|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 12, 2015 8:41:18 GMT -5
I really have no interest in the Cup final ... found this story on another site and it's a pretty good read ... HENRY MINTZBERG AND KARL MOORE
We’ve lost control of our own game
Henry Mintzberg and Karl Moore
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jun. 04, 2015 5:00PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Jun. 04, 2015 4:47PM EDTHenry Mintzberg and Karl Moore are professors in McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management.We Canadians may be tough guys on the ice, but off it, we’re wimps. We have allowed ourselves to lose control of our own game. We invented hockey. Our kids play it more fervently than kids anywhere else. They grow up to constitute most of the players in the National Hockey League – which is mostly an American league, not national. We have the most enthusiastic fans, the most significant television audiences, the most lucrative franchises. Yet we beg for teams in many of our cities while Las Vegas, of all places, gets the attention and the Phoenix team sits bankrupt in the desert, significantly at our expense. From 1954 to 1993, Canadian teams won 27 of 40 Stanley Cups. In the 22 years since, no Canadian team has won the cup – not one, zero. That cup, by the way, was given by a Governor-General, long before the NHL was created, for “the champion hockey team in the Dominion of Canada.” What happened in 1993? Well, Gary Bettman became commissioner of the NHL in New York City. His strategy has been clear enough: Expand the sport in places where an ice cube wouldn’t last a minute in the heat while we Canadians, out in the cold, get thrown the occasional bone (the people of Winnipeg thank you for your generosity, Gary). We can hardly claim that this guy’s antics have stopped us from winning cups. But something happened. No statistician would look at these figures and conclude that they are random. We have been asking this of various people, including some who have been prominent on and off the NHL ice. We have heard no helpful answers, save from a 19-year-old family member in Toronto – a Hab’s fan, of course – who said: “The owners can get away with it; they know the fans will come anyway.” Try that in Las Vegas. Indeed, according to a January blog post for The Economist, in three key American cities – Anaheim, Nashville and Tampa Bay – fans “seem unwilling to pay up even to watch [these] championship contenders.” Could it be that we Canadians don’t know how to coach and manage Canadian hockey teams? Hardly – we are top of the world in men’s, women’s and junior hockey. Well then, might it be, without even realizing it, that we are so disheartened by the loss of our own game that we can’t get our act together at home? This may seem far-fetched, but one thing is clear, and worth repeating: Something has happened to our game in our country and we need to do something about it. You’ve jerked us around long enough, Gary. If we weren’t such wimps, there would be a movement here to create a truly national hockey league. Think about this: Almost all sports leagues everywhere are national. Europe, for example, has soccer leagues in England, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. In North America, baseball and basketball have but one Canadian team, and football has two completely separate leagues. Were this the case in hockey, the Canadian league would likely be the one to watch – in fact, the American one might have to restrict the number of Canadian players. Could we support our own league? No doubt about that. A 2011 University of Toronto study was subtitled “Why Canada can support 12 teams,” including second ones in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (the New York area now has three teams and Los Angeles two; the Premier League in English soccer has six teams in London alone). The report stated that “Small Canadian cities are bigger hockey markets than most large American cities.” And a National Post editorial earlier this year described several cities, including Hamilton, Victoria, and Saskatoon as “some of the largest hockey markets in the world,” yet with “absolute-zero hope” of getting a team. According to Forbes Magazine, 30 per cent of the gate receipts in the NHL and 55 per cent of the league’s operating income come from the seven Canadian teams. Canadian fans spend on average $73 at games compared with $27 in the States. The TV contract in Canada generates almost double what the one with NBC does in the U.S., yet those revenues are split evenly between the thirty teams. We Canadians have to be the world’s greatest suckers. We shell out while being shut out. The rest of the story ... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 12, 2015 9:00:24 GMT -5
Guess she's had enough ... good on her ...
|
|
|
|
Post by 24in93 on Jun 12, 2015 20:33:20 GMT -5
Good for her!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jun 13, 2015 8:44:31 GMT -5
To be fair, 18 of those cups won between 54 and 93, were won by the HABS and 5 by the Oilers. Take out those 2 teams, that leaves 4 odd cups coming to Canada in a period of 40 years...
So really those "cups going to Canada" were mostly the affaire of 2 dominant teams in different eras.
Both Oilers and HABS were destroyed by the non-cap salary boom that started in the mid nineties compounded by decades of incredibly poor management in their own house. It's hard to blame Bettman for that... The Nordiques should never had been sold. As I often mentioned, that franchise was not losing money at all... Aubut had the opportunity to make a fortune and he jumped on it. Quebec like Calgary and Edmonton could have brace themselves for a few years as a cap came in 9 years after they left. And everyone knew it was coming since it had been fought for in the '95 negotiations...
While Gary did expand a lot in the US, I feel his stubborn tough stance to get a CAP in place, probably saved some Canadians teams, allowed for Winnipeg to get back a franchise and for Quebec to be front runners for a future expansion or relocalisation. Without Gary's CAP, I think we'd have 1 Canadian team today, Toronto, as even the HABS were bleeding money back in the early 2000 and had to be given sold...
I don't think Gary wanted to help Canadians teams at all, but IMO it eventually had that effect (more than the opposite).
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 13, 2015 12:03:52 GMT -5
I was trying to figure out how the hell a bunch of American teams could fiscally outlast Canadian teams when support for Canadian teams is so much stronger. You'd think that eventually, those American teams would have to pull back after losing money.
Then I remembered that the accounting and salaries are all done in US dollars and Canadian teams were playing with a 30%-40% handicap. No wonder we got de-railed. That doesn't excuse Canadian teams from hiring poor management, but it did force even good management to work with one hand tied behind their backs.
I still think there's some tweaking to do before the playing field is fully level. I refer to the varying tax structures throughout the league. Teams that are generally located in the southern US have a substantial advantage because of their tax levels. That makes it much easier to attract free agents and pay them less than they'd have to earn in say, Montreal. Calgary and Edmonton compete well on a tax basis, but their climate does them in. I don't think it would be that hard to calculate the tax advantage and then adjust the CAP so that each team has an individual CAP number that equalizes all franchises. Try to get that by Dallas, Tampa, Carolina, etc. though.
If we also adjusted for exchange rates, then I think you'd see stronger teams coming out of Canada and winning a few more Cups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Bebop on Jun 13, 2015 15:38:52 GMT -5
To be fair, 18 of those cups won between 54 and 93, were won by the HABS and 5 by the Oilers. Take out those 2 teams, that leaves 4 odd cups coming to Canada in a period of 40 years... So really those "cups going to Canada" were mostly the affaire of 2 dominant teams in different eras. Both Oilers and HABS were destroyed by the non-cap salary boom that started in the mid nineties compounded by decades of incredibly poor management in their own house. It's hard to blame Bettman for that... The Nordiques should never had been sold. As I often mentioned, that franchise was not losing money at all... Aubut had the opportunity to make a fortune and he jumped on it. Quebec like Calgary and Edmonton could have brace themselves for a few years as a cap came in 9 years after they left. And everyone knew it was coming since it had been fought for in the '95 negotiations... While Gary did expand a lot in the US, I feel his stubborn tough stance to get a CAP in place, probably saved some Canadians teams, allowed for Winnipeg to get back a franchise and for Quebec to be front runners for a future expansion or relocalisation. Without Gary's CAP, I think we'd have 1 Canadian team today, Toronto, as even the HABS were bleeding money back in the early 2000 and had to be given sold... I don't think Gary wanted to help Canadians teams at all, but IMO it eventually had that effect (more than the opposite). funny i always thought Quebec move to Phoenix was because of the inability of the region to support the franchise |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 13, 2015 16:36:59 GMT -5
To be fair, 18 of those cups won between 54 and 93, were won by the HABS and 5 by the Oilers. Take out those 2 teams, that leaves 4 odd cups coming to Canada in a period of 40 years... So really those "cups going to Canada" were mostly the affaire of 2 dominant teams in different eras. Both Oilers and HABS were destroyed by the non-cap salary boom that started in the mid nineties compounded by decades of incredibly poor management in their own house. It's hard to blame Bettman for that... The Nordiques should never had been sold. As I often mentioned, that franchise was not losing money at all... Aubut had the opportunity to make a fortune and he jumped on it. Quebec like Calgary and Edmonton could have brace themselves for a few years as a cap came in 9 years after they left. And everyone knew it was coming since it had been fought for in the '95 negotiations... While Gary did expand a lot in the US, I feel his stubborn tough stance to get a CAP in place, probably saved some Canadians teams, allowed for Winnipeg to get back a franchise and for Quebec to be front runners for a future expansion or relocalisation. Without Gary's CAP, I think we'd have 1 Canadian team today, Toronto, as even the HABS were bleeding money back in the early 2000 and had to be given sold... I don't think Gary wanted to help Canadians teams at all, but IMO it eventually had that effect (more than the opposite). I think part of the problem with hockey in the US is that the sport lags behind the NFL, MLB and the NBA ... the average American hockey fan can be every bit as fanatic as their Canadian counterparts but in the US sports market they're a minority ... time was when just about every Canadian-based team had financial problems except the Leafs ... the cap made a lot of teams solvent but there are some markets that just aren't viable ... ideally the league could relocate franchises to viable markets, but not every city wants a hockey team ... the Videotron Centre will be ready to go September 21, 2015 ... Quebec is serious about this and I'm hoping they get a team back ... I suspect the league revenues generated by Canadian teams would go up again, at least in the short term ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 14, 2015 2:05:36 GMT -5
I think this fits "odds and sods" well enough: The Ducks have received permission to talk to the fat, bug-eyed walrus, ostensibly as an assistant coach www.tsn.ca/ducks-get-permission-to-talk-to-maclean-1.307630Even though Boudreau wasn't replaced, I think he's on a short leash and if the Ducks hire McLean, that will confirm it. I thought one of the criticisms of McLean was that he didn't deal well with young players. Once Cameron took over, the kids got more ice time, and Mark Stone especially started scoring. There are a lot of young guys on the Ducks. That doesn't sound like a good fit, at face value. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 23, 2015 19:22:40 GMT -5
Twitter just full of info today ...
Bob McKenzie @tsnbobmckenzie 3m3 minutes ago
NHLPA was adamantly opposed to AHL-tested model (4 mins of 4 on 4 and 3 mins of 3 on 3) so NHL choice was no change at all or 3 on 3 for 5.
Edit:
Bob McKenzie @tsnbobmckenzie 13m13 minutes ago
For those asking, no 4-on-4 OT at all. Right to 3-on-3. 5 minutes sudden death. No goal, it goes to shootout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 24, 2015 10:13:32 GMT -5
3-on-3 feels kind of gimmicky too, although it would be more fun to watch I guess than a shootout.
I actually hate both the OT and the shootout. I have more respect for the 60 minute game and I think that teams should be rewarded for winning a regulation game.
If the goal is simply to avoid ties, then fine but I would go with the following point system:
2 points for a 60-minute win
1 point for an OT win or SO win. Yes, count an OT win and a SO win the same. Is 3-on-3 really hockey?
0 points for losing.
So point totals would be down since you would no longer get a point for a regulation tie, but teams that can win in regulation get rewarded. I suspect the 1 point for an OT or SO would be fairly evenly distributed (i.e. teams would probably get a point about 50% of the time whether it's scoring 3-on-3 goal or winning a shootout).
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jun 24, 2015 10:49:54 GMT -5
The chatter was that the league wanted the hybrid AHL model (that is after all why they tested it in the AHL this past year). Under that format, OT goes 7 minutes and starts at 4 on 4. It switches to 3 on 3 after the first whistle after the four minute mark. The NHLPA wanted the shorter, easier 3 on 3.
A little less gimmicky than a shootout, but it should prevent fewer games being decided by the shootout (that is what happened in the AHL).
Sarcasm/joking alert: MT must be burning the midnight oil now devising new strategies to keep the 3 on 3 "safe" and how best to maximize the blind, chip pass and dump and chase in OT. A lot of strong coffee is being consumed!!
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jun 24, 2015 13:00:51 GMT -5
Just in case you didn't think the NHL was not watered down enough. Does the possibility of expansion increase later today with an announcement from the NHL that open ended bids will be considered? www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-to-announce-opening-of-expansion-process/I am sure it is not about the expansion fees **cough**. Some of those dodgy US markets still make infinite business sense, right? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 24, 2015 13:07:14 GMT -5
five hundred million split 30 ways will go a long way to helping those poor owners that aren't making anything. and if they expand to 2 cities . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 24, 2015 13:28:52 GMT -5
3-on-3 is as big a gimmick as the shoot out.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 24, 2015 14:09:06 GMT -5
The chatter was that the league wanted the hybrid AHL model (that is after all why they tested it in the AHL this past year). Under that format, OT goes 7 minutes and starts at 4 on 4. It switches to 3 on 3 after the first whistle after the four minute mark. The NHLPA wanted the shorter, easier 3 on 3. A little less gimmicky than a shootout, but it should prevent fewer games being decided by the shootout (that is what happened in the AHL). Sarcasm/joking alert: MT must be burning the midnight oil now devising new strategies to keep the 3 on 3 "safe" and how best to maximize the blind, chip pass and dump and chase in OT. A lot of strong coffee is being consumed!! It's much harder to jam the front of the net with only 3 bodies. Hmmm. Maybe they should go 4 on 4 the entire game? Try getting that past the NHLPA. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 24, 2015 14:18:35 GMT -5
Just in case you didn't think the NHL was not watered down enough. Does the possibility of expansion increase later today with an announcement from the NHL that open ended bids will be considered? www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-to-announce-opening-of-expansion-process/I am sure it is not about the expansion fees **cough**. Some of those dodgy US markets still make infinite business sense, right? I'm very excited that Vegas will be getting a team!! |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 24, 2015 15:17:48 GMT -5
Yes, you can get fleeced twice, once at the roulette table and then at the hockey rink. I can't wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 24, 2015 15:36:36 GMT -5
Yes, you can get fleeced twice, once at the roulette table and then at the hockey rink. I can't wait. lol, I imagine the hockey tickets will be free. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 24, 2015 16:07:54 GMT -5
Just in case you didn't think the NHL was not watered down enough. Does the possibility of expansion increase later today with an announcement from the NHL that open ended bids will be considered? www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-to-announce-opening-of-expansion-process/I am sure it is not about the expansion fees **cough**. Some of those dodgy US markets still make infinite business sense, right? I'm very excited that Vegas will be getting a team!! Well, the awards are being held there ... don't know if that's a foreshadowing or not ... another desert-based team in a city where hockey is a novelty ... it may/may not work, I couldn't tell you, but I can see it ending up as a have-not team just as soon as the novelty wears off ... an important piece of culture would come back to Quebec ... Seattle just seems to be a better fit ... sports town, too, eh ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 24, 2015 16:22:53 GMT -5
Yes, you can get fleeced twice, once at the roulette table and then at the hockey rink. I can't wait. lol, I imagine the hockey tickets will be free. 13,000 fans "have expressed interest in seasons tickets" . . . whatever that means. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 24, 2015 16:36:33 GMT -5
lol, I imagine the hockey tickets will be free. 13,000 fans "have expressed interest in seasons tickets" . . . whatever that means. I'd assume that it will be like Toronto....the games will be sold out but the building will be empty!! |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 25, 2015 8:31:45 GMT -5
A $500 million franchise fee is a serious chunk of change. That's good, though, because you weed out markets and buyers who honestly can't generate an adequate return on that investment. Not that crazy rich people always care that much about making money on a sports team, but the last franchise fee paid was $80 million by the Atlanta Thrashers in 1997. Hockey ended up failing in Atlanta but $80 million was a small enough amount of money to play around with. $500 million is no joke. Only serious buyers and markets with serious potential should apply.
That said, the NHL clearly wants 2 more teams out West to create balance. Whether it's Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, those markets will be given special encouragement.
I don't think Quebec City or its backers can afford that. The Winnipeg group bought the Thrashers for $170 million, which included a $60 million relocation fee. I fear the only chance the Nords have is to hope for either Phoenix or Florida to fail so they can relocate around the same time the expansion teams are added. The NHL wants to end up with 16 teams in each conference no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 25, 2015 9:43:12 GMT -5
A $500 million franchise fee is a serious chunk of change. that's only the start. cost for an arena. losses due to revenue shortfall (write-offs, but still). etc. and the cost of doing business with the Buttman? no amount of money can make up for that. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 25, 2015 11:20:38 GMT -5
Is Stan Bowman in charge of attracting new franchises? Half a billion dollars? Hopefully that weeds out the number of entrants to zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 25, 2015 11:42:56 GMT -5
It weeds out the wannabe's!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 25, 2015 13:22:07 GMT -5
A $500 million franchise fee is a serious chunk of change. that's only the start. cost for an arena. losses due to revenue shortfall (write-offs, but still). etc. and the cost of doing business with the Buttman? no amount of money can make up for that. Agree on the rest of the costs. I have a hard time getting a "hate on" for Bettman. On balance, his tenure as commissioner has been a net positive for the NHL. Expansion was a bit rushed and some were just bad choices, but I do think there was and is merit to achieving a national footprint for the game. Still some suspect locations but it's hard to have 30 thriving markets. On the economics, it's been a hands down success. I'm not sure you can hang the work stoppages on Bettman, but the fact is that the NHL needed and still needs a hard salary cap. Could some of the drama have been avoided? Sure, but the NHL could have ended up like MLB (the worst in terms of revenue imbalance), or the NBA when there was a soft cap system and tons of exclusions and loopholes. The NHL cap system is tight, and pretty straightforward with an even split of the money. The one area where the NHL historically struggled was TV revenue, and that's still the case in the US where the NHL contract pales in comparison to the other sports. But it's much better than it was 10 years ago when the NHL had to practically give away the games for free just to get the exposure. And the deal in Canada is massive. So the players bitch and moan about Bettman but there's more NHL jobs for players, more money for players, better competitive balance, healthier franchises, and more money and jobs on the way with expansion. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 25, 2015 14:08:31 GMT -5
So its a win for everyone except the fans ? I don't enjoy 30 teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 25, 2015 18:12:03 GMT -5
A $500 million franchise fee is a serious chunk of change. That's good, though, because you weed out markets and buyers who honestly can't generate an adequate return on that investment. Not that crazy rich people always care that much about making money on a sports team, but the last franchise fee paid was $80 million by the Atlanta Thrashers in 1997. Hockey ended up failing in Atlanta but $80 million was a small enough amount of money to play around with. $500 million is no joke. Only serious buyers and markets with serious potential should apply. That said, the NHL clearly wants 2 more teams out West to create balance. Whether it's Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, those markets will be given special encouragement. I don't think Quebec City or its backers can afford that. The Winnipeg group bought the Thrashers for $170 million, which included a $60 million relocation fee. I fear the only chance the Nords have is to hope for either Phoenix or Florida to fail so they can relocate around the same time the expansion teams are added. The NHL wants to end up with 16 teams in each conference no matter what. I was listening to Bettman explain the reason why the number "has to begin with a 5", and I laughed. There is some fancy math going on here. He stated that since the pie now gets divided by 30 teams, the expansion fee is to offset the pie being split 31 ways, or 32 ways. Well, for starters, that pie is very easy to calculate. The CBA clearly states that the players are entitled to 50 per cent of hockey related revenue. So if the cap is 71 million, then the owners get 71 million x 30 = 2.13 billion. If you now divide this "pie" by 31 you get 68.7 million, if you divide it by 32 you get 66.5 million. So the current owners will lose at most 4.5 million through revenue sharing with an extra TWO teams. So 4.5 x 30 = 135 million. So in reality if both teams paid 70 million that would offset their losses! But even if they wanted each team to offset the entire losses that's 135 million each .... 4 times less than the 500 million asking price. Gary Bettman is talking BS if he wants us to believe the expansion fee is only to offset their losses ...it's a money gauge |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 25, 2015 22:25:20 GMT -5
But the two new teams will be generating a whole bunch of new revenue, Skilly, which will raise the total revenue of the league. Right? I mean Vegas is a guarantee, no? And so would Okeefenokee be. Lots of extra revenue. We could also put another franchise in Death Valley, to help offset the altitude issues of Denver. Loads of money for those poor, hard done by, living from meal to meal, owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 26, 2015 8:40:49 GMT -5
I think of it more in terms of what an NHL franchise is worth today. According to Forbes, the average NHL franchise is now worth $490 million following the new TV contracts. So why should an expansion team be able to buy into the league at a large discount to that? And you can't just take one year of lost revenue, you have to do a present value calculation of all future lost revenue to the 30 owners by adding 2 teams. I suspect if you did that you would arrive at a number closer to the $500 million. Now you could argue that an expansion team should be worth less than the average NHL team since there is a greater risk of failure (the 10 least valuable franchises are worth an average of around $300 million), but the $500 million entry fee isn't as ludicrous as it sounds.
|
|
