|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 12, 2004 14:01:22 GMT -5
19 teams lost money, 11 teams actually turned a profit.
Contraction, like I've said so many freaking times before, won't solve a thing. This problem is pandemic in nature, not a localized phoenomena.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 12, 2004 14:17:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 12, 2004 14:29:08 GMT -5
I still disagree.
I agree to some extent that Contraction alone will not solve the problem ...... but Contraction with a luxury tax / salary cap / coat certainty / performance base contract ....call it what you want will work.
I give you the example of Major League Baseball. In the 80's most if not all the teams were flourishing ..... then they expanded and lo and behold every team save 4-8 teams are saying they are losing money. Because the talent has been concentrated on only a small fraction of the teams. It is liek the saying ... to make money, you have to spend money. But to spend money, you have to have money. If your talent pool is diluted how can they make money? People want to see a team that has the possibility to win. It isn't a coincidence that the fans left the Expos after the strike, and as much as I hated that strike, I knew that if the owners didn't get a salary cap it was over in Montreal. They had the best team ever assembled in the history of baseball. The fans were coming out in droves .... but then they had to get rid of most of their best players and the fans stopped coming. They knew they no longer had a chance of winning.
Why to they still attend Habs games? Because the Habs for the most part is a religion in Quebec, and because in hockey there is always the possibility of winning. But they still don't sell out do they? 93% capacity most nights. But down the stretch now thatthe possibility is there I bet nickels to dollar bills thatthey sell out most nights.
Again back to the 80's. How many NHL teams were in financial trouble back then? I would bet none, but I will go as far as to say maybe 2. Then expansion hit and now there are 19 teams in financial trouble. Either their is a big correlation or one major coincidence.
Now some might argue it isn't expansion it is the player's unreasonable contracts. Well yes I would agree on that too ...... but if there wasn't expansion then there also wouldn't be the high demand of a star player either ..... every team goes to the vault for a star player in the early years to try to be competitive and that is what ends up hurting ..... paying 5 million for an Alexander Daigle, or 9 Million (incentive laden) for Rick Nash, or whatever ..... it just drives the market up because expansion teams get sick of losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Feb 12, 2004 14:34:15 GMT -5
This problem is pandemic in nature, not a localized phoenomena. I don't understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 12, 2004 14:40:51 GMT -5
Pandemic: [n] an epidemic that is geographically widespread; occurring throughout a region or even throughout the world [adj] existing everywhere; "pandemic fear of nuclear war" [adj] epidemic over a wide geographical area; "a pandemic outbreak of malaria" As for comparing the problem to MLB, that's just nonsense. Revenues in both the NHL and MLB increased 200% during the 1990s, they did not decrease. The problem was player salaries increasing 300% in the same time frame. |
|
|
|
Post by AH on Feb 12, 2004 14:45:14 GMT -5
Big trump card for the owners ?
OR
Just more banter ?
I will be very interested to see what the NHLPA says about the findings.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Feb 12, 2004 16:58:17 GMT -5
Pandemic: [n] an epidemic that is geographically widespread; occurring throughout a region or even throughout the world [adj] existing everywhere; "pandemic fear of nuclear war" [adj] epidemic over a wide geographical area; "a pandemic outbreak of malaria" As for comparing the problem to MLB, that's just nonsense. Revenues in both the NHL and MLB increased 200% during the 1990s, they did not decrease. The problem was player salaries increasing 300% in the same time frame. Didn't understand your gist in the context of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 12, 2004 17:31:35 GMT -5
Didn't understand your gist in the context of the discussion. Since many people point to the problems of the NHL as a function of expansion, specifically the NHL attempting to operate in the southern US, they portray an image of a league that would be much improved if those teams were contracted. Indeed, some have gone so far as to suggest that the NHL cannot exist unless it becomes a league that remains in those cities that have winter temperatures that dip below 0C. I use pandemic to suggest that the problems are not regional in nature - they affect all regions the NHL operates in. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Feb 12, 2004 18:07:31 GMT -5
OK, I see what you mean.
Despite my silly religious post, I do not see expansion as the cause of the NHL's problems.
As a fan, I do find that having too many teams detracts from my enjoyment of the game.
Rivalries are fewer because you play so many different teams.
Also, your team's chances of winning the cup are lessened.
Now, this is my purely emotional response to expansion.
I'm not looking to debate it.
Agree with me or not, but to me More Teams = Less Special
As a Canadian, I do feel sad that Quebec and Winnipeg lost their teams to US cities that could better afford them.
Seeing low attendance in a sunbelt city irks me.
Call me Don Cherry Jr, if you must, but Canada's #1 sport is hockey, and it hurts to lose teams.
The 'problem' with the league, IMO is money.
And its the fault of the teams, the players, and the agents.
Canadian taxes and the dollar don't help either.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Feb 12, 2004 18:22:35 GMT -5
Expansion has side effects. Years ago, I was familiar with most of the players in the NHL. Now, with more than 600 players, I (like almost all other fans and even many members of the media) am in the dark about a great many of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 12, 2004 18:22:55 GMT -5
As for comparing the problem to MLB, that's just nonsense. Revenues in both the NHL and MLB increased 200% during the 1990s, they did not decrease. The problem was player salaries increasing 300% in the same time frame. Isn't that what I sort of said. Expansion teams increase demand of quality players to bring in revenue ..... the star players cost money .... the owners hope that the revenues will exceed the star players contract .... it never does. I am not fighting for contraction. I actually am against it. I enjoy 30 teams ..... although I think the league should have stopped at 26. But they can not expand anymore ...... what should have been done a long time ago (when Mr. Bettman --- ohh I hate him took office) was instead of trying to build his legacy of getting as many American dollars intot he sport as possible, he should have fought the cost -certainty battle first. Then when they got that straightened away he would have been revered as a saint and he could have expanded to Hawaii and it would have worked. But as always he did it arse up. |
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Feb 12, 2004 19:07:11 GMT -5
Really who the hell cares?I'm not on anybodies side and I'm sick of the propoganda.
What ever problems they are having I'm sick of hearing about!Get it done and tell me when it's done not before.All this public posturing means a hill of beans.There is or isn't going to be hockey, and us the fans whom ever side were on doesn't factor into the equation.
The owners and Bettmans greed got themselves into this mess and if they were so tight why the hell did they let the salaries jump 300%???Does that make any sense?Its only now that the league is in trouble do the owners all of a sudden band together.
I've said more than I wanted I'm sick of the whole damn business of sports.I'm old, poor, and bitter wake me when its over.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Feb 12, 2004 20:34:16 GMT -5
Earlier in the season they also declared that they had tucked away $300 million in the "war chest" in case of a walkout/lockout, whatever. There you go...they actually profited $27 million. Not nearly as bad as they are claiming and Goodenow knows it. Go NHLPA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 13, 2004 1:34:58 GMT -5
Earlier in the season they also declared that they had tucked away $300 million in the "war chest" in case of a walkout/lockout, whatever. There you go...they actually profited $27 million. Not nearly as bad as they are claiming and Goodenow knows it. Go NHLPA. The war chest has been added to since 1997-98. They didn't magically make a collective deposit of $300 million dollars. Google is your friend. Go NHLPA. Honestly.  As if they're saints or something. Of course it's the owner's fault that they overspent, but does that mean that now everything is screwed up the players should sit with their thumbs up their butts, ignoring the horrific financial state of the game? What would that prove? Do they think that half the league's franchises shutting their doors would be a healthy thing for the league? Geez, when I see pilots taking 10-20% pay cuts to save their jobs because of incredible mismanagement at Air Canada, I feel a hell of a lot more respect for them than players making $5,000,000 to score 12 goals a season complaining about allowing the "market" to settle salaries. Usually, when faced with the layoff of 50% of your labour force, your average union negotiates. Especially when said negotiation is likely to include grandfathered contracts and a structure where the average salary will only lose about 20% of current salaries. Think about that for a second. Let's say the average salary goes down 20%. After increasing 300% during the past decade. That still means the average salary would have increased 240% during the past decade. Oh no, let me get out my tissues, I need to dab my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 13, 2004 2:08:27 GMT -5
A little levity here....the following would never happen....but, in theory, it would work. In my mind, it's always the fans who lose....so the fans should be pro-active.
Solution 1
The fans lobby their elected representatives in the government to draft and enact legislation that disallows NHL games as business write-offs.
Watch how fast those boxes and platinum seats empty.
Business hockey games will go the way of the company Christmas Party (which is no longer deemed a write-off). Watch how fast ticket prices come down so the good seats can be filled with people who will watch the whole game, instead of schmoozing til the 10-minute mark of each period.
Solution 2 (The most difficult....but most effective)
All hockey fans should stop drinking Molson's, Labatts, Coor's Light, Bud, etc. That's "beer" pressure, my friends....major sponsorship withdrawing TV revenues...it would cripple the economics of the league. Hockey cannot live on car commercials alone.
Just havin' some fun.......
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 13, 2004 8:49:27 GMT -5
Eat the rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 13, 2004 9:12:22 GMT -5
I'm actually surprised that this many teams are turning up a profit… What would be interesting to know is where these profitable teams rank in terms of salary spending. I have a hunch that the majority are on the top half of the league in terms of spending… Which would underline that salary is not necessarily the main problem of this league…
Teams that are in hockey markets, with good facilities, good management (that can ice a competitive product), dynamic ownership with interest in hockey and good government/municipal deals will survive. Those that are lacking in these areas will always struggle and although a salary cap might help them out, it will mostly make the profitable team even more profitable.
A lot of focus is placed on player's salary right now
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 13, 2004 10:00:09 GMT -5
I'm actually surprised that this many teams are turning up a profit… What would be interesting to know is where these profitable teams rank in terms of salary spending. I have a hunch that the majority are on the top half of the league in terms of spending… Which would underline that salary is not necessarily the main problem of this league… Teams that are in hockey markets, with good facilities, good management (that can ice a competitive product), dynamic ownership with interest in hockey and good government/municipal deals will survive. Those that are lacking in these areas will always struggle and although a salary cap might help them out, it will mostly make the profitable team even more profitable. A lot of focus is placed on player's salary right now The Red Wings lost money last year, they had stated they would have had to go to the Finals to break even. I think that half of the profitable franchises are ones with low salaries. Minnesota, for example. Columbus is another. I understand what you're saying, but I think in this case salary load is too high for some teams. When 75% of total league revenues are being used for salary, compared to 58/62/68 in the other three major leagues, there's obviously a major problem there. |
|
As if they're saints or something. Of course it's the owner's fault that they overspent, but does that mean that now everything is screwed up the players should sit with their thumbs up their butts, ignoring the horrific financial state of the game?
