HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Should the NHL Contract?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-18-2010, 09:25 PM
  #1
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
Should the NHL Contract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
PAP desperately needs a league between the AHL and the NHL.

He should get a shot somewhere, no reason he doesn't deserve it.
Major cities that can't handle NHL franchises shouldn't have them.

The present size of the NHL and AHL is based on the whole world wanting to play in North America, but Europeans and especially the Russians are no longer playing ball.

The existence of the KHL means both leagues must be smaller. Hell, even before the KHL, both the NHL and the AHL were too big.

There simply isn't the talent, nor the financial means of continuing this way.

I see no reason why the Rangers should be paying to support Carolina. It would be better to pay them off to get out of the way, and the Rangers could benefit long term by playing more playoff games. (It was a lot easier to get into the playoffs when the NHL had only 21 teams instead of 30, meaning more revenue.)

The NHL should buy out 9 franchises, reducing the league to 21 teams, just as before the expansion. It should do so by telling financially struggling franchise they won't get anymore aid, but they can sell off their players to other teams. Additionally, they will get some payment back for moving the team to the new-AHL. I was thinking $100 million per team, spread over 5 years. This would be a little over $8 million for each remaining NHL team, which would be made up if the team played at least one extra playoff round.

The AHL should cut itself down to 21 franchises too. This means that if 9 NHL teams join the AHL, then 18 AHL teams should join the ECHL, which can then have two full leagues, one in the East and one in the West, with the winners playing in the finals (similar to football's and baseballs American and National leagues).

The 21 new-AHL franchises in the largest cities would field strong teams, both financially and talent-wise.

The AHL should be only in major cities like Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton, Las Vegas, Houston, Hartford, Portland, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, San Francisco, San Diego, Milwaukee, Seattle, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Kansas City, Cleveland, etc.

To help the new-AHL, the NHL could work out deals with cable companies in Hartford, Quebec, etc. to show all these teams' games on TV. If the NHL has to send some money (e.g., buying ads for parent companies of NHL companies during AHL games) to these TV stations in order to cover the AHL, it will be well worth it, and much cheaper than what they are paying today to sponsor the lower teams.

==================

So in conclusion:

1) Big market teams would benefit because they would make the playoffs more and that would get them more money. They would also be able to get out of helping small market teams.

2) Small market teams would be able to sell off their money-losing franchises while getting free teams in a much stronger AHL. It would be much stronger not just in terms of talent, but also TV and revenue.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 09:46 PM
  #2
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,636
vCash: 500
30 down to 21? That's a bit steep. And why would they go with an odd number? The divisions would work with 24 teams, but even contracting 6 franchises would cut a ton of jobs.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 09:49 PM
  #3
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,510
vCash: 500
Yes, but it will never happen. The NHL would consider further expansion before contraction. Less teams = more high end talent on less teams.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:03 PM
  #4
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,822
vCash: 500
Try and get that one past the union.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:05 PM
  #5
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
30 down to 21? That's a bit steep. And why would they go with an odd number? The divisions would work with 24 teams, but even contracting 6 franchises would cut a ton of jobs.
Ok, makes sense. It would still leave the 24-team AHL as a strong enough league to get regular TV coverage, especially with a little bit of NHL support.

Buying out 6 teams at $100 million each (plus they'd sell off their players) would mean only $25 million per team. If it's spread over 5 years, it would be only $5 million per NHL team. That's not too much when you consider additional playoff revenue.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:10 PM
  #6
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Ok, makes sense. It would still leave the 24-team AHL as a strong enough league to get regular TV coverage, especially with a little bit of NHL support.

Buying out 6 teams at $100 million each (plus they'd sell off their players) would mean only $25 million per team. If it's spread over 5 years, it would be only $5 million per NHL team. That's not too much when you consider additional playoff revenue.
But how many of the hypothetical 6 contracted teams were making the playoffs anyway? So I'm not sure how much additional income there would be. And would you even keep the playoff format the same...you'd have 16 of 24 teams getting in. As it stands now we've already got more than half the teams advancing...do you really want to bump that up to 2/3?

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:13 PM
  #7
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
Try and get that one past the union.

With 6 fewer teams, the NHL would have no need for the cap. The struggling teams would be gone and the rest can just go out and compete.

This would raise NHL salaries.

While those moving from the NHL to the AHL would lose out, the other AHLers would gain because they would be in a stronger league that would now gain TV coverage, and therefore, greater revenues and exposure.

I think dumping the salary cap and getting the AHL its own regular TV coverage would get the union on board.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:15 PM
  #8
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
With 6 fewer teams, the NHL would have no need for the cap. The struggling teams would be gone and the rest can just go out and compete.

This would raise NHL salaries.

While those moving from the NHL to the AHL would lose out, the other AHLers would gain because they would be in a stronger league that would now gain TV coverage, and therefore, greater revenues and exposure.

I think dumping the salary cap and getting the AHL its own regular TV coverage would get the union on board.
I do wonder what kind of TV revenue this "stronger" AHL league would generate.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:16 PM
  #9
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
But how many of the hypothetical 6 contracted teams were making the playoffs anyway? So I'm not sure how much additional income there would be. And would you even keep the playoff format the same...you'd have 16 of 24 teams getting in. As it stands now we've already got more than half the teams advancing...do you really want to bump that up to 2/3?

1. It used to be 16 out of 21 teams making playoffs.

2. Some poor teams make it. Look at Carolina winning the Cup. Poor teams regularly make at least the first round of the playoffs.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:18 PM
  #10
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
I do wonder what kind of TV revenue this "stronger" AHL league would generate.

Say NHL teams would agree to advertise their parent companies during those games? I'd say that the stronger AHL would then be able to get media coverage. That would give them a much stronger fan appeal than the present AHL.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:27 PM
  #11
KreiMeARiver
Have Confidence
 
KreiMeARiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,594
vCash: 500
Keep Carolina, they won the cup, and love their Canes down there...

They are a very well-run franchise. Rutherford is a great GM.

get rid of the panthers, thrashers, and coyotes for starters..

KreiMeARiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:30 PM
  #12
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 920
How about we start with getting rid of 2 teams?

Why are all the ideas here so damn extreme.. you want to cut 30% of the league in 1 shot, that's never ever going to happen.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 10:40 PM
  #13
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
this is hilarious...

TV ratings for the NHL in this country suck right now...and you are talking about trying to get people to watch ANOTHER league...a minor league at that...

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/inde...ision_ratings/

Stanley Cup finals ratings aside (which aren't even that good), the ratings SUCK for this league right now...

dtrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 11:00 PM
  #14
John Torturella
Registered User
 
John Torturella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,832
vCash: 500
Get rid of Florida, Atlanta, Phoenix, Columbus, Islanders. These teams are unnecessary. Maybe move the Islanders to Canada. Then you have a 26 team league which is a pretty good size.

The league is watered down because its so large. If you draft those teams players, every team in the league will get at least a couple of solid NHL players.

John Torturella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2010, 11:45 PM
  #15
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
With 6 fewer teams, the NHL would have no need for the cap. The struggling teams would be gone and the rest can just go out and compete.

This would raise NHL salaries.

While those moving from the NHL to the AHL would lose out, the other AHLers would gain because they would be in a stronger league that would now gain TV coverage, and therefore, greater revenues and exposure.

I think dumping the salary cap and getting the AHL its own regular TV coverage would get the union on board.
As soon as you contract to 24 teams, there will be 3-4 weaker teams that will be in big trouble. Remember, the milk always sinks to the bottom.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 05:08 AM
  #16
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
I can't see the leauge ever contacting to 21 teams, I could see going to a 28 team leauge if the KHL ever gained real footing & started stealing a latger precenatge of NHL players.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 06:34 AM
  #17
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
I would love it but it will never happen. In this order I would contract Nashville, Atlanta, Florida and Phoenix. I think you are pushing very talented players out of the league after that. That's close to 100 NHL players that are out, figure the Brashears and the Strudwicks. The league is more appealing because of the higher skill level, fewer teams means more games between eachother, less travel. I think you make more money in the end so if they are smart businessmen, they'll go for it.

Of course, in the end they won't. They'll have to pay too much money to the contracted franchises, too many players will lose jobs and the bad PR from the 'setback' of 4 lost franchises is too much to overcome for this movement.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 07:55 AM
  #18
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,893
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
With 6 fewer teams, the NHL would have no need for the cap. The struggling teams would be gone and the rest can just go out and compete.

This would raise NHL salaries.

While those moving from the NHL to the AHL would lose out, the other AHLers would gain because they would be in a stronger league that would now gain TV coverage, and therefore, greater revenues and exposure.

I think dumping the salary cap and getting the AHL its own regular TV coverage would get the union on board.
NHL salaries for the remaining players would rise, but you're talking about a massive reduction in overall jobs for NHLPA members. That's cutting almost 200 NHL jobs right there. No matter how you rationalize the other gains, the Union would NEVER, EVER support that.

As far as the AHL thing....I seriously doubt that. The NHL has a crappy TV deal and is unwanted by most networks, what makes you think anyone would give a TV deal to a lesser league in lesser known cities? Minor league baseball is very, very popular, but none of the leagues have TV deals and only a small handful of teams themselves do. And that's baseball, and this is hockey.

I'm a Union man through and through, grew up in a labor household, work for and with labor unions right now. I guarantee you the NHLPA would never even consider considering a nine-team contraction. Additionally--while I'm not at all familiar with the NHLPA constitution--I would suspect for the Players Association to endorse such a move it would have to come before a membership vote, and the players would never vote to eliminate the jobs of a third of their coworkers.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 08:22 AM
  #19
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Say NHL teams would agree to advertise their parent companies during those games? I'd say that the stronger AHL would then be able to get media coverage. That would give them a much stronger fan appeal than the present AHL.
the NHL barely gets media coverage in the states

how on earth would the AHL ever get any?

with such small attention now, would increasing the AHL's media attention by 200% even make a difference? i doubt it


its a nice theory, and i too belive the talent pool is entirely too diluted in the NHL, but this is a pipe dream my friend

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2010, 09:35 AM
  #20
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
NHL expansion was based on assumption that infusion of Euro talent into the NHL will continue. While top performers are still playing here, the talent level of those deserting to KHL is getting above NHL average. That meant that Europe will eventually stop supporting NHL talent wise at the volumes projected when NHL expansion took place.
The resolution to this obvious problem should start with cap increase. At least 20% cap increase has to be done to retain the players in NHL or the league would need to shed some franchises off.

94now 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 07:38 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.