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?
Apparently you don't care about the NHL either.....just your local team.
excellent point SP33.
Or maybe revise it to be: "Apparently you don't care about the NHL either.....just Canadian teams with 80 or 90 more years experience than some (Southern) teams."
Or maybe revise it to be: "Apparently you don't care about the NHL either.....just Canadian teams with 80 or 90 more years experience than some (Southern) teams."
You don't see me talking bad about the flyers or sabres or pens do you ? Is the default position now that if you think that some southern markets are untenable, that you are part of some grand conspiracy that rejoices in their demise?
I hope the teams do well, but if they don't and the choice is either cut them loose or further destabilize the league, I chose the former and it has zero to do with geography.
I hope the teams do well, but if they don't and the choice is either cut them loose or further destabilize the league, I chose the former and it has zero to do with geography.
I asked before and I don't remember seeing an answer - hypothetically speaking... even though I know you don't believe it's possible for this to happen, pretend it does.
If Established Team A was in worse financial shape than Southern Expansion Team A and only one could be contracted, which would you choose?
Would you keep the team that's a worse liability and drag on the league because it's "established," or would you contract the southern team even though it's doing better?
You don't see me talking bad about the flyers or sabres or pens do you ? Is the default position now that if you think that some southern markets are untenable, that you are part of some grand conspiracy that rejoices in their demise?
I hope the teams do well, but if they don't and the choice is either cut them loose or further destabilize the league, I chose the former and it has zero to do with geography.
Funny you use the Pens since they were on the verge of moving a few years ago.
I asked before and I don't remember seeing an answer - hypothetically speaking... even though I know you don't believe it's possible for this to happen, pretend it does.
If Established Team A was in worse financial shape than Southern Expansion Team A and only one could be contracted, which would you choose?
Would you keep the team that's a worse liability and drag on the league because it's "established," or would you contract the southern team even though it's doing better?
I would keep the team that longterm is an asset to the league. If an established team goes through a rough patch and needs a handout, this is precisely what revenue sharing should be used for. If the league invested capital does not right the ship, then that team is on the clock. Don't meet specific metrics, you gotta go irrespective of where they are.
If this were bizzarro world and the sens and the yotes switched fortunes, I would not be demanding that the sens have to stay. If they can't make a go of it in a traditional market, they gone.
There is nothing inherently wrong with perusing new markets, but in my book population is not the same as market. If these teams were put into locales in order to get a big lucrative TV contract, once one accepts that this is a fools errand, then these teams are under the knife. If they can stand on their own that's great. If they are going to draw resources from traditional markets with little chance of getting off of these subsidies in a reasonable amount of time( and this is going to vary person to person ) then its a bad idea to throw good money after bad..
Where were all of the pro south supporters when the thrashers ownership bailed? Should the league have stepped in, built them a new arena so they can play in Atlanta? Of course not, the thrash had to leave, they had zero market without an arena despite having huge population. That situation. Was untenable. But if fans come to the same conclusion about other markets ( I,e phoenix) and come to the conclusion that no matter how much money is sunk into it the market it beyond repair, we are called anti southern elitists who want hockey to fail if its not in Canada.
Sometimes you have to cut your losses. What are the metrics that suggest that these markets are working towards self sustainability? When I ask I hear sell outs ( papered numbers or tickets at cut throat prices), I hear % increase in youth hockey registration when the real numbers are paltry, I hear about the great players these teams have and how well they did on the ice which completely conflates two interdependent but fundamentally distinct ideas. And the grand daddy of them all" we need more time, just keep the checks flowing and shut your mouths and ten somehow miraculously we are going to turn a troubled team into a stable team overnight"
Would fans of southern teams be willing to live by up and down performance metrics as a prerequisite of getting rs? If the markets are as strong as some suggest this should not be a problem, no? But this will never happen ( and I know there arealready some prerequisites for rs I'm talking about more stringent ones to accelerate teams transition to independence). This won't happen because its just easier to blame their fates on the profligate spenders up north or fall back on to the panacea excuse for everything ( but we are a developing market, we need more time). Speaking for me and me alone it gets tiresome.
Where were all of the pro south supporters when the thrashers ownership bailed? Should the league have stepped in, built them a new arena so they can play in Atlanta? Of course not, the thrash had to leave, they had zero market without an arena despite having huge population. That situation. Was untenable. But if fans come to the same conclusion about other markets ( I,e phoenix) and come to the conclusion that no matter how much money is sunk into it the market it beyond repair, we are called anti southern elitists who want hockey to fail if its not in Canada.
I'm not even going to touch the rest of the post, but I will on this.
There WAS a market in Atlanta. ASG held all the cards by virtue of having rights to Philips Arena, meaning that they could gouge on rent (as they surely would have). The NHL was not in a position to build a competing arena; arenas don't just pop up overnight.
The situation was untenable 100% because of ASG. That's all there is to it. Having those clowns as a landlord makes ANY situation untenable, your idea of "market" be damned.
I'm sorry, how do the habs and leafs treat their fans poorly?
By putting a crap product on the ice for multiple decades. Asking your fans to watch hot garbage year after year all the while charging high end ticket prices for the "privilege" of watching said hot garbage is not simply mistreating the fans it's screwing them in their collective back doors without even giving them a fan belt to bite down on.
By putting a crap product on the ice for multiple decades. Asking your fans to watch hot garbage year after year all the while charging high end ticket prices for the "privilege" of watching said hot garbage is not simply mistreating the fans it's screwing them in their collective back doors without even giving them a fan belt to bite down on.
Or, "Why would we want to sign Wayne Gretzky? The arena's full every night no matter what."
This goes back to Judge Landis' legendary "Big As A House" ruling on the St. Louis Cardinals. To actively engage in actions that are designed to do something other than put the best and most competitive product out there is a breach of faith with the fans, not just of that team but of any fans anywhere in the sport.
I'm not even going to touch the rest of the post, but I will on this.
There WAS a market in Atlanta. ASG held all the cards by virtue of having rights to Philips Arena, meaning that they could gouge on rent (as they surely would have). The NHL was not in a position to build a competing arena; arenas don't just pop up overnight.
The situation was untenable 100% because of ASG. That's all there is to it. Having those clowns as a landlord makes ANY situation untenable, your idea of "market" be damned.
Providing a reason for why it was untenable does not make it less untenable. They had no where to play, which is kind of an important little detail.
If the flames or thrashers had a market it died when they no longer had a place to play. Could it be revived? Sure if someone wants to build a new arena. Until then Atlanta is dead.
You could say that phoenix is a great market being held down by a suburban arena. Could phoenix turn it around? Sure. Could they be a bottomless pit that no matter how much the NHL tries to prop them up it will fail. Sure. If you come to the latter conclusion, get out and get out as fast as you can .
Or, "Why would we want to sign Wayne Gretzky? The arena's full every night no matter what."
This goes back to Judge Landis' legendary "Big As A House" ruling on the St. Louis Cardinals. To actively engage in actions that are designed to do something other than put the best and most competitive product out there is a breach of faith with the fans, not just of that team but of any fans anywhere in the sport.
^^^^^ Ding ding ding we have a winner! Harold Ballard I believe made the first quote. The latter, Bowie Kuhn did the same thing when he stopped Charlie O. Finley from selling off all the A's players for cash
^^^^^ Ding ding ding we have a winner! Harold Ballard I believe made the first quote. The latter, Bowie Kuhn did the same thing when he stopped Charlie O. Finley from selling off all the A's players for cash
Ah, Kuhn and Finley...always at odds in a race to prove who the bigger jackass was. Even with hindsight and research, I can't conclusively say who won that battle. Kuhn was infinitely more short-sighted and feeble, Finley was simply a bigger jerk.
That said, I do disagree with the ruling on the A's, simply because MLB doesn't allow the trading of draft picks. That means that there are no liquid assets in the trade market, since cash cannot change hands in exchange for players. But that was typical Kuhn.
To the first part, Phil Esposito said that when he was with the Rangers, he had deals to get Messier and/or Gretzky, and it was nixed by ownership for the same reason.
By putting a crap product on the ice for multiple decades. Asking your fans to watch hot garbage year after year all the while charging high end ticket prices for the "privilege" of watching said hot garbage is not simply mistreating the fans it's screwing them in their collective back doors without even giving them a fan belt to bite down on.
The have have not sucked for decades, lost to the eventual sc winner in game 7 in overtime. And things are looking up.
If you don't want to pay market price for habs or leafs tickets don't, no one is forcing you. No one is going to miss you, there are literally thousands of people who would (and do) willingly pay for the opportunity. And success is usually cyclical, you have good times and not so good times buton ice performance is different from team stability.
I don't see hab fans complaining about ownership. I do see a lot of fans from weak sister teams suggesting that the discrepancy between the have and have nots would be less if only the fans in traditional markets were less supportive. If you want to decrease the disparity, lift up your own end, it will be better for everyone in the end.
Of course, I've discovered that apparently crooked owners are okay if it's Buffalo, but not if it's for a minority stake in Nashville.
Are there problems, sure. But with respect to how well the NHL vets these markets let's have a looksie
Garry bettman signed off on the temporary sale of the islanders to spanos after spending a whopping 1000 vetting him. Claims he's learned his lesson and new stringent vetting will be implemented. Does it catch boots ? Why no it does not. Arranges an expansion team to a guy who treats the team like a long episode of flip this house, then let's the equivalent of meth heads move in and trash the place.
If any of this gives you confidence that the league has the ability to identify suitable stable owners and to ensure they are not flim flammers, you are a far greater optimist than I. If this hodge lodge of foreign investors reported to be needed for the coyotes sale goes throug and the NHL still signs off, what does it say?
They've actually played for the Cup a few times since '75. Unlike the Leafs for whom the next time they play for a Cup will be the 1st time since '67. The Flyers have also been consistent winners in the '70s, '80s, '90s, and now the '00s. The Leafs have been consistent LOSERS throughout those decades.
They've actually played for the Cup a few times since '75. Unlike the Leafs for whom the next time they play for a Cup will be the 1st time since '67. The Flyers have also been consistent winners in the '70s, '80s, '90s, and now the '00s. The Leafs have been consistent LOSERS throughout those decades.
Since Ballard's death in 1990, the Leafs have made the Conference Finals three times. Not the most successful of franchises, granted, but hardly among the worst either.
They've actually played for the Cup a few times since '75. Unlike the Leafs for whom the next time they play for a Cup will be the 1st time since '67. The Flyers have also been consistent winners in the '70s, '80s, '90s, and now the '00s. The Leafs have been consistent LOSERS throughout those decades.
No one denies the leafs have had problems. How have the habs sucked for decades? You know the most successful team in the leagues history ? You want to bad lip the leafs, be my guest. If you want to lump the habs in there based on some imagined anti southern cabal,it might be met with some resistance.
