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.

Realistically....How many teams should be in the NHL?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-31-2012, 03:41 PM
  #276
Baby Punisher
Registered User
 
Baby Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 2,423
vCash: 500
No way you can expand with som many teams now that currently have issues. I would rather see the leauge move a couple of teams around before I start cutting. But you could go to a 26-28 team leauge & be stronger.

The following teams should relocate or contract

I can't see a team & Phoniex being sucessful. Every 3-5 years there seems to be an issue with them.

Panthers,Hey they took a shot, been bad for ten years & finally iced a decent team last year. Maybe too little too late for them.

Columbu, Ohio had no business getting an NHL Franchise

Anaheim, This is the one team i'm on the fence about. I think they have pretty good fan support, but they have to spend money & be competive or they are forgotten about very quickly.

Islanders. I hate to say it because I want them to succeed, but the Brooklyn move isn't going to work out longer term. It's gonna be ugly in a couple of years. The Isles don't move for two more seasons. If the Isles don't get better by the tiime they move to brooklyn within 3 years of the move they will be playing to even less fans than they are now if they don't get it turned around by then. I could see the Isles being moved or defunk within 7-10 years from todays date.

The Devils. he Devils have ther own issues. They should have never moved to that building in Newark. They have complied a ton of debt because of the new arena. They never sold out the Medowlands so some genuis decided to move them to one of the most urban areas in NJ where white people don't dare to go after dark & than have half the police force cut by Mayor Booker to save money & still don't sell out & peopleare wondering why.

The devils in KC or Seattle could be a real possibiltly down the line.


Last edited by Baby Punisher: 12-31-2012 at 03:51 PM.
Baby Punisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:44 PM
  #277
jameswrjobe53
Registered User
 
jameswrjobe53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Williamsburg VA
Country: Wake Island
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
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.
Bolded are ideas which are good

jameswrjobe53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:52 PM
  #278
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
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?
just to check, your saying that fans of established teams cant look at new market teams and come to the opinion that they are a train wreck ? the fact is that there are well run teams and teams that are not well run. If one of these teams meets the same fate as atlanta, I suspect my response will be the same, one of indifference. I dont think that the nhl is worse off without atlnta, i think it is far better off.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 03:56 PM
  #279
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
just to check, your saying that fans of established teams cant look at new market teams and come to the opinion that they are a train wreck ?
Can fans of established teams look at other established teams and come to the opinion they're a train wreck? Can fans of new market teams do the same?

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:16 PM
  #280
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Can fans of established teams look at other established teams and come to the opinion they're a train wreck? Can fans of new market teams do the same?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems to me ( and this is entrirely my opinion) is that the prevailing attitude of the board is thou shalt not ever speak poorly of teams in non-traditional markets.

the nhl is fluid, there will be teams that come and teams that go. if any of these teams meets the same fate as atlanta, I'm compl etely indifferent. if established teams in traditional markets meet the same fate, then and only then, would I take it as a systemic problem with the league.

just because the owners cashed the expansion checks does not put these teams on the same footing as the O6 teams. At the risk of potentially offending fans int these areas it is my opinion that a nhl without southern teams is acceptable, a nhl without the O6 or subsequent expansion teams is a much bigger problem.

and I hope thant no more of the southern teams go belly up, but if they do it is my opinion ( and my opinion alone) that in this event, the nhl would still be fine, and in some cases, better.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:23 PM
  #281
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems to me ( and this is entrirely my opinion) is that the prevailing attitude of the board is thou shalt not ever speak poorly of teams in non-traditional markets.

the nhl is fluid, there will be teams that come and teams that go. if any of these teams meets the same fate as atlanta, I'm compl etely indifferent. if established teams in traditional markets meet the same fate, then and only then, would I take it as a systemic problem with the league.

just because the owners cashed the expansion checks does not put these teams on the same footing as the O6 teams. At the risk of potentially offending fans int these areas it is my opinion that a nhl without southern teams is acceptable, a nhl without the O6 or subsequent expansion teams is a much bigger problem.

and I hope thant no more of the southern teams go belly up, but if they do it is my opinion ( and my opinion alone) that in this event, the nhl would still be fine, and in some cases, better.
O6 teams mean absolutely nothing special to me. Am I supposed to be a Green Bay Packer and Chicago Bear fan because they're older than Methuselah? Don't think so. They're just two ordinary teams to me. Same with the Red Sox and Yankees. They aren't my teams so why should they have "special" status to me?

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:29 PM
  #282
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems to me ( and this is entrirely my opinion) is that the prevailing attitude of the board is thou shalt not ever speak poorly of teams in non-traditional markets.
I think you need to take an objective look at things here. When folks come on a forum like this and say Teams X, Y and Z should be contracted (often only because of the weather), well, the fans of those teams are going to get upset. Anyone would when told their team doesn't deserve to exist.

As for the "thou shalt not ever speak poorly of teams in non-traditional markets," it seems to me that speaking poorly of them is done far more frequently than anyone speaks well of them. Granted, that could be because many of us foolish, non-deserving fans of non-traditional teams have just given up, because we're so outnumbered and there are just so many times we can point out how why we should be given a chance, only to be countered with "it doesn't snow there" or "I don't want teams in the south because it's just not natural." Those folks are never going to change. Also, I know my team isn't going to be relocated or contracted so it's kind of a waste of energy to continue arguing with people who say it should be.

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:30 PM
  #283
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
O6 teams mean absolutely nothing special to me. Am I supposed to be a Green Bay Packer and Chicago Bear fan because they're older than Methuselah? Don't think so. They're just two ordinary teams to me. Same with the Red Sox and Yankees. They aren't my teams so why should they have "special" status to me?
If you want to ignore the teams that made the league, that's your prerogative. But a NHL without an 06 team is way worse off than a league without any of the recent expansion teams in my opinion.

I don't give a rats ass about baseball, if you think the nationals are as integral as the yanks or the Sox, be my guest.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:31 PM
  #284
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
O6 teams mean absolutely nothing special to me. Am I supposed to be a Green Bay Packer and Chicago Bear fan because they're older than Methuselah? Don't think so. They're just two ordinary teams to me. Same with the Red Sox and Yankees. They aren't my teams so why should they have "special" status to me?
Why should they have "special" status to anyone? If you're convinced that contraction is the only answer, then it shouldn't matter if a team is "storied" - if it's failing, it's failing. How will it help the league to contract one team but retain a a different team that's in worse shape? Shouldn't the worst teams be culled, no matter where they're located or how long they've been in the league?

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:32 PM
  #285
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it seems to me ( and this is entrirely my opinion) is that the prevailing attitude of the board is thou shalt not ever speak poorly of teams in non-traditional markets.

the nhl is fluid, there will be teams that come and teams that go. if any of these teams meets the same fate as atlanta, I'm compl etely indifferent. if established teams in traditional markets meet the same fate, then and only then, would I take it as a systemic problem with the league.

just because the owners cashed the expansion checks does not put these teams on the same footing as the O6 teams. At the risk of potentially offending fans int these areas it is my opinion that a nhl without southern teams is acceptable, a nhl without the O6 or subsequent expansion teams is a much bigger problem.

and I hope thant no more of the southern teams go belly up, but if they do it is my opinion ( and my opinion alone) that in this event, the nhl would still be fine, and in some cases, better.
I think the NHL would be much better off with more teams like the Flyers, Canucks and Penguins who today stand for excellence and fewer teams like the Leafs and Habs who cash checks and sell bad products.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:34 PM
  #286
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
If you want to ignore the teams that made the league, that's your prerogative. But a NHL without an 06 team is way worse off than a league without any of the recent expansion teams in my opinion.

I don't give a rats ass about baseball, if you think the nationals are as integral as the yanks or the Sox, be my guest.
Toronto losing the Maple Leafs wouldn't any worse than Quebec losing the Nordiques. Fans of certain teams really need to lose their sense of entitlement and self-importance.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:36 PM
  #287
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Why should they have "special" status to anyone? If you're convinced that contraction is the only answer, then it shouldn't matter if a team is "storied" - if it's failing, it's failing. How will it help the league to contract one team but retain a a different team that's in worse shape? Shouldn't the worst teams be culled, no matter where they're located or how long they've been in the league?
And that, of course, is the point. Teams don't have "special" status.....it's just that those teams fans THINK they do.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:38 PM
  #288
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
I think the NHL would be much better off with more teams like the Flyers, Canucks and Penguins who today stand for excellence and fewer teams like the Leafs and Habs who cash checks and sell bad products.
A-men brother. I'm not fans of any of those teams but I can't argue with their success on the ice.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:48 PM
  #289
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
I think you need to take an objective look at things here. When folks come on a forum like this and say Teams X, Y and Z should be contracted (often only because of the weather), well, the fans of those teams are going to get upset. Anyone would when told their team doesn't deserve to exist.

As for the "thou shalt not ever speak poorly of teams in non-traditional markets," it seems to me that speaking poorly of them is done far more frequently than anyone speaks well of them. Granted, that could be because many of us foolish, non-deserving fans of non-traditional teams have just given up, because we're so outnumbered and there are just so many times we can point out how why we should be given a chance, only to be countered with "it doesn't snow there" or "I don't want teams in the south because it's just not natural." Those folks are never going to change. Also, I know my team isn't going to be relocated or contracted so it's kind of a waste of energy to continue arguing with people who say it should be.
No one ever gets infractions for speaking well of non traditional markets. The opposite is not true.

I don't know anyone who was rooting against the southern teams because of geography. I do know many people who look at the teams and come to a conclusion that it has not gone well and that some markets are unsustainable and unlikely to improve. Then what? Keep the liabilities in the league at the expense of traditional markets ? For how long ?

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:49 PM
  #290
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Why should they have "special" status to anyone? If you're convinced that contraction is the only answer, then it shouldn't matter if a team is "storied" - if it's failing, it's failing. How will it help the league to contract one team but retain a a different team that's in worse shape? Shouldn't the worst teams be culled, no matter where they're located or how long they've been in the league?
Sure, and when an 06 team gets to the level of Atlanta or phoenix let me know.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:52 PM
  #291
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Sure, and when an 06 team gets to the level of Atlanta or phoenix let me know.
Check out the Ded Things in the '80s.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:52 PM
  #292
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
No one ever gets infractions for speaking well of non traditional markets. The opposite is not true.
I can't say for sure, of course, but perhaps it was the tone of the posts speaking ill of the non-traditional markets. Perhaps the posts were couched in phrases that insulted the fan bases of those markets. I've seen plenty of posts bashing the teams, so those haven't been deleted and I haven't seen warnings of possible infractions other than if fans or fan bases are being "attacked" as opposed to teams.

Quote:
I do know many people who look at the teams and come to a conclusion that it has not gone well and that some markets are unsustainable and unlikely to improve. Then what? Keep the liabilities in the league at the expense of traditional markets ? For how long ?
All well and good, but some of us just also think that "established" teams that are liabilities should also be considered for contraction if that drastic a step is to be taken (which it probably won't be, so it's really moot, anyway).

Boltsfan2029 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:53 PM
  #293
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
A-men brother. I'm not fans of any of those teams but I can't argue with their success on the ice.
If you want to advocate for a league with no history, and lacking the biggest economic engine and the leagues most storied franchise, you are certainly welcome to.

It is still my opinion that a NHL without the have or leafs is orders of magnitude worse of than any ( or all) of the southern expansion teams.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:55 PM
  #294
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
If you want to advocate for a league with no history, and lacking the biggest economic engine and the leagues most storied franchise, you are certainly welcome to.

It is still my opinion that a NHL without the have or leafs is orders of magnitude worse of than any ( or all) of the southern expansion teams.
History runs from the beginning of the league to the present day and includes ALL teams that have ever played in the league.....no more, no less.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 04:57 PM
  #295
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
I can't say for sure, of course, but perhaps it was the tone of the posts speaking ill of the non-traditional markets. Perhaps the posts were couched in phrases that insulted the fan bases of those markets. I've seen plenty of posts bashing the teams, so those haven't been deleted and I haven't seen warnings of possible infractions other than if fans or fan bases are being "attacked" as opposed to teams.



All well and good, but some of us just also think that "established" teams that are liabilities should also be considered for contraction if that drastic a step is to be taken (which it probably won't be, so it's really moot, anyway).
Which established teams are liabilities? Quebec and the peg 1.0 were lost and it sucked. The southern expansion teams ( despite having weaker hockey markets than either of these two) feel that they are somehow immune from the same fate. Why ?

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:00 PM
  #296
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,007
vCash: 500
what does any of this have to do with the lockout?

txpd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:00 PM
  #297
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
History runs from the beginning of the league to the present day and includes ALL teams that have ever played in the league.....no more, no less.
Atlanta is not equivalent to the habs wrt the history or influence on the league.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:02 PM
  #298
Colin226
NJ Devils STH
 
Colin226's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Flemington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Punisher View Post
The Devils. he Devils have ther own issues. They should have never moved to that building in Newark. They have complied a ton of debt because of the new arena. They never sold out the Medowlands so some genuis decided to move them to one of the most urban areas in NJ where white people don't dare to go after dark & than have half the police force cut by Mayor Booker to save money & still don't sell out & peopleare wondering why.

The devils in KC or Seattle could be a real possibiltly down the line.
I'll bite here.. The Devils simply aren't going to be relocated any time soon.. First off, going by Forbes they are consistently a top 15 revenue producer and all of the team's debt is in the arena, not operations.. That debt has been refinanced and even if Vanderbeek can't pay it off, someone else will buy the bankrupt team

Being in the massive media market they are, the Devils have a killer TV deal locked up for the next 2 decades or so.. That deal with MSG will probably continue and it makes the team very attractive to potential buyers.. The arena lease also locks the team in for a while and would hurt an owner trying to buy the team, break the lease, and pay relocation fees

The fan base.. Now the Devils are not historically a huge draw but they have over 4,000 new STH in the past 2 seasons (with 2,200 coming after the worst season in 20 years).. In 2009 - 2010 games free an avg of 43k homes, the most in the USA behind O6 teams plus Philly and Pitt..

The fan base is young and in half a decade I'd almost guarantee attendance will be over 90% for the season.. Factor in that the Devils have a higher ticket price than teams like Tampa and Florida who drew more people per game last season.. Revenue is what counts, not nexessarily numbers of butts in seats, but like I said even that will change

But overall, once the current TV deal and lease are up you'll have a franchise with a 50 year history including at least 3 Cups and 5 EC championships among other accolades.. Assuming they don't become the Islanders or Blue Jackets for a decade they'll be fine with stable ownership.. Not even close to a team the league wants to move

Colin226 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:02 PM
  #299
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Which established teams are liabilities? Quebec and the peg 1.0 were lost and it sucked. The southern expansion teams ( despite having weaker hockey markets than either of these two) feel that they are somehow immune from the same fate. Why ?
Keep in mind that it's not like Quebec and Winnipeg were welcomed with open arms by more established franchises, or the league itself for that matter.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 05:03 PM
  #300
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,281
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Which established teams are liabilities? Quebec and the peg 1.0 were lost and it sucked. The southern expansion teams ( despite having weaker hockey markets than either of these two) feel that they are somehow immune from the same fate. Why ?
I don't know what established teams are liabilities (I'm not even sure if there's an official definition of "established"). We don't have the financials for any of the teams - including the southern expansion teams - so there's no way anyone can accurately make an assessment about either. I've asked several times for a link to something that shows which teams have received revenue sharing and how much they've gotten, which I think would be helpful to know, but I've never gotten an answer. The only portion of the answer I can give is that the Lightning have only gotten it once.

I don't think southern expansion teams are immune to the same fate, I just don't think they should be the exclusive victims.

So I'll ask a hypothetical. Whether you believe it's possible or not, assume that Established Team A is in worse financial condition and a worse drain on the league than Southern Expansion Team A. Would you contract the established team so the drain on the league would be less, or would you keep the larger liability and contract the team that's in better financial shape because it's Southern Expansion?

But, again, contraction isn't going to happen, anyway.

Boltsfan2029 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 07:58 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.