Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

[POLL] CBA Opportunities - What's your stance?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Poll: [POLL] CBA Opportunities - What's your stance? (37 member(s) have cast votes)

How should the NHL handle the economics issues

  1. Re-locate the dog teams to better markets. Where? (15 votes [40.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.54%

  2. Roll back Player salaries to 43% (NHL's offer) (1 votes [2.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.70%

  3. Meet somewhere in the middle 50-50 split (13 votes [35.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.14%

  4. Fix the salary cap; Revenue increases go to owners (NHLPA's offer) (5 votes [13.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.51%

  5. A different solution (explain) (3 votes [8.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.11%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 24 August 2012 - 01:44 PM

If my reasoning is incorrect, or my assumptions are wrong, I will re-evaluate my article.
As I haven't read the CBA's, I'm not 100% on some of the processes.

Mods: Although this is CBA related, I feel that rather then discussing current CBA issues, news and updates. I would start a thread where members can read up to understand some misconceptions of some proposals, discuss logistics and debate our own opinions on what the NHL - NHLPA should agree on from a business POV.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a traditional business, if Net Profits are less to stay closed then they are to open, then changes must be made. Is this the case for few NHL franchises? We don't really know for sure, but we can assume that some teams may be on the tipping point. Why on earth would Betman move teams down to places like Pheonix, Nashville and Columbus in the first place when they pose this risk?

What are some options people have been discussing?
With the current CBA deadline right around the corner, the prospect of a full 12-13 season is beginning to appear bleak at best. Especially with Gary Betmans latest interview stating "Negotiations have been stalled, and will restart on Friday Sept. 7th."


The Issue
When looking for places to expand the NHL to, there are a few places that make most people stand back and say "What were they thinking...Florida, Phoenix?" When the NHL or any viable business is looking to expand, you do your demographic analysis, average age, working class, average income, population, etc. Surely if a market like Vancouver (population of 600,000) can sell out every night, a team like Phoenix (population 1,500,000) can do well as well? After your due diligence, these high populated cities should be able to support these teams, but they're not... now what?

Option 1: Relocate the Dog Teams
People often say "Move teams like Phoenix to a Canadian market, like Quebec"; common sense dictates that of course the new franchise will be tremendously more profitable then its current Market. But lets analyse the decision from a business standpoint.

Fans=Dollars
Will the net fans increase?
When you look at Quebec, what percentage of their population is already supporting NHL teams like Toronto and Ottawa? You don't want to simply absorb these fans, thus taking away from Toronto's and Ottawa's profits; you want to acquire new fans that didn't support any NHL team in the first place. These new fans you gain must exceed the fans Phoenix will loose due to the move.
This is the issue with relocating to a saturated market like most of Canadian cities, we are Hockeys greatest nation, were already loyal fans of current teams... giving them a local team will simply reallocate profits, not increase the fan base enough to compensate for the relocation costs.

In addition, past relocations are almost always due to arena issues. So do these prospect citys (Seattle, Quebec etc.) Now have arenas to support an NHL team


Option 2: Roll back player's salary's to 43% (NHL's Offer)
Usually when a business cant be profitable, it gets shut down employees thus don't get paid. But this cant happen to NHL teams. So they need to figure out new methods of adjusting to their environment. As mentioned above, relocation can be pointless if your net fans don't increase drastically, relocating from one market to another without fixing the issue would be the worst case scenario.

So the owners have decided to target their expenses, by reducing their largest expense by 27% Thus increasing their bottom line, making it easier for teams to make it in these struggling industries until/if their fan base increases. This clearly will fix the issue long term, its not a band-aid but at the players expense.

You cannot expect the players... your key employees to suddenly take a pay cut of 27% on contracts you the owners agreed to pay. This is a classic case of bad management. The NHL is firm on this and doesn't appear to be budging, using the threat of a lockout to gain bargaining leverage.


Option 3 Meet Somewhere in the middle 50-50 Split
Fans are starting to get worried, as they should. As a result we're saying "Well if you cant agree on something just meet in the freaking middle and lets play some hockey!" But this doesn't really do anything.
It doesn't reduce owners expenses enough to the point where low revenue teams are able to be independantly stable - so the NHL isnt happy.
It reduces the contracts to players salaries. Contracts the owners already signed, agreeing to pay in full.

If a manager/owner need to compensate unprofitable business by revisiting contracts that are already being served then this is just a result of bad management. Any sort of roll back to current salaries is going to result in the NHLPA not being happy. As they should... its a binding agreement.


Option 4: Fix the salary cap; Revenue increases go to owners (NHLPA's offer)
Now here's a system that was really well structured. Over the next 3 years the players are agreeing to lock in their salary cap at 70.2 million a season, when the revenue increases in following years, the increase will go to the owners.

If the NHL's revenues continue to grow at the 8%/year they have been since 2005. The players will forfeit approx $500-$800 million. But what happens if the revenues drop? Players are still locked in at 70.2 million dollars. and suddenly their percentage has increased. This system is completely perfect except for the fact that it assumes the NHL's revenues will continue to grow as they have been, by turning variable costs to fixed costs and letting the owners keep the spread.

My proposal
What if a system was put into play that duplicated the NHLPA's proposal, where the salary cap is a hard cap and any revenue increases moving forward are absorbed by the Owners, combined with a roll-back clause that states that if the NHL's revenues are less in a following year then the previous, then players salaries and cap would be rolled back the percentage the revenues dropped. In subsequent years following the drop the salary's and cap they can increase to their original amounts but never exceed the $70.2 million salary cap and original contract amounts.

This will allow teams to mitigate the unknown, and give them more flexibility in the future so the struggling teams are able to become profitable.

This proposal doesn't addresses the NHL's short term need to address their "Core economic issues" but when negotiating both parties have to give in a little.

Edited by Neufy161, 07 September 2012 - 11:26 AM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#2 Ryan Murray

Ryan Murray

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,970 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 09

Posted 24 August 2012 - 01:44 PM

Please no lockout
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to Vintage Canuck

#3 CanucksFanMike

CanucksFanMike

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,632 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 11

Posted 24 August 2012 - 01:47 PM

re-located teams in non-hockey markets and meet somewhere in the middle at 50-50 or so
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#4 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 24 August 2012 - 01:48 PM

This might get locked, despite being well thought out.

I think for the CBA to go through the NHL has to concede on the way contracts currently are. I mean forcing the players into serfdom of the teams that drafted them for 10 years is ridiculous. The length of the contract actually helps both sides, for the GMs to keep cap hits down and for the players to ensure a longer playing career.

As per the "core" economic issues, I believe the players have already offered concessions in that manner. The NHL's proposed reduction of 11% is absolutely massive. The NHL/Owners are the ones who have to come back to the middle to ensure the season starts on time.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 24 August 2012 - 02:14 PM

This might get locked, despite being well thought out.

I think for the CBA to go through the NHL has to concede on the way contracts currently are. I mean forcing the players into serfdom of the teams that drafted them for 10 years is ridiculous. The length of the contract actually helps both sides, for the GMs to keep cap hits down and for the players to ensure a longer playing career.

As per the "core" economic issues, I believe the players have already offered concessions in that manner. The NHL's proposed reduction of 11% is absolutely massive. The NHL/Owners are the ones who have to come back to the middle to ensure the season starts on time.


The players have offered solutions to the core economic issues with the locked cap, however... what happens if revenues decrease next season?
  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#6 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 24 August 2012 - 02:27 PM

The players have offered solutions to the core economic issues with the locked cap, however... what happens if revenues decrease next season?


Ya I read that part of your statement, and I agree some kind of stipulation should be made for possible rollback. It's a gamble that the players might have to undertake. From the owners point of view, they want the icing on the cake, a rollback as well as greater revenue sharing. The thing is the owners have all the chips, even with a lockout many of the owners will find profit elsewhere.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#7 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,362 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 24 August 2012 - 05:12 PM

From a fans point of view, I'd say moving the dog teams. Dogs are in their quadrant for a reason. They're not growing and they're not making money. Ask any businessman and they'd say abandon dog enterprises ASAP. It seems stupid to keep dog franchises, when there are potential Stars out there like Quebec, maybe Seattle, and perhaps even another in Ontario.

Posted Image


Edit: Further on my point on relocating dog teams.

One issue as the OP mentioned was getting new fans. Now in the case of Quebec taking away fans from Montreal or Toronto, I don't think that either Montreal or Toronto have any shortage of fans or money, so that wouldn't be an issue.

More of an issue would be actually getting some loyal fans to abandon their old favourite teams for the new Quebec team. I was too young to even remember Quebec being moved to Colorado, but I assume this was at the crux of their financial issues, assuming they had financial issues. Many more fans were probably loyal to Montreal than Quebec, thus Quebec City couldn't keep up in the battle of Quebec.

Now one thing is that Quebec did last for more than 15 years in the NHL, so that makes me reconsider my earlier statement about them having issues trying to garner a large fan base. If they did it once, who's to say they can't do it again? Some of those Quebec vs. Montreal rivalries were the best in hockey back in the 80's.

As for other teams like Seattle, the issue would not be changing fans' loyalty, unless they target British Colombians, rather it would be gaining a fresh new fan base out of a relatively untested market.

The Seattle Thunderbirds have been there for over 30 years now (first as the Seattle Breakers), but that is a WHL team with an arena capacity of 6,500, not a thriving NHL team with an arena capacity of 20,000. And despite that 6,500 capacity, they haven't broken an average of 5,000 since 2000-01. On a positive note, last year's average of 4,206 was the highest they've had since 2004-05.

Some may argue that an NHL team would attract way more fans, and they may be right in this argument. It was certainly the case for the Manitoba Moose. They attracted an average of 8,400 fans in 2010-11, high for an AHL team, but still much below the max capacity of over 15,000. Enter the new Winnipeg Jets. They sell out every game.

There are issues with moving 'dog' team, yes, but past evidence seems to point to it being a possible profitable business venture.




I feel like I just finished a report for one of my business classes.

Edited by ajhockey, 24 August 2012 - 05:33 PM.

  • 0

14ndb35.jpg
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!

"Gino, Gino, Gino, Gino!"
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon


#8 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 24 August 2012 - 06:15 PM

I vote for other. My other is that it's time to dump teams. That or shorten the schedule.
  • 0
Posted Image

#9 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 24 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

From a fans point of view, I'd say moving the dog teams. Dogs are in their quadrant for a reason. They're not growing and they're not making money. Ask any businessman and they'd say abandon dog enterprises ASAP. It seems stupid to keep dog franchises, when there are potential Stars out there like Quebec, maybe Seattle, and perhaps even another in Ontario.

Posted Image


Edit: Further on my point on relocating dog teams.

One issue as the OP mentioned was getting new fans. Now in the case of Quebec taking away fans from Montreal or Toronto, I don't think that either Montreal or Toronto have any shortage of fans or money, so that wouldn't be an issue.

More of an issue would be actually getting some loyal fans to abandon their old favourite teams for the new Quebec team.
I was too young to even remember Quebec being moved to Colorado, but I assume this was at the crux of their financial issues, assuming they had financial issues. Many more fans were probably loyal to Montreal than Quebec, thus Quebec City couldn't keep up in the battle of Quebec.

Now one thing is that Quebec did last for more than 15 years in the NHL, so that makes me reconsider my earlier statement about them having issues trying to garner a large fan base. If they did it once, who's to say they can't do it again? Some of those Quebec vs. Montreal rivalries were the best in hockey back in the 80's.

As for other teams like Seattle, the issue would not be changing fans' loyalty, unless they target British Colombians, rather it would be gaining a fresh new fan base out of a relatively untested market.

The Seattle Thunderbirds have been there for over 30 years now (first as the Seattle Breakers), but that is a WHL team with an arena capacity of 6,500, not a thriving NHL team with an arena capacity of 20,000. And despite that 6,500 capacity, they haven't broken an average of 5,000 since 2000-01. On a positive note, last year's average of 4,206 was the highest they've had since 2004-05.

Some may argue that an NHL team would attract way more fans, and they may be right in this argument. It was certainly the case for the Manitoba Moose. They attracted an average of 8,400 fans in 2010-11, high for an AHL team, but still much below the max capacity of over 15,000. Enter the new Winnipeg Jets. They sell out every game.

There are issues with moving 'dog' team, yes, but past evidence seems to point to it being a possible profitable business venture.




I feel like I just finished a report for one of my business classes.


Haha Good! I'm a BCIT Business Management grad

To address the bold.
Think of the NHL as a corporation, with each team being a regional branch.
Lets assume (to make the scenario easy) we have thirty million fans(customers) total for our entire corporation.

We say, okay the minimum each team must have is approx. 1 million fans, to stay profitable enough so it isn't classified as a dog.
Our research states that montreal has 1.5 million fans, and Toronto has 1.5 million fans and Phoenix has .5 million fans... doesnt make the cut.

So we relocate Phoenix to Quebec, due to the lack of loyalty all .5 million phoenix fans stop contributing to our NHL revenues (we just lost .5 million customers.)

But, relocating to Quebec, now Quebec has 1 million fans, they are no longer a Dog team. So we have 1 less dog team.

The bad thing is, is that the relocation cost us 50 million dollars, and the one million fans Quebec attained were already fans of the corporation in the first place, they were just loyal to Toronto and Montreal before.

So now Quebec has 1 million
Montreal has 1 million
and Toronto has 1 million

Our total client base is still 30 million clients and we spent 50 million dollars to re-locate. All we did was shuffle where our clients shop.

Since Canada is sooooo Saturated i.e. Majority of population of fans are already fans, it would be difficult to justify and increase our fan base by a move to Canada.

This is why Betman is so U.S. focused, because the number of fans per capita are way lower then in Canada. U.S. Stanley cup champions, U.S. Winter Classic events, attract attention to this league in such an untapped market that its slowly building the fan base higher and higher, and as a result its making the league more and more profitable.

Edited by Neufy161, 24 August 2012 - 08:02 PM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#10 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 24 August 2012 - 08:12 PM

Haha Good! I'm a BCIT Business Management grad

To address the bold.
Think of the NHL as a corporation, with each team being a regional branch.
Lets assume (to make the scenario easy) we have thirty million fans(customers) total for our entire corporation.

We say, okay the minimum each team must have is approx. 1 million fans, to stay profitable enough so it isn't classified as a dog.
Our research states that montreal has 1.5 million fans, and Toronto has 1.5 million fans and Phoenix has .5 million fans... doesnt make the cut.

So we relocate Phoenix to Quebec, due to the lack of loyalty all .5 million phoenix fans stop contributing to our NHL revenues (we just lost .5 million customers.)

But, relocating to Quebec, now Quebec has 1 million fans, they are no longer a Dog team. So we have 1 less dog team.

The bad thing is, is that the relocation cost us 50 million dollars, and the one million fans Quebec attained were already fans of the corporation in the first place, they were just loyal to Toronto and Montreal before.

So now Quebec has 1 million
Montreal has 1 million
and Toronto has 1 million

Our total client base is still 30 million clients and we spent 50 million dollars to re-locate. All we did was shuffle where our clients shop.

Since Canada is sooooo Saturated i.e. Majority of population of fans are already fans, it would be difficult to justify and increase our fan base by a move to Canada.

This is why Betman is so U.S. focused, because the number of fans per capita are way lower then in Canada. U.S. Stanley cup champions, U.S. Winter Classic events, attract attention to this league in such an untapped market that its slowly building the fan base higher and higher, and as a result its making the league more and more profitable.


Haha, B.Comm powers AWAAAAYYY!!!

What you stated would be true however you neglected to account for the fact that ticket sales shoot through the roof doing that shuffle. Montreal/Toronto/Ottawa fans can only fill the arena so much. Most games are sell outs, season tickets are hard to get and the dough rolls in. PHX is meanwhile trying to lower prices just to get people in the seats. So you not only sell fewer tickets but sell them at far lower prices than you would in the Canadian market.

Moving a team to Quebec City/Hamilton would mean asses in the seats most nights simply because the tickets could be marginally cheaper and they'd be available to people who already might like the Leafs/Sens/Canadiens but couldn't get seats due to cost or availability. It's a slammin deal for fans, even if the new team isn't their absolute favourite, and a region that has been forced to cheer for a team that is a ways away but closer than any other now get a true "hometown" team.

There are downsides to this though. Tickets sales would be high but merchandise probably wouldn't boom too much because buying a jersey of the new team would often mean not buying a jersey of an old team. Also, TV deals would grow somewhat because there are more games being shown by Canadian broadcasters but it isn't the same money as the NBC deal because you aren't putting the sport on a whole new network. Given PHX stations probably weren't showing any hockey before, this could be a small net loss. Overall it still makes tons of business sense.
  • 1

#11 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,362 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 25 August 2012 - 12:47 AM

lol, this topic is great. Getting me all revved up for my Fall semester.
  • 0

14ndb35.jpg
Credit to -Vintage Canuck- for the awesome sig!

"Gino, Gino, Gino, Gino!"
Rest In Peace, Rypien, Demitra, and Bourdon


#12 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:26 AM

Haha, B.Comm powers AWAAAAYYY!!!

What you stated would be true however you neglected to account for the fact that ticket sales shoot through the roof doing that shuffle. Montreal/Toronto/Ottawa fans can only fill the arena so much. Most games are sell outs, season tickets are hard to get and the dough rolls in. PHX is meanwhile trying to lower prices just to get people in the seats. So you not only sell fewer tickets but sell them at far lower prices than you would in the Canadian market.


Good point, one I didn't take into consideration. Although assuming the market and fans are there and able to fill the seats, wasn't the reason a good majority of Canadian franchises leaving a result of improper arenas, and/or unwillingness to build a new one?

Winnipeg
There was no way that Winnipeg was going to retain an NHL team. Would it have made a difference if the Jets had gone to a more “acceptable” location like Minneapolis, which they almost did?

Winnipeg had a 40-year-old arena that had an ordinate number of obstructed-view seats and none of the revenue-generating luxury seating. A new arena was nowhere on the horizon, as both the city council and the various governments had refused numerous requests to help out. So it was relocated.

Quebec
There wasn’t a ton that could be done there, either. Marcel Aubut had made it clear that, without a new arena in Quebec, the team would hemorrhage money until it went under, and the various governments were unwilling to help. No fewer than seven different groups approached Aubut to buy the Nordiques, and apparently none came close to what Comset was willing to pay to bring the team to Denver.

At the time (1995), the NHL was beginning to put together packages for the possibility of expansion, and Denver and Phoenix were at the top of good bets to receive expansion teams. Both Quebec and Winnipeg, bereft of the NHL by June of 1996, had opportunities to put expansion bids together, and neither one did. Quebec still doesn’t have a new arena.


You can argue the fact that, the NHL team would be so much more profitable that the cost of building a new arena for the franchise is a small barrier in the sand. Regardless, with Bettman's unwillingness to want to put more teams in Canada, combined with the increased costs of building a new arena, combined with the board of governors needing a majority vote. It seems very unlikely.

But something needs to be done with Phoenix...

Edited by Neufy161, 25 August 2012 - 03:38 AM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#13 CanuckInUS

CanuckInUS

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 09

Posted 25 August 2012 - 06:47 AM

Scrap the salary cap and institute a luxury tax system.

Allow Toronto and Vancouver and Philadelphia, et al, spend to their heart's content. But for every $1 they spend over the "cap limit", they pay $1.50 to the league for revenue sharing. Allow Phoenix and Nashville, et al, spend within their means, and the only way they can collect on revenue sharing is if they spend the "cap basement".

No limitations on contract length, (Owners and players alike are playing with fire on deals over 5 years long, anyway. But if they want that, let them do it.) However, no more funny business on the math of the deals. Whatever the length and total money the contract calls for, you go with a consistent annual pay. For example, if you sign a 4-year deal worth $20 million, your "cap figure" and money you're paid annually is $5 million.

Also, no more circumventing the cap by exiling players to the minors just to avoid paying that cap hit. A team signs a player to a deal, that contract counts against the team's "cap figure" as long as that player is controlled by that team.
  • 0
X__________________

#14 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 25 August 2012 - 11:37 AM

Scrap the salary cap and institute a luxury tax system.

Allow Toronto and Vancouver and Philadelphia, et al, spend to their heart's content. But for every $1 they spend over the "cap limit", they pay $1.50 to the league for revenue sharing. Allow Phoenix and Nashville, et al, spend within their means, and the only way they can collect on revenue sharing is if they spend the "cap basement".

No limitations on contract length, (Owners and players alike are playing with fire on deals over 5 years long, anyway. But if they want that, let them do it.) However, no more funny business on the math of the deals. Whatever the length and total money the contract calls for, you go with a consistent annual pay. For example, if you sign a 4-year deal worth $20 million, your "cap figure" and money you're paid annually is $5 million.

Also, no more circumventing the cap by exiling players to the minors just to avoid paying that cap hit. A team signs a player to a deal, that contract counts against the team's "cap figure" as long as that player is controlled by that team.


I wouldnt like this at all, the salary cap keeps a competitive balance in the league, adds a level of stratagy when managing your roster.

Last thing I would want is for this to turn out like baseball and have some teams buy the cup and have others that never have a chance
  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#15 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,577 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 25 August 2012 - 12:30 PM

Get rid of PHO, TBL, FLA, CBJ
  • 0

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.


Nobody breaks from Mafia... Mafia breaks YOU!


CDCFL - Montreal Canadiens GM
CDCEHL - Winnipeg Jets AGM


#16 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:31 PM

Get rid of PHO, TBL, FLA, CBJ

GJ way to read the OP

Edited by Neufy161, 25 August 2012 - 01:32 PM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#17 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,577 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:37 PM

GJ way to read the OP


What? I voted other and explaining my reasoning

GJ way to read the poll
  • 0

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.


Nobody breaks from Mafia... Mafia breaks YOU!


CDCFL - Montreal Canadiens GM
CDCEHL - Winnipeg Jets AGM


#18 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 25 August 2012 - 01:42 PM

What? I voted other and explaining my reasoning

GJ way to read the poll


you didnt read the op, you didn't explain your reasoning... what a worthless post lol
  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#19 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,022 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 25 August 2012 - 02:33 PM

Get rid of PHO, TBL, FLA, CBJ


At the very least. Possibly add a couple more stragglers. Maybe by way of Nashville, Dallas, etc. the less teams the better.
  • 0
Posted Image

#20 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,577 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:28 PM

you didnt read the op, you didn't explain your reasoning... what a worthless post lol


Yes I did. Get rid of those teams. Theyre not getting fans.

Im not discussing this anymore
  • 0

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.


Nobody breaks from Mafia... Mafia breaks YOU!


CDCFL - Montreal Canadiens GM
CDCEHL - Winnipeg Jets AGM


#21 Tragoedia

Tragoedia

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 994 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:53 PM

Seattle is ripe for a new team. That would be a start.
Certain cities have proven unable to find success, both as a team, and as a fanbase, and have been a disaster for the league. Columbus and Phoenix two name two. Also part of the problem with having two Florida teams is that they cut into eachothers fanbase, which is a problem for a market with already a small fanbase as it is.
Another city to consider is Las Vegas. It sounds crazy, but the amount of tourists who come through the city, would possibly be possible to support a team, along with the standard Nevada fanbase that they would build.
  • 0

61c1f524-b05e-4da1-b54d-e7ac1d87c904.jpg


#22 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:23 AM

Seattle is ripe for a new team. That would be a start.
Certain cities have proven unable to find success, both as a team, and as a fanbase, and have been a disaster for the league. Columbus and Phoenix two name two. Also part of the problem with having two Florida teams is that they cut into eachothers fanbase, which is a problem for a market with already a small fanbase as it is.
Another city to consider is Las Vegas. It sounds crazy, but the amount of tourists who come through the city, would possibly be possible to support a team, along with the standard Nevada fanbase that they would build.


I would agree that Seattle would be a great place, although do they have a hockey arena that supports 18,000 fans?
  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#23 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,025 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 07 September 2012 - 12:51 PM

This is why Betman is so U.S. focused, because the number of fans per capita are way lower then in Canada. U.S. Stanley cup champions, U.S. Winter Classic events, attract attention to this league in such an untapped market that its slowly building the fan base higher and higher, and as a result its making the league more and more profitable.


The reason Bettman is US focused is that was the mandate he was given by the owners when he was hired. His mandate was expansion to gain national TV network contracts in the US. It's difficult to sell networks on national coverage of a sport that isn't national. Which is why non-traditional cities were selected. The issue is it can take decades to build a solid fan base in those conditions. In Arizona there's more than ten times the number of children under 12 playing hockey now than there was prior to the Coyotes setting up in Phoenix. Which indicates it can work. But it does take a great deal of time.

The owners with money started killing their own agenda by offering huge contracts and piling up a budget those new teams couldn't compete with. It very difficult to compete on the ice when you can't afford what other teams are spending. It's difficult to generate fan interest with a losing team. In comes a salary cap so those teams can indeed compete. But the league revenue goes up considerably more than anticipated and the poorer teams again are having difficulty matching what other teams are spending. To make matters worse, those wealthy owners come up with creative ways to circumvent the cap giving those poorer teams a second solid kick to the gonads.

The solution should be a 12% rollback on player wages and salary cap and that extra revenue goes to the league to boost the revenue sharing fund to help those poorer teams develop their markets and compete. Also put an end to "creative contracts". Meaning a limit on length and also the amount the money drops from the the first year to the last. Those holes open to cap circumvention need to be closed.
  • 1
Posted Image

#24 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 01:11 PM

The reason Bettman is US focused is that was the mandate he was given by the owners when he was hired. His mandate was expansion to gain national TV network contracts in the US. It's difficult to sell networks on national coverage of a sport that isn't national. Which is why non-traditional cities were selected. The issue is it can take decades to build a solid fan base in those conditions. In Arizona there's more than ten times the number of children under 12 playing hockey now than there was prior to the Coyotes setting up in Phoenix. Which indicates it can work. But it does take a great deal of time.

The owners with money started killing their own agenda by offering huge contracts and piling up a budget those new teams couldn't compete with. It very difficult to compete on the ice when you can't afford what other teams are spending. It's difficult to generate fan interest with a losing team. In comes a salary cap so those teams can indeed compete. But the league revenue goes up considerably more than anticipated and the poorer teams again are having difficulty matching what other teams are spending. To make matters worse, those wealthy owners come up with creative ways to circumvent the cap giving those poorer teams a second solid kick to the gonads.

The solution should be a 12% rollback on player wages and salary cap and that extra revenue goes to the league to boost the revenue sharing fund to help those poorer teams develop their markets and compete. Also put an end to "creative contracts". Meaning a limit on length and also the amount the money drops from the the first year to the last. Those holes open to cap circumvention need to be closed.


Well put,

I completely agree with you that your proposal would completely fix the NHL's issues today, but on the contrary... These contracts are already signed and in force. Imagine working at a firm on a 5 year $100,000 salary contract and after the second year the company says. "Yeaaaah... were kind of struggling in a few of our regions, so were going to change our contract to only pay you $75,000 for the last 3 years of our contract."

An issue like this would be comprised of bad management, when you have bad management you cant just say "Oh well, we'll just change contracts to pay our employees less." You have to either absorb the loss, shut down or adjust your business model.

The stuff the NHL is trying to pull would never work for any firm in any field... period.

Edited by Neufy161, 07 September 2012 - 01:13 PM.

  • 0

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.