D-Bo7 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 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. 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. 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? Nope they would have to be built/renovated first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neufy161 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Unfortunately, kids playing hockey doesn't equal $$'s for the NHL. And even if they have 10 times the amount of players enrolling in hockey, what's that like a couple hundred kids now? It's not enough reason to keep a team in a poor market. Even a market like Dallas, who has seen the same grass roots expansion of the game, and has even won a Stanley Cup is struggling to make a profit. There's just not enough interest in these areas, when football, baseball, and even basketball take up so much of the sports market. There's no reason why a team wouldn't work in Seattle. You've got the population in the Northwest, you've got the interest, you've got huge corporate sponsorship possibilities, and there's already a proposed arena deal for an NBA and NHL team. The NHL is crazy if they don't get on that right away. And there's no reason why California can't have a 4th team, if the New York area can support 4 teams. A place like San Fransisco or Oakland would have the population and money to support another team. I don't know about Quebec City, I'm not sure I'm sold on them. I do know that they would do better than Phoenix though. It's not like Phoenix has set the bar very high, losing 20 million dollars a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 And there's no reason why California can't have a 4th team, if the New York area can support 4 teams. A place like San Fransisco or Oakland would have the population and money to support another team. I don't know about Quebec City, I'm not sure I'm sold on them. I do know that they would do better than Phoenix though. It's not like Phoenix has set the bar very high, losing 20 million dollars a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_fo_life Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 They met for 4 hours today, hopefully somethin's a brewin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 Ribeiro: Union won’t make the same mistake again: The NHLPA and NHL are talking again, but the threat of a lockout remains. No one wants a lockout, but Washington’s Mike Ribeiro also doesn’t want to see the union cave to the owners’ demands. “It’s hard to understand why they want another 20 percent back and keep the same contracts,” Ribeiro said, according to CSNWashington. “It’s hard to understand why, but I think this time we won’t make the same mistake we did a few years ago by giving them 24 percent. …Why would you give your boss back money he gave you?” It’s the player’s belief that the NHL’s latest proposal will effectively result in a 19.3% salary rollback. However, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly disagrees. “What I will tell you is that our proposal last Tuesday would have reduced the players share by 11 percent in Year One, … 8.5 percent in Year 2 and … 5.5 percent in Year 3,” Daly said. “In Years 4-6, it would have been at or above as we continue to grow revenues to prior levels. So I don’t know where they’re getting 20 percent.” Ribeiro also doesn’t believe that the league’s proposal will help close the gap between the NHL’s financial juggernauts and struggling clubs. In Ribeiro’s eyes, “They want us to fix the mistakes they made.” http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/07/ribeiro-union-wont-make-the-same-mistake-again/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 They met for 4 hours today, hopefully somethin's a brewin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverCanucksRock Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Do we need to go to WW3 so we can draft these *#&%$ into a hellish endeavour? All of these losers involved sure do take a whole lot for granted!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Kind of funny given that only a day ago Fehr offered to meet and the NHL said there was nothing to talk about. My feeling always was that Bettman had far less leverage than he was implying with his "Lockout or Bust" actions. Sure enough, one day later there's a 4 hour meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyNut30 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 A guy on my hockey team said the NHL & NBC have a $2 billion TV broadcast deal involving American Thanksgiving (I assume over multiple years). Anyone heard about this or can shine light on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Does anyone know how the draft next year would work? I remember Pittsburgh won the Crosby lottery. This is a very talented draft year. If we could get high it would be a major plus for our organization. I'm not saying Nathan Mckinnon high (We know the NHL would never let us get him) but it the top 10. Maybe we can get two first round picks and draft B.C. native Curtis Lazar later in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 The reason we are going to have a lock-out is because the players (led by our own beloved Trevor Linden) caved last time. So Betman and the owners think they won by playing hardball, even though they now can't possibly live with the agreement they rammed down the players' throats at the time. There have already been 3 lock-outs on Betman's watch, and we are about to get a 4th: he's addicted to them, and until this blackmail tactic fails, he'll keep using it. The only thing that will stop this pattern from continuing is if the players stand up and don't back down. Since the players are millionaires, they ought to be able to hang in longer than your average working stiff. There are divisions among the owners, and they will surface eventually when the viable teams that would be making money get sick of the situation and break ranks with the teams that are losing money and hope to solve their problems on the players' backs. Betman is clearly aware of this potential fault-line, which is why he is now calling revenue-sharing a "distraction". But it's the only way (short of contraction) to fix the hare-brained expansion he did at the beginning of his two decades in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm confused by this massive pro-NHLPA boner that everyone has, really I do. The NHL is a business, no matter which way you look at it. Let's pretend that they're Subway franchises. If I owned a franchise, I hereby own the liability on the franchise, so if anyone is to ever go on the chopping block, it's me. Financial losses or lawsuits won't affect the players bank accounts so why should I even consider splitting revenues if they don't have any liability? Why in the hell would I ever consider splitting revenues 50/50 with my employees. I pay them a salary (wage) and give them a benefit (pension, dental/health) package that is more than reasonable. Players are employees. Yes, they are talented and driven, but they are still employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zduck14 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm confused by this massive pro-NHLPA boner that everyone has, really I do. The NHL is a business, no matter which way you look at it. Let's pretend that they're Subway franchises. If I owned a franchise, I hereby own the liability on the franchise, so if anyone is to ever go on the chopping block, it's me. Financial losses or lawsuits won't affect the players bank accounts so why should I even consider splitting revenues if they don't have any liability? Why in the hell would I ever consider splitting revenues 50/50 with my employees. I pay them a salary (wage) and give them a benefit (pension, dental/health) package that is more than reasonable. Players are employees. Yes, they are talented and driven, but they are still employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Capitan Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 As right as you are, imagine Crosby and Malkin both packed up and left for the KHL. Suddenly Pittsburgh is a bottom feeding team that starts losing money and the owner is screwed. Without these star players ("employees"), revenue isn`t nearly as high because it`s the players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos and the Sedin`s that fans pay money to watch. That said, the NHL isn`t anything like a "Subway franchise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm confused by this massive pro-NHLPA boner that everyone has, really I do. The NHL is a business, no matter which way you look at it. Let's pretend that they're Subway franchises. If I owned a franchise, I hereby own the liability on the franchise, so if anyone is to ever go on the chopping block, it's me. Financial losses or lawsuits won't affect the players bank accounts so why should I even consider splitting revenues if they don't have any liability? Why in the hell would I ever consider splitting revenues 50/50 with my employees. I pay them a salary (wage) and give them a benefit (pension, dental/health) package that is more than reasonable. Players are employees. Yes, they are talented and driven, but they are still employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 As right as you are, imagine Crosby and Malkin both packed up and left for the KHL. Suddenly Pittsburgh is a bottom feeding team that starts losing money and the owner is screwed. Without these star players ("employees"), revenue isn`t nearly as high because it`s the players like Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos and the Sedin`s that fans pay money to watch. That said, the NHL isn`t anything like a "Subway franchise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 If the lockout goes past December, Daniel Alfredsson said he’d consider playing in Europe. Alfredsson also said if the lockout goes past December he has considered playing in Europe. More in Ottawa's only Sunday newspaper. #Sens— Bruce Garrioch (@SunGarrioch) September 8, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I don't see this as an issue where one side or figure mainly Bettman can be blamed. Both sides still cannot agree what revenues are to be split before even getting down to the splitting of the pie. Both sides are at fault here and this will continue to happen time and again until they start speaking the same language. In my opinion, the players should really just take it and play, do their job. They are by no means getting shafted here, its mainly both sides not trusting eachother and hence not conceding to the other. Then again when it comes to healthcare,teachers,Ferries,etc,etc I am of the opinion people should be a little more appreciative of what they have in terms of employment/compensation. But we're all greedy I suppose aren't we ? or is it called being fair ? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 For the love of Teemu Selanne. The last lockout saved his career, this lockout is going to kill it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Cheer up fans.... Give a whistle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.