Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Will the lockout kill Financially Struggling Teams?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Poll: Will the lockout kill Financially Struggling Teams? (34 member(s) have cast votes)

Will the lockout *kill* teams like Florida?

  1. Yes (13 votes [38.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.24%

  2. No (21 votes [61.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 61.76%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 MashedBananas

MashedBananas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,671 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 09

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:46 PM

So..... with the whole lockout looking to last a long time, this one looks like it wont just complicate CBA talks. but with so many teams struggling financially, I honestly think the lockout could kill a couple teams. We all know Bettman's gong show in Phoenix which is going nowhere, but what about teams like Florida, and Columbus who can't turn profit to save their lives? The NHL is propping them up pretty much, just as they did Atlanta and are still doing Phoenix, but if the lockout cancels the whole season and the league makes no money, what'll happen to those teams?

I personally think a lockout would be good in that regard, and would help get rid of some of those dying teams. It's pathetic when so many teams in a huge league like the NHL can't make money to save their lives.
  • 0
Posted Image

Sig Credit goes to Henrik Sedin

#2 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:48 PM

With any luck..
  • 2

Posted Image


#3 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,102 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:49 PM

It depends on what their fixed expenses are. Some teams may be losing less money during the lockout than they do when they have to pay players' salaries.
  • 2
Posted Image

#4 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:52 PM

The lockout itself won't kill off anything, but the results of it (loss of revenue, loss of merchandise, loss of exposure, loss of fans & monies resulting from said fans) will hurt teams on the brink such as Phoenix and New Jersey.
  • 0

/=S=/


#5 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,041 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:10 PM

The lockout is actually likely the only way some of these franchises can survive. There's a reason why the owners said they would not play under the old CBA.

There are teams that will pretty much go under if they went one more season with player salaries and the cap floor where it was.

But like others have said, a long term lockout would likely kill those franchises anyways, because unlike fans in Canadian markets, fans in struggling markets have lots of options and will have no problem turning their attention elsewhere.

If you look at it, it took 7 years after the last lockout to build the NHL into what it is now. A lockout now will kill all of that momentum they have been gaining over those 7 years, and we would likely begin to see the NHL's revenue and franchises start to shrink.

Edited by DeNiro, 08 October 2012 - 10:12 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#6 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,031 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:26 PM

I don't think it would kill any teams this year. But after the next full season(if there's a lockout) I think teams like Phoenix and Columbus will be forced to relocate. Especially with the loss of the all star game for Columbus
  • 0

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#7 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,008 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:59 AM

It depends on what their fixed expenses are. Some teams may be losing less money during the lockout than they do when they have to pay players' salaries.


Absolutely. If you were an owner losing money, would it matter if your team was not playing?
  • 0

#8 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 October 2012 - 07:55 AM

I would guess that it is the "struggling franchises" that are the driving force behind the lockout in the first place, so my answer would be "no".
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#9 ajhockey

ajhockey

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,406 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:13 AM

I wish it would, but I doubt it will. As a matter of fact, during lockouts, financially struggling teams make more money than during the actual season, that is, they lose less :P.
  • 0

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

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


#10 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,664 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:18 PM

If anything, it saved Phoenix around 30 million dollars.
  • 0

#11 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,041 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:27 PM

If anything, it saved Phoenix around 30 million dollars.


But it could also hurt any chance of them building momentum from their WCF appearance if they lockout a whole year.

Hockey in Phoenix is already 7th on the depth chart for sports behind Football, Baseball, Basketball, College Football, College Basektball, and Nascar.

Bettman is assuming that all hockey fans are loyal, but in reality, when fans have other options for spending their money, they won't hesitate to turn elsewhere for entertainment.

I would say a year long lockout would kill any chance for Phoenix to become a viable franchise, even if it the chances already were pretty slim.

Edited by DeNiro, 09 October 2012 - 01:27 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#12 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:34 PM

But it could also hurt any chance of them building momentum from their WCF appearance if they lockout a whole year.

Hockey in Phoenix is already 7th on the depth chart for sports behind Football, Baseball, Basketball, College Football, College Basektball, and Nascar.

Bettman is assuming that all hockey fans are loyal, but in reality, when fans have other options for spending their money, they won't hesitate to turn elsewhere for entertainment.

I would say a year long lockout would kill any chance for Phoenix to become a viable franchise, even if it the chances already were pretty slim.


Slim and none left Glendale years ago. Has this dead horse been sold yet? Back to you Gary!
  • 0

#13 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:15 PM

No. It HELPS teams by not playing. They were LOSING money.

The owners it hurts are the owners who make money which is about 10 of the 30 teams. And they are pissed off at getting 43% of their own revenue, and then having to cut losses, and then after that passing it around in transfer payments.

Meanwhile the players get 57% guaranteed profit and take no risk whatsoever.

So, yeah, those 10 owners are pretty pissed off. So pissed off they will cancel the whole season and I suggest they simply invite new players to start a new union and carry on with the season.

Ban the NHLPA players from the NHL.
  • 0
Posted Image

#14 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,657 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:41 PM

Depends if they rent or own the arena. Not sure if bonuses have to be paid (Suter & Parise for example).
* Not saying Minny is a struggling team


  • 0

gallery_47851_23_84084.png

medium.png - CDCGML 483288048.png - EHL medium.png - STHS medium.png - CDCFL


#15 Twilight Sparkle

Twilight Sparkle

    Lizardshifting Shape

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,563 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:39 PM

sure hope so. remember reading something on forbes about the canucks being one of 3 teams or so (another being montreal iirc) who carry their weight in revenue
  • 0

Posted Image

 

who was fitted with collar and chain

who was given a pat on the back

who was breaking away from the pack


#16 sting

sting

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 845 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 11

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:12 PM

It depends on what their fixed expenses are. Some teams may be losing less money during the lockout than they do when they have to pay players' salaries.


Fair enough but the devaluation of the franchise worth, loss of interest, exposure, advertising dollars and jobs is a pitfall that many struggling teams will be unable to recover from.
  • 0

#17 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:24 PM

No.

The reason for the lockout is try to SAVE the financially struggling teams.
  • 0

#18 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:29 PM

No. It HELPS teams by not playing. They were LOSING money.

The owners it hurts are the owners who make money which is about 10 of the 30 teams. And they are pissed off at getting 43% of their own revenue, and then having to cut losses, and then after that passing it around in transfer payments.

Meanwhile the players get 57% guaranteed profit and take no risk whatsoever.

So, yeah, those 10 owners are pretty pissed off. So pissed off they will cancel the whole season and I suggest they simply invite new players to start a new union and carry on with the season.

Ban the NHLPA players from the NHL.


Agreed. Just one correction, the players get 57% of gross revenue not profit. Which is a lot more $.

I would love to see the owners bring in replacement players and break the NHLPA.
  • 0

#19 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:44 PM

Agreed. Just one correction, the players get 57% of gross revenue not profit. Which is a lot more $.

I would love to see the owners bring in replacement players and break the NHLPA.

I only read once about the NHL lending the NJD money last year. $20 mil comes to mind but that could be wrong. That isn't a southern team and when grouped with the NYI that is a hugh problem for the NHL. Two pretty historic franchises that have won multiple CUPS.

Prior to the '67 expansion stories of very good players being buried in the AHL were common. Not only should the NHL owners be wary of this lockout but the players as well. Even even 4 teams folded that is a potential of 200 fewer NHL contracts.
  • 0

#20 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

^^^
The STL Blues are another pretty established team thats losing a lot of money.

Most ppl think only the few sunbelt teams are losing money. This is not even close to being reality. JD just lost his job in STL because the new ownership wants to trim mgmt costs. He was making $2 mill per year.

The NHL's financial issues need to be resolved in order for it to remain a viable operation. Players should willingly take 50%.

According to Forbes 18 NHL teams lost money in 2010-11. How the players don't see this to be a problem is beyond belief.

Edit Link for Revenues and operating income for last year
http://www.forbes.co...ions/#p_1_s_d0_

Edited by WHL rocks, 10 October 2012 - 04:26 PM.

  • 0

#21 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,896 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:20 AM

No. It HELPS teams by not playing. They were LOSING money.

The owners it hurts are the owners who make money which is about 10 of the 30 teams. And they are pissed off at getting 43% of their own revenue, and then having to cut losses, and then after that passing it around in transfer payments.

Meanwhile the players get 57% guaranteed profit and take no risk whatsoever.

So, yeah, those 10 owners are pretty pissed off. So pissed off they will cancel the whole season and I suggest they simply invite new players to start a new union and carry on with the season.

Ban the NHLPA players from the NHL.


Yeah right! :sick: You tell me your gunna pay $150 a ticket and ten dollars a beer, take a night off and go watch Jeff Tambelinni or some other hack play?

What would really be fun, is if the players organized their own league. People would pay to see them in new uniforms but not the opposite!


Depends if they rent or own the arena. Not sure if bonuses have to be paid (Suter & Parise for example).
* Not saying Minny is a struggling team


Signing bonuses, such as signed by Weber (the irony of the lockout is obvious in this offer by Philly), Parise and Suter are exactly that. Signing bonuses. The attraction of those deals was the $13 mill (Weber), and $10 mill signing bonuses as much as the roughly $100 mill contract values. They got paid $13 and $10 mill respectively already, despite the lockout.

That is why it was such a predatory move by Philly who makes money, where Nashville would happily have sat Weber without a signing bonus until he signed.

^^^
The STL Blues are another pretty established team thats losing a lot of money.

Most ppl think only the few sunbelt teams are losing money. This is not even close to being reality. JD just lost his job in STL because the new ownership wants to trim mgmt costs. He was making $2 mill per year.

The NHL's financial issues need to be resolved in order for it to remain a viable operation. Players should willingly take 50%.

According to Forbes 18 NHL teams lost money in 2010-11. How the players don't see this to be a problem is beyond belief.

Edit Link for Revenues and operating income for last year
http://www.forbes.co...ions/#p_1_s_d0_


Interesting link; thank you!
  • 0

#22 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,896 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:28 AM

Fark me; look at Montreal > 47.7 mill in profit! Gotta learn from madonna; culture = $'s!!!

Or Vancouver's revenue vs Philly who is sooo much more aggressive making deals.

But I guess it is not Vancouver or Philly that is sinking...


^^^
The STL Blues are another pretty established team thats losing a lot of money.

Most ppl think only the few sunbelt teams are losing money. This is not even close to being reality. JD just lost his job in STL because the new ownership wants to trim mgmt costs. He was making $2 mill per year.

The NHL's financial issues need to be resolved in order for it to remain a viable operation. Players should willingly take 50%.

According to Forbes 18 NHL teams lost money in 2010-11. How the players don't see this to be a problem is beyond belief.

Edit Link for Revenues and operating income for last year
http://www.forbes.co...ions/#p_1_s_d0_


  • 0

#23 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:13 PM

^^^
The STL Blues are another pretty established team thats losing a lot of money.

Most ppl think only the few sunbelt teams are losing money. This is not even close to being reality. JD just lost his job in STL because the new ownership wants to trim mgmt costs. He was making $2 mill per year.

The NHL's financial issues need to be resolved in order for it to remain a viable operation. Players should willingly take 50%.

According to Forbes 18 NHL teams lost money in 2010-11. How the players don't see this to be a problem is beyond belief.

Edit Link for Revenues and operating income for last year
http://www.forbes.co...ions/#p_1_s_d0_

I thought it was JD who exercised his option since the Blues ownership had changed. He had just been renewed and had a few years left in his contract.
  • 0

#24 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:18 PM

I thought it was JD who exercised his option since the Blues ownership had changed. He had just been renewed and had a few years left in his contract.


Nope.
  • 0

#25 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

I personally think a lockout would be good in that regard, and would help get rid of some of those dying teams. It's pathetic when so many teams in a huge league like the NHL can't make money to save their lives.


The problem is that neither party wants that to happen. Gary will not concede his errors, and the PA wants as many professional hockey jobs as they can get.

It will hurt them in the sense that they'll just be even less valuable than what they were before, as if they're not playing, they're not in the public's eye. This whole thing is just a mess.
  • 0

#26 Rink on Renfrew

Rink on Renfrew

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,307 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:25 PM

First off this isn't a "I hate Gary Bettman" post.

Just wondering here, if 18 teams are losing money and apparently the NHL has never been in better shape, something doesn't add up to me.

We lost a whole year, five (maybe more) years ago, where apparently the players caved to the owners. How on earth do we find ourselves in this predicament again?

I'm sorry but I understand some multi multi millionaires/Billionaires like to have certain businesses have losses due to tax returns etc...
I'm sure someone will correct me and tell me I'm wrong. But I'm starting to think a lot of this is smoke and mirrors.

The whole league needs a audit if you ask me, there's some extremely fishey stuff going on here in my honest opinion. Screw everybody involved. The game had become not only secondary but way far down on the Peking order, with us fans being even lower. /RANT

I've really tried to bite my tongue on these issues but I just had to. I may be way off but at least I got a few things off my chest. Thanks for reading hope I didn't derail the thread.
  • 0

#27 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,242 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:53 PM

Disband Phoenix and Florida. Hold a dispersal draft. Move the Islanders to Seattle when they have a new arena and Detroit goes to the East.

Problem Solved.
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#28 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:13 AM

The NHL is always saying that parity has never been better. I'd believe them if it weren't for the fact that there are very few out-right loses. Those cheap shoot-out wins and a point for the tie, add to each teams point totals creating this myth of parity. Disbanding two teams would create a much better league, and create real parity.
Like GO15, I don't see the Islanders getting a new arena anytime soon, Glendale will not be sold, and disbanding any of Florida, Columbus, T-Bay, Anaheim, and Glendale would be an easy fix.
  • 0

#29 Mike Vanderhoek

Mike Vanderhoek

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,073 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:07 PM

I don't believe the lockout will kill any financially struggling teams. There for many years has been rumours and suggestion that there is up to 5 teams that could relocate or fold in the coming years. I think lockout or not a couple teams will move but thats about it and likely not for a couple of years after the resolution of this dispute.

As the last lockout(s) have shown the people will come back and watch the product, buy the memorabilia, etc...but this is happening more and more on the corporate side of things than the average fan who lets face it is all but extinct when it comes to paying for the NHL product.

The financial support will be there, the League's owners have continued to back the current League's team placement.

No teams will be lost as a direct result of this lockout, but relocated as a result of new ownerships down the road.
  • 0
Posted Image

#30 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,505 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 14 October 2012 - 04:13 PM

Im thinking there is a chance that the lockout will decimate casual fan bases, and in that way the lockout may directly lead to killing/reclocating some of these sunbelt teams.

But honestly, the decision to put teams in these markets in the first was very poorly thought out and implemented no matter how much a delusional Bettman is in denial about it. These teams are destined to fold/relocate regardless.

Edited by Red Light Racicot, 14 October 2012 - 04:21 PM.

  • 0




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.