The W
Views: 99105616
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.9.14 1515
The W - Hockey - So, supposing the season is cancelled...
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.46
Pages: 1
(323 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (16 total)
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2513 days
Last activity: 615 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.60
...what would stop some of the more solvent teams (Toronto, Philly, Detroit, Rangers, Dallas, etc.) from just walking out on the NHL and creating their own "super"league, come next year? Then they could sign any players they wanted, being a whole new league, right?

Why wouldn't they just throw the weaker teams under the metaphorical bus? They don't need Columbus, Pittsburgh, Edmonton and Anaheim (examples only), do they?

I'm not advocating this route, and I don't want it to happen - I'm just idly wondering if it is even possible.

(Yes, this is the kind of thoughts that no NHL hockey has led me to thinking. Yes, I know that it is kind of sad.)



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
Promote this thread!
fuelinjected
Banger








Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3230 days
Last activity: 3230 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.70
Let's take Toronto for example.

The Leafs will do well regardless of what kind of team they have. They have a high payroll and still make lots of money. It looks more and more like there will be a salary cap. So with a cap, they're making the same revenues and have an excuse not to cut their payroll in half. They're still going to be making the same revenues, yet have costs cut in half.

That's why it makes sense for them to stick this through even if they're one of the teams losing more money by not having a season. If they thought it was the Owners that would have to cave to the players and that Bettman + 8 teams were out of their minds, then I'm sure they'd really consider about disbanding.

Edmonton made money last year, BTW.



"When did they pass a law that says the people who make my sandwich have to be wearing gloves? I'm not comfortable with this. I don't want glove residue all over my food; it's not sanitary. Who knows where these gloves have been?" - George Carlin
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 273 days
Last activity: 13 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.30
FACT: The Calgary Flames have made money for most of their existance. The Seaman Brothers (Darryl & Byron) bought the team in 1980 from the Atlanta ownership after the Atlanta team struggled financially. On-ice it was fine, but in the 1970s hockey just couldn't survive down south. So, the Seaman Brothers and other investors plucked the team and brought it to Calgary. It made money every year, and didn't miss the playoffs for the first time until 1992. The next time they missed the playoffs was 1997. The Flames ownership is a great example of a bunch of rich oil barons buying a team and running it in a way that made them rich: conservatively.

Harley Hotchkiss, a Flames owner since the beginning, is the chairman of the NHL's Board of Governors. He, and the other longtime Flames owners, have made money all but 7 of the 25 years that the Flames made the playoffs. Heck, last year's run in the post-season erased three seasons worth of losses. The owners aren't gonna cave as long as Harley's heading the charge. He (and the other "small market" owners) has busted his ass for years to keep his team viable and survived despite an uphill battle. Do you really think he's gonna let the battle continue any longer than it has to?



"Illusions, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money...or candy!" - G.O.B. Bluth, Arrested Development

DVDs; Blog; In Memoriam
MARTYEWR
Kishke








Since: 15.10.02

Since last post: 261 days
Last activity: 261 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.97
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Edmonton made money last year, BTW.


Pittsburgh did too, according to Forbes.



Martin Kipp: Creative Member, Extreme Warfare Revenge

W Of The Day: Tuesday, March 4, 2003
W Of The Day (2): Wednesday, October 29, 2003

"Because I'm the man, and the man's the man, and that's just the way it is!" -- Eric Foreman, That 70s Show

Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2513 days
Last activity: 615 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.60
    Originally posted by MARTYEWR
      Originally posted by fuelinjected
      Edmonton made money last year, BTW.


    Pittsburgh did too, according to Forbes.


Wow. I'm surprised at both of these - Edmonton is always one of the first teams that is mentioned in the media as needing a new deal to survive, and I just assumed that Pittsburgh was in trouble from all of the talk about their arena being insufficient.

I stand corrected on both counts, but then you could sub any other teams in there. I guess what I'm asking is, at what point (if any) does the owners solidarity break down? Eventually this lockout needs to affect their franchise resale values, doesn't it? And isn't that what they really care about?

(Keeping in mind that I don't really follow the business end of things that closely)

I've heard plenty of discussion about players' soldiarity, but very little in the other direction.

Freeway: Are you saying that, in your opinion, Calgary would be prepared to dump some of the weaker teams in order to get a deal done more quickly? Just wondering.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
Tribal Prophet
Andouille








Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 3 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.47
Well, it's true that Edmonton and Pittsburgh made money, but at what cost? How much better could Edmonton have been if it didn't have to pass on so many free agents because the money is much more important to them than to a team like the Leafs or Rangers? Some teams are picking up (or trying to pick up) 3 or 4 guys at the trade deadline, while it's huge news for Edmonton to even get one. And then the next story is who they had to trade away to make room for him salary-wise.

Also, Pittsburgh had to let their best goalie sit out a good chunk of the NHL season because they couldn't afford to pay him the money he would have recieved from his bonuses.

Yes they made money, but I could have a team consisting of myself and TheCubsFan, pay ourselves in hockey jerseys, and charge our families $50 a ticket. We'd (probably) make money, but really, how good of a team would we be?


Tribal Prophet
fuelinjected
Banger








Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3230 days
Last activity: 3230 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.70
How can Pittsburgh comepete WITH a salary cap? They're spending BELOW the minimum that Bettman proposed and are on death's door.

So with a cap, how does that make the Penguins more viable? They can't afford to spend $34 million because only 8 teams make the Playoffs and they'd have to make it very deep to afford that. How do they charge more for tickets when the team is probably still going to suck with a cap?

Their problem is they have a shithole of an arena that can't support a major sports franchise.

The teams that are already spending at the low-range of the cap still won't be able to compete with the teams who can spend at the high-end of the cap because unlike the NFL, the NHL won't do revenue sharing. So the low end teams will still lose their star players, IMO.

I'm not saying that a cap can't work but without revenue sharing, its not really going to make a difference to the low-end teams.



"When did they pass a law that says the people who make my sandwich have to be wearing gloves? I'm not comfortable with this. I don't want glove residue all over my food; it's not sanitary. Who knows where these gloves have been?" - George Carlin
BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3346 days
Last activity: 3255 days
ICQ:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.80
True, the Penguins were spending below that level. There are problems unique to different teams that the league can not address through collective bargaining. The Pens play in an arena that should be condemned...how does the league solve that?

Revenue sharing might work short term, but if you have a team that is perpetually dependent on other teams for support there's a very good case that it should either do something to address those issues or simply cease to exist. Find a way to get a new building. Move to Winnipeg. Hell, Mario was working on a deal to get a few hundred slot machines in the lobby there that at one point was projected to bail the team out of trouble even while playing in that dive.

The overall impact of the salary cap, don't forget, is to lower the market value of players across the board. If a guy currently earning 8 or 9 million is forced down to the 5-6 million dollar range then the relative value of the other guys goes down with it. You won't have a league where everybody is making five million bucks and the Penguins can't compete. Instead, the relative worth of players will be less and thirty million dollars will get you more than it does right now. It won't propel the Penguins from the basement to the Stanley Cup finals overnight, but it would ease the burden on them should they be able to address their unique issues.



Screw Ricky
Oliver
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: #YEG

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.75
I don't get the big deal about salary caps. I mean - look at the cash that the New York Rangers are throwing around; look at the talent on their team, and yet they can't make the playoffs if their lives depended on it.

Whereas, Calgary...a small market team...made it to the finals last year.

Concerning Calgary and Edmonton's finances; during the three years I spent in Alberta, all I ever heard on the radio (mostly in Calgary) was that if the Flames didn't reach a certain number of season ticket holders, they'd fold.



Check out my website; and my online journal...in English and Al Bhed. Seriously.
Tribal Prophet
Andouille








Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 3 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.97
Well that's one of the side-advantages of a salary cap that people don't talk about as much. When you can't just throw money at a problem over and over and hope that each signing fixes everything because you're out of cap room, you have to look at things like better coaching and management.

That's something the Rangers have neglected for years because they've always had the option of signing the next 'big star' and just throwing him on the team to try first. Whereas Calgary was forced to use a guy whose skills are the opposite. Recognizing and best using talent he has.


Tribal Prophet
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 273 days
Last activity: 13 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.30
Flames & Lightning fans would argue that they had the best TEAM teams. The Rangers may've had a more talented team in terms of the best 23 men in the league, but they weren't the best combination of 23 men buying into a system of play. You need spare parts guys on the 4th line to do grunt work, so it doesn't make sense to pay them trillions.



"Illusions, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money...or candy!" - G.O.B. Bluth, Arrested Development

DVDs; Blog; In Memoriam
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.40
Does the NHL have a marketing sharing program like the NFL, where all profit from apparel and stuff is devided equally?

As far as spending money and getting the quality from it, look at the Blues, they spend a ton of cash and all they really have to show for it is Pronger getting hurt the last few seasons, Doug Weight not being up to par and Ktchuck(I know I butchered it) barely making an impact.

ITs simple really have the owners say "I will not pay that amounto fmoney for talent any longer". New York will, Colorodo will, but if every other team doesnt, then the league average will go down. It may be collusion, but since when is making a good business decision illegal?
MARTYEWR
Kishke








Since: 15.10.02

Since last post: 261 days
Last activity: 261 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.97
Just for everyone's info, here's a breakdown of all the costs and revenues for each NHL team for 2003-04:

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/11-14-04cba.htm

Matter of fact, here's what each team has done the last seven years:

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/11-14-04cba2.htm

All numbers courtesy of Forbes.

(edited by MARTYEWR on 20.12.04 1426)


Martin Kipp: Creative Member, Extreme Warfare Revenge

W Of The Day: Tuesday, March 4, 2003
W Of The Day (2): Wednesday, October 29, 2003

"Because I'm the man, and the man's the man, and that's just the way it is!" -- Eric Foreman, That 70s Show

Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 273 days
Last activity: 13 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.30


Some would argue that those numbers may be inaccurate. For example, the Calgary Flames operate the Saddledome and own & operate the WHL's Calgary Hitmen, so the Flames franchise may declare their revenue/losses pooled with the NHL team's. Similarly, other franchises are part of similar groupings of sports-related assets and their ownership may report the group's losses as the losses for one of the teams.



"Illusions, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money...or candy!" - G.O.B. Bluth, Arrested Development

DVDs; Blog; In Memoriam
MARTYEWR
Kishke








Since: 15.10.02

Since last post: 261 days
Last activity: 261 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.97
    Originally posted by Freeway420


    Some would argue that those numbers may be inaccurate. For example, the Calgary Flames operate the Saddledome and own & operate the WHL's Calgary Hitmen, so the Flames franchise may declare their revenue/losses pooled with the NHL team's. Similarly, other franchises are part of similar groupings of sports-related assets and their ownership may report the group's losses as the losses for one of the teams.


Ironically, it was Forbes that accused the NHL of hiding revenues/losses like those of which you described above.

(On a side note, I totally forgot that Bret Hart sold the Hitmen until you reminded me!)



Martin Kipp: Creative Member, Extreme Warfare Revenge

W Of The Day: Tuesday, March 4, 2003
W Of The Day (2): Wednesday, October 29, 2003

"Because I'm the man, and the man's the man, and that's just the way it is!" -- Eric Foreman, That 70s Show

JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2260 days
Last activity: 2258 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.63
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6746861/

There's a drop-dead date now on the table (Jan. 14) for scrapping the season if there's no deal in place.

Tick tock. Ticktockticktock.

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 23.12.04 0932)


"If you've got a Corvette that runs into a brick wall, you know what's gonna happen."
-Shaquille "The Wall" O'Neal
Thread rated: 5.46
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: What's going to happen with the Draft
Next thread: Day 99: The End (of the Season) is Near
Previous thread: Shanahan's ten commandments
(323 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Saskatoon almost got the St. Louis Blues in 1983, but the NHL vetoed it then as well.
Related threads: Hope Is Still Alive: Talks Renew - Lockout Hits Day 70, Fans Die A Little Inside - Day 58: Everyone's Lying To Everyone Else - More...
The W - Hockey - So, supposing the season is cancelled...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.211 seconds.