program & started icing competitive teams; while Phoenix, post Gretzky, boring or not with their Left Wing Lock packed the job the past two consecutive springs. Though not as rich in history and therefore somewhat less glamorous than any of the 06 Teams, I think its somewhat facile & disingenuous to discount any expansion or relo'd team simply because their newer kids on the block, make them feel unwelcome, wish they'd go away or as Mayor Bee suggest....
But who mentioned Californian hockey teams? I talked about the perception toward southern hockey teams(and Columbus). Especially linked to the NHL's current financial problems. Hockey fans from hockey hotbeds look at the attendances in Dallas last year and are pulling their hair out. They dont't understand it.
Quote:
outright segregation & compartmentalization, to be treated as 2nd class citizens.
That is quite melodramatic. I'm just saying that the general hockey fan don't understand why the southern team exist and they're not too attached to these teams.
That is quite melodramatic. I'm just saying that the general hockey fan don't understand why the southern team exist and they're not too attached to these teams.
No, it's not. Look at what you posted above: There's always been a lot of "what are they doing there?" And a lot of "oh crap the Habs are playing the Panthers tonight".
WTH is that if not a tiered classes of teams, by certain fans?
.. and WTH is a "general hockey fan?" Hey, can general hockey fans be from the south? Who gets to define these terms...? fans of northern teams I imagine...
That is quite melodramatic. I'm just saying that the general hockey fan don't understand why the southern team exist and they're not too attached to these teams.
Huh, let's see here. I'm a longtime fan of hockey (most of my life), going back into the pre-Bettman days and long before teal was ever considered a color suitable for anything outside of a Wham! music video.
Am I not a "general hockey fan", or is my opinion invalidated because of my rooting interest?
That is quite melodramatic. I'm just saying that the general hockey fan don't understand why the southern team exist and they're not too attached to these teams.
All they should do is put a Steve Stamkos in every southern franchise then
That is quite melodramatic. I'm just saying that the general hockey fan don't understand why the southern team exist and they're not too attached to these teams.
Well, like I said Kimota, Im well aware that such sentiments do exist, however, I dont encounter them myself beyond this site and in the scribblings of some less than enlightened media pundits primarily from central Canada. Personally, I was initially against Expansion in 67-68, however, after seeing how people responded in places like St.Louis & Philadelphia etc, the way the teams were put together, the interesting players who we'd have otherwise likely never have gotten to appreciate, I changed my tune, and wish others would do the same. Embrace these newer teams, support their efforts to succeed, welcome them.
But who mentioned Californian hockey teams? I talked about the perception toward southern hockey teams(and Columbus). Especially linked to the NHL's current financial problems. Hockey fans from hockey hotbeds look at the attendances in Dallas last year and are pulling their hair out. They dont't understand it.
That is quite melodramatic. I'm just saying that the general hockey fan don't understand why the southern team exist and they're not too attached to these teams.
You know why they don't understand it? Because all they want to do is ***** about it and not care enough to actually find out why.
The Hicks Sports Group imploded from within because they expanded their sports empire to unsustainable levels. And out of all the teams that Hicks controlled, it can be argued that Dallas was the team that got most of the cold shoulder. We had great attendance for years and years because we had an owner that cared about winning and building a team to succeed. After Dallas' deep playoff run in 08 is when the crap hit the fan with Hicks and he lost all of his money. There was barely an ounce of marketing done for the team, and the roster/payroll took a turn for the worst. This is what drove the fans away. Dallas didn't have an owner that cared anymore because he had to worry about himself at that point.
Dallas now has a strong owner in Tom Gaglardi and we had already begun to see the improvements in the second half of last season. I hate this stupid Dallas argument with people because they don't care enough to do research and find out why Dallas had it's recent decline. It had nothing to do with the fans turning on them. It was the team turning on the fans.
Hopefully I've enlightened some of you as to what the situation was actually like here.
All they should do is put a Steve Stamkos in every southern franchise then
Or put them in a hockey market where people actually care about hockey. Stamkos would be a god-like figure in any Canadian hockey market. I do realize that there are many American hockey markets that do well but get rid of the ones that do not.
That's strange, outside of message boards i've not seen or heard one Canadian(or ANY hockey fan for that matter) saying they liked southern teams or wanted them to exist(that includes Columbus). There's always been a lot of "what are they doing there?" And a lot of "oh crap the Habs are playing the Panthers tonight". Although there has always seemed to have a certain respect for Dallas for their past success.
You say a lot about the level of information you and your acquaintences rely upon when you say this. If Columbus is a Southern team, then so are Buffalo, Toronto, Pittsburgh and Detroit.
It then wouldn't be much more of a stretch to call the Habs a "southern team"
The problem with "growing the game" crap is its only for the US, nothing else but them. Not for Mexico or Eastern European countries who loves hockey, or China or Japan. Southern expansion is solely for the US and the NHL's position as a sports league. The only growing of the game I see is Australia's hockey league, and Eastern European (KHL, SM Liga, etc..) which are enough to say the game HAS grown. Natural Potential is one thing, "Potential" by force is another.
The problem with "growing the game" crap is its only for the US, nothing else but them. Not for Mexico or Eastern European countries who loves hockey, or China or Japan. Southern expansion is solely for the US and the NHL's position as a sports league. The only growing of the game I see is Australia's hockey league, and Eastern European (KHL, SM Liga, etc..) which are enough to say the game HAS grown. Natural Potential is one thing, "Potential" by force is another.
The NHL is a North American sports league. Where else is it going to grow if not in the US? It's not like Canada isn't already fully immersed in hockey culture.
The problem with "growing the game" crap is its only for the US, nothing else but them. Not for Mexico or Eastern European countries who loves hockey, or China or Japan. Southern expansion is solely for the US and the NHL's position as a sports league. The only growing of the game I see is Australia's hockey league, and Eastern European (KHL, SM Liga, etc..) which are enough to say the game HAS grown. Natural Potential is one thing, "Potential" by force is another.
Its because "growing the game" isn't what the league, or anybody who espouses that cliche, really mean.
If they wanted to grow the game, they would still be participating in, and supporting the Champions Hockey League and the Victoria Cup. They would make efforts to support to World Championship, they would establish a true World Cup, they wouldn't threaten to pull of out the Olympics.
The NHL isn't interested in growing the game. They're interested in growing their league, exclusively in the United States. Nothing more, nothing less.
