HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

The Present Tense Only Ensures Future Failure

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2003, 01:45 PM
  #1
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
The Present Tense Only Ensures Future Failure

The typical Oilers' fan is passionate, involved, and committed to the long term welfare of our treasured hockey team. The everyday fortunes of this team's struggles, to ice a competitive NHL hockey club, continues to be a hot topic for discussion during coffee breaks, across lunch counters, and at the dinner table. Being a small market NHL team, the Edmonton Oilers long term future depends on a new formula which will level the ice surface, first financially then competitively so that the Copper & Blue can fairly compete with the big market franchises.

Being a remote Canadian small market franchise adds the factors of increased travel costs and the reality of the U$ vs. Cdn. dollar differential to an already stressed formula for realizing a competitive, as well as, financially viable enterprise. These last heavy straws added to the weighty financial burdens already straining the sore backs of the Oilers Ownship Group (OOG) are the last straws which will eventually break our community based and funded camel's back. Based on the current CBA, the cost for the Oilers organization of maintaining a competitive on-ice hockey product would only continue to create a sea of red ink, a drink too salty to quench the thirsts of the already dehyrated individual OOG investors. So to be brutally bilingual:
C'est la guerre as the Oilers go there,
Southward they go, to better fare.
Why did their deathknell sound here?
T'was only laissez-faire capitalism I fear,
So c'est la vie, Edmonton is now NHL free.
Notwithstanding fuduciary suicide, it makes no financial sense, period, for OOG to spend more of their locally hard earned dollars. Given the existing business climate and the current NHL rink rules, where the expectation of return on risked capital is less than Zero, and would still result in the eventual loss of our NHL franchise to financial ruin anyways, to throw any more money away, would be foolish. Even if our current caretaker owner's could be bought out by some white whale whose financial blow hole was deep indeed, the ongoing tens of millions of dollars of yearly loss, needed to ice a competitive hockey product and keep contented bums warming Skyreach seats, would eventually suffocate even the largest financial behemoth.

Revenue cash cows like Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis, and the New York Rangers & New Jersey Devils have had the budget wherewithall to ensure on ice competitive success. They have done so by simply purchasing it. Winning at any cost has always been the formula for success - right? But now even the fattest of bovine are worrying. Could Mad Cow disease also be a state of mind? And so times are tense and change is long past due. Will the big money hockey stakeholders be smart enough to be inclusive of smaller Canadians hockey markets? Why should we share our individual troughs still snort the bullish Big Market few?

Thus, the miniscule margin for error, that had allowed Canadian small market teams to just barely hang-on, has all but evaporated, and the ever expanding desert of discontented fans, left sweating and fuming, as the highnoon sun beats down, continues to grow. And as the gunfight at the not so OK NHL corral draws closer, the despute worsens as the principals' positions seem to be hardening. Leading the millionaire NHLPA wildbunch gang is Bob Goodenow, who continues to favour the status quo plus shortening the time needed before unrestricted free agents can cash in their lottery tickets, by being able to move even sooner to the big American markets. Greed agency justified, so they say, on the principle of common sense, if the dollars weren't really there, then the Billonaire owners wouldn't spend them.

But no willing American Billionaires were to be found, who would lose big bucks keeping small market Canadian teams in Winnipeg and Quebec City. Are Edmonton, Calgary, and Ottawa next? But before the fans in Canada's small Apple or Habitant central or our West Coast fan contingent in Vancouver smile too smugly, remember that upon that likely eventuality that then your respective teams will exist only to develope talent for the real winners who would still reside south of the 49th parallel. Being able to actually cosy Lord Stanley in a warm embrace will remain, forever, but a La La Land pipe dream.

As the NHL's doomsday (Sept. 15th 2004) looms ever nearer, and the stakes lengthen and are sharpened to a deadly pointedness, the most critical of questions, begs for the asking. Who holds the most lethal of weapons? Spearheading the NHL hockey Establishment is the Commish himself, Gary Bettman, the owner's man. Knowing where his bread is mostly buttered, he walks the northern cobbled paths from east and west, but finally south he treads onto the broad Yankee expressways. All the while, does he dream of streets lined with gold leading to gleaming bejewelled omniplexes, wherein money trees are harvested in these ever expanding new US hockey havens. Does Bettman really envision an endless icescape of plenty, as dollar signs dance in his heady daydreams?

Being just a rabid hockey Fan-Animal I plead: "for I'm just a soul whose intentions are good, oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood." Therfore, here I would query, isn't it these same intention that will pave the way to Hockey Hades? What will happen when there are no more exciting Canadian teams, just good enough to almost win, but who in the end, in that polite Canadian way, lose graciously, year after year? Will the new American fan base endure in the small US markets, as year after year, the same established big market teams hoist President Stanley? Inclines greased with 'the Green' all to soon, can become declines, and a very slippery slope it is indeed - once the slide begins.

This ole' backwoods, provincial, turnip headed fan, from a small-town hockey HinterLand, wonders somewhat knowingly, as fickle southern fingers dab their freedom fries into that Republican vegetable created by Heinz, how quickly it will be, before red colours the account books of small US NHL markets? Contraction and protectionism of American players will ensue. As the Euro beckons, the majority of foreign elite players will stay and/or return home, seeing no sense in competing for less than they can earn at home. We in Canada will go back to our hearty northern roots, soon a new Canadian Hockey League will thrive but never again will we be dumb enough share our new revitalized national treasure - Canadian Hockey!

OYLer is offline  
Old
10-28-2003, 02:46 PM
  #2
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Excellent post. The problem, though, is that the NHL can't afford to abandon its heartland. Oh sure, they can force Winnipeg and Quebec City into becoming minor league towns again, but not for the long term.

Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec City are 4 very attractive hockey cities. Two are already available. If Calgary and Edmonton fall from the NHL, that makes 4.

IF a new league (the WHA?) established themselves in those 4 markets, plus a few besides (Cleveland, Seattle, San Fransisco, there are markets) the new league would certainly get a Canadian TV contract in short order.

After that, it's only a matter of building the fan base and creating new heroes.

The NHL can only have its monopoly with huge involvement from Canada. If they orphan 2 more cities, they're pooched imo, because if I'm starting a new league there's no doubt as to where there's fertile ground.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
10-28-2003, 03:05 PM
  #3
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
I agree that something needs to be worked out so hockey can return to Winnipeg and Quebec. It is pitiful that Alberta can support two teams which is as many as Ontario, and more then any of the other provinces. It is quite obvious that we don't have the population. Geographicaly we are worse off then B.C., Manitoba, Quebec - so I have to wonder if the Jets and Nords couldn't have made it work. I think this league COULD handle one more round of expansion. But first off the CBA has to be straightened. We need some formula to put our teams on par with american teams in terms of currency. If that can happen, succesful franchises in Quebec and Winnipeg can too.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
10-28-2003, 04:09 PM
  #4
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
It has always been my opinion that if costs were under control in the NHL, Canada could feasibly host 10 NHL teams. Yes, 10: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hamilton, Halifax.

But, wait, you say those last two will never work? Hamilton's too close to Toronto and Buffalo and Detroit. Halifax is too small. Halifax is a minor sports team community (CIS, QMJHL, etc). Flip the coin though; imagine the rivalries between Toronto-Hamilton, Hamilton-Buffalo, Hamilton-Ottawa. Southern Ontario is crawling with money, and there are about 10,000,000 people; that to me makes a very attractive market. Halifax, on the other hand, is certainly the more controversial of my suggestions. To me (this is ignoring all of my economic and business backgrounds) Halifax is just too passionate about its sport for an NHL venture not to succeed. Could a rivalry with Hartford be born?? If not, Boston's just down the road, as is Quebec City and the beloved Habs.

H-Bear is offline  
Old
10-28-2003, 06:52 PM
  #5
outKast*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,664
vCash: 500
<i>laissez-faire</i>? hahaha nothing like social studies in High School.

outKast* is offline  
Old
10-28-2003, 07:05 PM
  #6
hmminvisiblecola1279
I just hope we can
 
hmminvisiblecola1279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: win a game
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
no way should the nhl expand again, whether or not it involved canadian cities. the watered down talent and more trapping teams would make this league a disaster which i feel could happen anyways.

hmminvisiblecola1279 is offline  
Old
10-28-2003, 07:23 PM
  #7
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmminvisiblecola
no way should the nhl expand again, whether or not it involved canadian cities. the watered down talent and more trapping teams would make this league a disaster which i feel could happen anyways.
Sorry buddy - but if the NHL went back to 16 teams we would STILL see a great deal of trapping. Like it or not it is a superior strategy. Adding teams to Quebec and Winnipeg would be a HUGE boost for the NHL in Canada and even the NHL as a whole. To think that all this trapping is because of watered down talent - which isn't entirely true, there might be 10 guys in the league that have no business being here, but the NHL is drawing on a MUCH greater populace and the more teams are quite easily sustainable.

Trapping is here whether there is 6 teams or 35 teams. It is just plain and simply the best way to win. Sure skilled players can beat the trap. But skilled players can't beat the trap when being played by skilled players - and thats all that we'd see with any less teams.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
10-28-2003, 07:56 PM
  #8
hmminvisiblecola1279
I just hope we can
 
hmminvisiblecola1279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: win a game
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
ok then the second argument the climate in the nhl right now, no city in canada right now could get a team especially ones who have already had their crack at them. do you not realize part of the reason nashville and atlanta came into being is so that the other teams would benefit from the expansion fees. and to put it bluntly there are a lot of players who do not belong in this league due to not enough talent so teams have to scour europe or the minor leagues. pisani and ferguson on the oilers come to mind.

hmminvisiblecola1279 is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 01:22 PM
  #9
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
Excellent post. The problem, though, is that the NHL can't afford to abandon its heartland. Oh sure, they can force Winnipeg and Quebec City into becoming minor league towns again, but not for the long term.

Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec City are 4 very attractive hockey cities. Two are already available. If Calgary and Edmonton fall from the NHL, that makes 4.

IF a new league (the WHA?) established themselves in those 4 markets, plus a few besides (Cleveland, Seattle, San Fransisco, there are markets) the new league would certainly get a Canadian TV contract in short order.

After that, it's only a matter of building the fan base and creating new heroes.

The NHL can only have its monopoly with huge involvement from Canada. If they orphan 2 more cities, they're pooched imo, because if I'm starting a new league there's no doubt as to where there's fertile ground.
The problem is the NHL did abandon 29% of its Canadian heartland fan base by moving 2 of then 7 teams south of the border. Forcing Winnipeg and Quebec City into becoming minor league towns again, was a harbinger of what was to come. Both Calgary and Edmonton reacted in time to extend the life of their respective franchises, but these two smaller NHL markets can not and ultimately will not survive without real revenue sharing of league-wide individual team revenues. The new business model and motto for the NHL must become the 30 musketeers refrain: one for all and all for one. If teams derive special advantage because of central, regional, or local/city tax breaks or incentive from government, corporations and/or foreign sources as just listed above should be included.

To prevent sharp business practices and to dissuade collusion by the NHL owners as a whole or as a group of big market power elite, a new CBA must enable and be contingent on, open book accounting practices. The above, to be verified with independent auditing which must be implemented in 2 years. The new CBA should have a life of 10 years. Revenue sources delineated from lowball to reasonable to inflated: building rental charges, concessions, ticket sales, corporate box sales, parking, TV, cable, satellite, web site, and merchandise sales must be considered. Real Costs and Real revenue stream need be identified and made public. The U$ vs. Cdn. dollar deferential must be taken into account, as well. Luxury tax penalties must truly dissuade all parties from breaking even bending the rules to prevent a competitive edge to be realized by offending teams.

Likewise a new CBA must include a hard salary cap with a formula for increasing the cap conservatively when required. Signing bonuses, performance bonuses, stock options, gifts, delayed payment, personal services contracts, health care packages, interest free loans, and perks of every type, kind, or method must be factored into a hard salary cap. If a player is given time off regular duties to do endorsement or if real financial benefits flow through the wife, children, or any family member or close friend said benefit must be factored in. When real revenue streams and actual costs have identified and made public then fans can make informed decisions about level and degree of support. If any stakeholder break the rules of operation, severe financial penalties should apply automatically. Expulsion from the league and forfeiture of franchises and removal of coaching, player, management/owner, and agent status should be mandatory for repeat offenders.

The rights of the fans/consumers and workers who ultimately enable and pay for the privilege of the other stakeholders to hold and financially prosper from such sporting event, earning lucrative wages and/or profits must be taken into account with public disclosure and such sharing accounting information. Public community based events should be viewed specially from an income tax perspective. Gouging and misuse of power regulated.

OYLer is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 01:37 PM
  #10
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by OYLer
The problem is the NHL did abandon 29% of its Canadian heartland fan base by moving 2 of then 7 teams south of the border. Forcing Winnipeg and Quebec City into becoming minor league towns again, was a harbinger of what was to come. Both Calgary and Edmonton reacted in time to extend the life of their respective franchises, but these two smaller NHL markets can not and ultimately will not survive without real revenue sharing of league-wide individual team revenues. The new business model and motto for the NHL must become the 30 musketeers refrain: one for all and all for one. If teams derive special advantage because of central, regional, or local/city tax breaks or incentive from government, corporations and/or foreign sources as just listed above should be included.

To prevent sharp business practices and to dissuade collusion by the NHL owners as a whole or as a group of big market power elite, a new CBA must enable and be contingent on, open book accounting practices. The above, to be verified with independent auditing which must be implemented in 2 years. The new CBA should have a life of 10 years. Revenue sources delineated from lowball to reasonable to inflated: building rental charges, concessions, ticket sales, corporate box sales, parking, TV, cable, satellite, web site, and merchandise sales must be considered. Real Costs and Real revenue stream need be identified and made public. The U$ vs. Cdn. dollar deferential must be taken into account as well. Luxury tax penalties and must truly dissuade allowing for a competitive edge to be realized by offending teams.

Likewise a new CBA must include a hard salary cap with a formula for increasing the cap conservatively when required. Signing bonuses, performance bonuses, stock options, gifts, delayed payment, personal services contracts, health care packages, interest free loans, and perks of every type, kind, or method must be factored into a hard salary cap. If a player is given time off regular duties to do endorsement or if real financial benefits flow through the wife, children, or any family member or close friend said benefit must be factored in. When real revenue streams and actual costs have identified and made public then fans can make informed decisions about level and degree of support. If any stakeholder break the rules of operation, severe financial penalties should apply automatically. Expulsion from the league and forfeiture of franchises and removal of coaching, player, management/owner, and agent status should be mandatory for repeat offenders.

The rights of the fans/consumers and workers who ultimately enable and pay for the privilege of the other stakeholders to hold and financially prosper from such sporting event, earning lucrative wages and/or profits must be taken into account with public disclosure and such sharing accounting information. Public community based events should be viewed specially from an income tax perspective. Gouging and misuse of power regulated.
Excellent post. I think that teams such as the Rangers SHOULD be able to make more money then Edmonton. BUT what should be controlled is their spending so that a team like Edmonton doesn't have to play in a HUGE market. I think that a percentage ONLY should be what is taken from teams. What do you think the Rangers and Leafs and them make usually? 10 million? 20 million? I think if it's in that area then it should be about a 40% rev. sharring that goes to teams who lose money. And of course as you mentioned teams have to be accountable, and if they have lost money because of poor decisions or anything like that then they don't get any money.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 03:05 PM
  #11
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
Excellent post. I think that teams such as the Rangers SHOULD be able to make more money then Edmonton. BUT what should be controlled is their spending so that a team like Edmonton doesn't have to play in a HUGE market. I think that a percentage ONLY should be what is taken from teams. What do you think the Rangers and Leafs and them make usually? 10 million? 20 million? I think if it's in that area then it should be about a 40% rev. sharring that goes to teams who lose money. And of course as you mentioned teams have to be accountable, and if they have lost money because of poor decisions or anything like that then they don't get any money.
Thanx thome_26 I am a capitalist and believe risk takers deserve whatever an informed market will pay. But when the public trust is involved, and this is always the case when Big Sport Interests are involved in the community, the notion of co-operative capitalism, the I win and you win scenario, should come into play. And yes bad play and/or management are handled in the business like way. You were right to clarify that specific area. Even brankruptancy and loss of a franchise, given no public support, are still market dictated outcomes, as well as, big profits if the new CBA rules provide for fairly structured play and the market will bare it because of good sound business practices, excellent marketing, and the management providing a winning exciting product. Heck if dumb fans will support bad product and some lucky owner can make a buck I think that's fine too - alas - I'm ranging off topic again.

It is working in the NFL why can't it work in the NHL. I know many will point out that the big TV Revenues make it work in the NFL. And the NHL doesn't yet, the operative word being "YET" have blanket big network cloverage, and the resulting revenue. Hockey is the coolest and my exciting game in professional sports and this will bare out very soon. But on any day every team must have an expectation of winning, and in any given year any team must be able to win the Stanley Cup. Yes just like in the NFL irrespective of large or small market status. If this doesn't happen with the next CBA I will become a soccer fan - even if it bores my into an early grave! please no soccer defenders, I don't understand the game and am to old to learn now.

OYLer is offline  
Old
10-29-2003, 03:43 PM
  #12
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Wow. Socialism is popping up everywhere on the boards these days! :p I love it.

Allan is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 11:22 AM
  #13
G-Double
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: left coast
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to G-Double
Hahahaah, the major problem as i see it is, people who buy these teams which huge payrolls don't care about the health of the sport or the entire company (NHL) so to speak. They buy these as toys or as tax write-offs for their othermore lucrative business ventures.

The weird or should i say unusual thing about professional sorts is that, you compete against the other teams on the playing field but off the field it is in everyones best interest to work together to ensure the health of the parents company (the NHL in this case.)

The current CBA has nothing in it that acknowledges this and works to ensure it is happening, which it is most definitely not. Also, this entire, america ruined the pure traditional canadian game... ever hear of the ottawa Silver seven? They were pretty much the first team to buy the cup and what about the "millionaires", sorry i can't remember where they were from, i want to say it started with a "b" or an "m" Anyway, this has been going on for years, look at the leafs and the habs in the beginning, thye got all thebest players and no one complained till it was american teams that were "destroying the purity of the game" by buying all these players and all these cups. Keep in mind that the team that won the cup for the Avs was pretty much the Quebec Nordiques, would you say that team was bought, if so maybe it was the reason the team had to leave Quebec in the first place.

Anyway, OYler, i've seen some anti-american sentiment on your part before and would like to let you know I personally don't appreciate it and consider myself as big a fan of the game and the Oilers as anyone else. If you are hell-bent on blaming someone other than those responsible or if you just like generaliizing which you seem much to smart for, please choose some other people to generalize about...

G-Double is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 11:37 AM
  #14
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Double
Hahahaah, the major problem as i see it is, people who buy these teams which huge payrolls don't care about the health of the sport or the entire company (NHL) so to speak. They buy these as toys or as tax write-offs for their othermore lucrative business ventures.
I have always hated this comment. The NHL is NOT, I repeat, NOT any of the following:
  • charity
  • not-for profit organization
  • educational institution
Those, among a few other entities (they are slipping my mind), are considered "tax write-offs". The NHL (and its clubs) are for profit organizations. Therefore, they are NOT tax write-offs.

I believe that the owners have one of two reasons for owning an NHL team:
  1. They have a true passion for the game, and are willing to sink serious capital into it, knowing the return on investment will be low, zero, or even negative. Or,
  2. they honestly think they can turn a profit on the business. The return on investment for a guranteed Canadian Savings Bond (risk-free) is usually around 5%; therefore, a businessman/woman looking to invest in an NHL club would be looking for a 5% return on investment, plus a certain percentage (3% or more) more for taking a risk. If there are owners in the NHL (particularily a team like Edmonton) who think they can make a 8% return on investment under the current CBA, well, they need to hire a new financial advisor.
So, in short, these owners are NOT in the business for tax-write off purposes. Rather, they own the clubs because they love hockey, and they hope to turn a profit.

H-Bear is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 11:58 AM
  #15
ZIM
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrie
I have always hated this comment. The NHL is NOT, I repeat, NOT any of the following:
  • charity
  • not-for profit organization
  • educational institution
Those, among a few other entities (they are slipping my mind), are considered "tax write-offs". The NHL (and its clubs) are for profit organizations. Therefore, they are NOT tax write-offs.

I believe that the owners have one of two reasons for owning an NHL team:
  1. They have a true passion for the game, and are willing to sink serious capital into it, knowing the return on investment will be low, zero, or even negative. Or,
  2. they honestly think they can turn a profit on the business. The return on investment for a guranteed Canadian Savings Bond (risk-free) is usually around 5%; therefore, a businessman/woman looking to invest in an NHL club would be looking for a 5% return on investment, plus a certain percentage (3% or more) more for taking a risk. If there are owners in the NHL (particularily a team like Edmonton) who think they can make a 8% return on investment under the current CBA, well, they need to hire a new financial advisor.
So, in short, these owners are NOT in the business for tax-write off purposes. Rather, they own the clubs because they love hockey, and they hope to turn a profit.
Another reason to buy a sports team is for the power and prestige it brings. This is of value particularly if it brings you clients in other business endeavors. Or maybe it's just the high of having a high profile.

When we looked at making an investment on a project the "hurdle rate", that is the return required to offset the other things that could be done with the money, was sometimes as high as 25%.

Can you use it as a tax write-off. Absolutely, you can invest capital for the long-term to acquire operational expenses which, in the cases of hockey teams that lose money, provide tax deductions as they are used to reduce taxable income. Argue about the semantics but you still pay less tax. And if you're really good your capital investment turns out to make money which is taxable at a reduced rate (capital gains are not all taxable or alternatively are taxed at a lower rate)

 
Old
10-30-2003, 12:03 PM
  #16
Ol' Dirty Chinaman*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: I'm bottled fizzy wa
Posts: 1,926
vCash: 500
Hockey in Canada, is assured in three cities: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver.

Simply put, it is the top 3 populated metropolitan areas of Canada.

As of the 2002 Census:

Code:
(thousands)
Toronto (Ontario)	5,029.9
Montréal (Quebec)	3,548.8
Vancouver (British Columbia)	2,122.7
Ottawa–Hull (Ontario–Quebec)	1,128.9
Calgary (Alberta)	993.2
Edmonton (Alberta)	967.2
Québec (Quebec)	697.8
Winnipeg (Manitoba)	685.5
Hamilton (Ontario)	686.9
London (Ontario)	427.3
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo05.htm

As you can see, Vancouver's size is twice that of Ottawa, with Calgary and Edmonton behind. Toronto and Montreal eclipsing any other Canadian city. Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hamilton are much smaller than Edmonton or Calgary and in no way or shape able to sustain an NHL franchise.

Stadium location and population are key to a franchise, if your stadium can be in the middle of a large city, you can always remain in the public eye and impulse ticket purchasing will be higher. Population is probably more important for market saturation and TV viewership. The more people you have in a market, the more possible viewers you can make, which in turn increases your advertising and viewership revenue. Why do you think CBC shows the Leafs all the time on HNIC ? Its not because they favour the leafs, its because Toronto as a franchise pulls in the most audience, hence, the most money. If Edmonton was the largest city in Canada, HNIC would have an Oilers game every Sat night.

Anyway, (imho) the key to saving this leage is to tie in salaries and caps with the average revenue of the league, so if the league is watered down and total revenue drops, salaries and caps go down, if it goes up, salaries and caps go up.

The NHL has to instate a planned economy (*sigh* yes socialism) in order to survive, as it stands it is a free market. And though it is principally better, the free market must exploit the poorer constituents in order to further the richer ones.

Ol' Dirty Chinaman* is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 12:08 PM
  #17
Belcriss
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I for one will no longer have anything to do with the NHL if the Oilers leave Edmonton. There is no excuse for it, we have an excellent fan base, and Skyreach is selling out most games, if not all yet.
TV contracts are getting bigger and better for the Oil, and the team is on its way up (I hope). The only reason the Oilers cannot compete is because a few certain overly rich teams have created an environment that insures that most Canadian teams cannot afford UFA's and must trade them to not end up with anything for them. Calgary and Edmonton are the most notable victims of this crap. The NHL has let the league become an unbalanced field of greed and money. No longer does a team need to build from within, just go buy it. The NHL needs to change this philosophy, not so much with a revenue cap, although that would help, but with revenue sharing. Then the Oilers and Flames, not to mention a few others could compete, and KEEP their good developed players when they are hitting their prime! Want a model of how this works? Look at the NFL. No more dynasties there, and you can't even argue that there are four or five teams that dominate year in and year out to win the superbowl. Who saw the Patriots winning it, or the Ravens before they did? NOBODY... if they did, they're really really rich, or really really lucky. With a level playing field, I have no doubt the Oilers will become a powerhouse again, to many guys here know what it takes to win (in management). The problem is with the players these days. Its no longer about the team, you have 22 seperate corporations in the locker room now, and as much as the Oilers try to get this out of the dressing room, there are still a few guys that this is very evident about. Comrie is one, and he has shown it now, but trust me on this, there are a few more in our dressing room. With a little winning, and also a better run league, maybe this attitude in the dressing rooms will change, teams will be the important focus again, and franchises will start to build from within again, rather than try to buy success. At least, maybe, our core would really be untouchable!

 
Old
10-30-2003, 12:11 PM
  #18
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ol' Dirty Chinaman
Hockey in Canada, is assured in three cities: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver.

Simply put, it is the top 3 populated metropolitan areas of Canada.

As of the 2002 Census:
Code:
(thousands)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Toronto (Ontario) 4,586.7 4,673.3 4,773.6 4,907.0 5,029.9
Montréal (Quebec) 3,423.9 3,449.2 3,479.4 3,511.4 3,548.8
Vancouver (British Columbia) 1,998.4 2,028.9 2,060.7 2,099.4 2,122.7
Ottawa–Hull (Ontario–Quebec) 1,055.6 1,069.0 1,087.3 1,108.5 1,128.9
Calgary (Alberta) 903.1 926.2 947.9 969.6 993.2
Edmonton (Alberta) 914.4 928.1 941.8 954.1 967.2
Québec (Quebec) 686.6 688.5 690.8 694.0 697.8
Winnipeg (Manitoba) 677.8 679.9 682.4 684.3 685.5
Hamilton (Ontario) 657.8 664.8 672.1 680.0 686.9
London (Ontario) 416.0 418.6 422.3 425.2 427.3
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo05.htm

As you can see, Vancouver's size is twice that of Ottawa, with Calgary and Edmonton behind. Toronto and Montreal eclipsing any other Canadian city. As you can see, Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hamilton are much smaller than Edmonton or Calgary and in no way or shape able to sustain an NHL franchise.

Stadium location and population are key to a franchise, if your stadium can be in the middle of a large city, you can always remain in the public eye and impulse ticket purchasing will be higher. Population is probably more important for market saturation and TV viewership. The more people you have in a market, the more possible viewers you can make, which in turn increases your advertising and viewership revenue. Why do you think CBC shows the Leafs all the time on HNIC ? Its not because they favour the leafs, its because Toronto as a franchise pulls in the most audience, hence, the most money. If Edmonton was the largest city in Canada, HNIC would have an Oilers game every Sat night.

Anyway, (imho) the key to saving this leage is to tie in salaries and caps with the average revenue of the league, so if the league is watered down and total revenue drops, salaries and caps go down, if it goes up, salaries and caps go up.
Those are very interesting stats, however, I don't view population as an important variable in this argument. Only 20,000 people can go to a hockey game at once. A more suitable variable would be Census Family Income (search for it on the StatsCan website; or use E-Stat if you are at a school/college/university). The amount a family/person has to spend impacts attendence much more than city population.

Oh, and of course, corporate sponsoships, boxes, and season tickets, etc. don't hurt; don't know where you would find a stat for that though.

H-Bear is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 12:15 PM
  #19
Ol' Dirty Chinaman*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: I'm bottled fizzy wa
Posts: 1,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by comrie
Those are very interesting stats, however, I don't view population as an important variable in this argument. Only 20,000 people can go to a hockey game at once. A more suitable variable would be Census Family Income (search for it on the StatsCan website; or use E-Stat if you are at a school/college/university). The amount a family/person has to spend impacts attendence much more than city population.
It would be if were were dealing with a standard currency (CAD vs USD) and nobody watched TV = ).

The NFL, MLB, NBA all make more money off of TV and advertising revenue than ticket sales (iirc). How much did Reebok offer LeBron James again ? Something like 100 million right ? (damn, I wish I could get paid that much to plug a sneaker)

Either way, you are correct in checking the average family income, but if you are a major metropolitan area like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver and your average income is horrific, they you have other serious economic problems and an NHL franchise should be the least of your worries.

Ol' Dirty Chinaman* is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 02:53 PM
  #20
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Double
Also, this entire, america ruined the pure traditional canadian game...

Anyway, OYler, i've seen some anti-american sentiment on your part before and would like to let you know I personally don't appreciate it and consider myself as big a fan of the game and the Oilers as anyone else. If you are hell-bent on blaming someone other than those responsible or if you just like generaliizing which you seem much to smart for, please choose some other people to generalize about...
Not that I speak for anyone else, but the general impression I get of the anti-American sentiment is that people object to the way the game has been changed in order to sell it to people who are not hockey fans, or weren't before the ad campaign began. Buying a winning team, and changing rules (instigator, dumbed down offside, etc.) are two very good ways to do this. While it is not fair to blame this on Americans, the fact remains that the majority of this has happened in order to sell the game better in the USA, where a much smaller portion of the population knows their hockey. I have nothing against Americans, just the people who have hurt the game in order for it to sell better to non-traditional fans. It's easy to label these people as Americans, since many of them are, but nationality is not really the issue, as there are a very large number of serious American hockey fans as well.

Allan is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 03:15 PM
  #21
G-Double
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: left coast
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to G-Double
Quote:
Originally Posted by omar

Can you use it as a tax write-off. Absolutely, you can invest capital for the long-term to acquire operational expenses which, in the cases of hockey teams that lose money, provide tax deductions as they are used to reduce taxable income. Argue about the semantics but you still pay less tax. And if you're really good your capital investment turns out to make money which is taxable at a reduced rate (capital gains are not all taxable or alternatively are taxed at a lower rate)
Exactly, and because most of these guys are sucessful in business they can use some things to help them out. What better way than to own a team, even if you only have remote interest in the sport.

G-Double is offline  
Old
10-30-2003, 03:32 PM
  #22
G-Double
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: left coast
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to G-Double
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
Not that I speak for anyone else, but the general impression I get of the anti-American sentiment is that people object to the way the game has been changed in order to sell it to people who are not hockey fans, or weren't before the ad campaign began. Buying a winning team, and changing rules (instigator, dumbed down offside, etc.) are two very good ways to do this. While it is not fair to blame this on Americans, the fact remains that the majority of this has happened in order to sell the game better in the USA, where a much smaller portion of the population knows their hockey. I have nothing against Americans, just the people who have hurt the game in order for it to sell better to non-traditional fans. It's easy to label these people as Americans, since many of them are, but nationality is not really the issue, as there are a very large number of serious American hockey fans as well.
Allan i agree that "those in charge" have made an efort to sell the game in non-traditional hockey areas. I however do not feel that anyone speciifically asked for this. It was more like a parent trying to do what they think is best for their children. Obviously that doesn't always work, and in this case it didn't. I grew up and lived in Southern California my entire life so i know the product that expansion puts on the ice first hand. I for one was pissed wh nthe league kept expanding, even though i was young at the time it as completely obvious that the product was declining year after year. It is also important to point out that at the time there were 8 Canadian teams, 1/3rd of the league and if the Canadian as well as the American teams didn't want it they should have voiced their objections at that time. Maybe they did, and if so the NHL is pathetic for overlooking their concerns.

I think something being overlooked as well is the influx of European players and the deseire to sell a more skilled product, where in the past the europeans that came over were able to handle themselves because they were the elite talent, some of the europeans that come over now are only skilled guys, not the complete package, therefore the game is changed and how the game is marketed has change in my opinion. Anyway, i wanted to acknowledge your point andi think it is easy to say " americans caused this" because well, it is easier to do that than to actually dig to the bottom of the problem.

G-Double is offline  
Old
10-31-2003, 10:35 AM
  #23
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,153
vCash: 500
Well, I have an idea that is not socialism but good ol' capitalism. I have posted this on other sites and nobody ever responds so it is either a really dumb idea or too big a jump so here goes. Please respond and tell me why it won't work.

The problem as I see it is that the sports model is unique because it involves franchises that must compete. The franchise part of the model is the problem. What you really want is one company (NHL) with x number of branch offices. The governors of the branch offices (currently owners) sell their franchise to the mothercorp for $1 and the right to make all personnel decisions and receive back all profits and revenue sharing that the mothercorp decides upon. The decision of the mothercorp are made by majority decision of the (now) 30 governors and implemented by the president (now commissioner) of the mothercorp.

Example. The New York branch is given $38 million for personell because of the cost of living. The Edmonton branch is given $29 million for personnel because of the cost of living. The New York branch posts revenue of $70 million for a profit of $32 million which goes to the governor of the New York team. He can spend it however he likes except on personell because individual branches negotiate salaries within their budget but paycheques come from head office. You cannot go over your budget because head office writes all cheques.

Revolutionary? This is how every multinational company in the world works outside of sports.

Free agency? Go work wherever you can get a job. You sign a contract with a particular club. They agree to pay you and you agree to play for them. Contract ends. See if another club wants to pay you. But the budget is set. There is no economic advantage to going anywhere else without it affecting another player on the team that must be moved. You want to live in New York and your contract is expired phone the manager in New York and see if he will hire you and how much he will pay and for how long. Good luck to you. If I work for Telus and want to work in Toronto I can apply. Maybe they will hire me maybe they won't but I certainly won't be going because they will pay me what Telus in Edmonton would pay me. There would be an adjustment for cost of living and that is all.

Run the league like it is a business. One business. Not 30 businesses.

And if you want to grow TV support for the game south of the border it is easy. Hire CBC to train cameramen. Gawd knows it is the only skill CBC has but even I can't follow a game on ESPN. They have no clue what will happen next and lose the puck constantly. Brutal. It is like you are watching the NFL on 3rd and one and the camera is following the wide receiver while the running back is diving off tackle. No wonder there is no support for the sport south of the border amongst those that didn't play it when they were young. It looks totally random.

Just my rant.

theoil is offline  
Old
10-31-2003, 10:47 AM
  #24
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Well, I have an idea that is not socialism but good ol' capitalism. I have posted this on other sites and nobody ever responds so it is either a really dumb idea or too big a jump so here goes. Please respond and tell me why it won't work.

The problem as I see it is that the sports model is unique because it involves franchises that must compete. The franchise part of the model is the problem. What you really want is one company (NHL) with x number of branch offices. The governors of the branch offices (currently owners) sell their franchise to the mothercorp for $1 and the right to make all personnel decisions and receive back all profits and revenue sharing that the mothercorp decides upon. The decision of the mothercorp are made by majority decision of the (now) 30 governors and implemented by the president (now commissioner) of the mothercorp.

Example. The New York branch is given $38 million for personell because of the cost of living. The Edmonton branch is given $29 million for personnel because of the cost of living. The New York branch posts revenue of $70 million for a profit of $32 million which goes to the governor of the New York team. He can spend it however he likes except on personell because individual branches negotiate salaries within their budget but paycheques come from head office. You cannot go over your budget because head office writes all cheques.

Revolutionary? This is how every multinational company in the world works outside of sports.

Free agency? Go work wherever you can get a job. You sign a contract with a particular club. They agree to pay you and you agree to play for them. Contract ends. See if another club wants to pay you. But the budget is set. There is no economic advantage to going anywhere else without it affecting another player on the team that must be moved. You want to live in New York and your contract is expired phone the manager in New York and see if he will hire you and how much he will pay and for how long. Good luck to you. If I work for Telus and want to work in Toronto I can apply. Maybe they will hire me maybe they won't but I certainly won't be going because they will pay me what Telus in Edmonton would pay me. There would be an adjustment for cost of living and that is all.

Run the league like it is a business. One business. Not 30 businesses.

And if you want to grow TV support for the game south of the border it is easy. Hire CBC to train cameramen. Gawd knows it is the only skill CBC has but even I can't follow a game on ESPN. They have no clue what will happen next and lose the puck constantly. Brutal. It is like you are watching the NFL on 3rd and one and the camera is following the wide receiver while the running back is diving off tackle. No wonder there is no support for the sport south of the border amongst those that didn't play it when they were young. It looks totally random.

Just my rant.
A fantastic idea .... IF you are just starting the league. However, this won't work for two reasons;
1. Try and convince the owners to sell their franchise to be part of a greater company (the NHL) for $1. It's not going to happen.
2. The NHLPA will NOT agree to a hard cap (or so they claim). The players, under this agreement would not get any of the profits that the division (team) makes; this leads to very unmotivated or very angry employees.

P.S. Good idea on paper though.

H-Bear is offline  
Old
10-31-2003, 10:51 AM
  #25
H-Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Bay ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,500
vCash: 500
I would like to point out that this is the most intelligent thread I have seen at HFBoards since I joined here about a year ago. So far in this thread, economics, business, human resources, and some very creative writing has been posted.


H-Bear is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:50 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.