Bally Sports Bankruptcy Can Affect the Salary Cap

[ToTellTheTruth]

Pretty sure I started a similar thread a few days ago and quoted the Montreal Gazzette about how 12 NHL teams could be affected and revenues could be reduced due to money owed and not paid.

 

Not sure what happened to that thread, I can't find it anywhere now

 

At any rate it is worthy of taking note now that more media outlets are publishing it.

 

This could affect trades now.

[Ghostsof1915]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bally_Sports

 

Its a group of regional sports networks.

 

It's mostly Southern US NHL teams, and MLB, and some NBA. Along with College Sports.

 

I guess that means the next TV deal for Canada is going to have to go up.

[Junkyard Dog]

If it does stay down it might be a good idea to clear then weaponize cap.

[Ghostsof1915]

4 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

If it does stay down it might be a good idea to clear then weaponize cap.

I'd settle for just being smart with the cap. And always keeping some room.

There's no point in clearing cap. Getting picks for bad players, then losing those prospects because you're stuck with more bad contracts.

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, Ghostsof1915 said:

I'd settle for just being smart with the cap. And always keeping some room.

There's no point in clearing cap. Getting picks for bad players, then losing those prospects because you're stuck with more bad contracts.

Well if you do Monahan(who got a 1st)-like trades you wouldn't really have to worry about losing anybody besides the dump the following off-season.

 

I would take short term dumps from teams with dwindling contending windows. 

 

If you can get a high pick or quality prospect out of it then it's definitely worth it

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Well if you do Monahan(who got a 1st)-like trades you wouldn't really have to worry about losing anybody besides the dump the following off-season.

 

I would take short term dumps from teams with dwindling contending windows. 

 

If you can get a high pick or quality prospect out of it then it's definitely worth it

As I said you have to be smart with it.

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Maybe if they'd kept the game in regions that were passionate, & climate-appropriate? Let's freeze ice sheets in deserts & jungles..oh, & use media wh*re-lackeys to promote how "environmentally responsible" we are...

[Ghostsof1915]

8 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Maybe if they'd kept the game in regions that were passionate, & climate-appropriate? Let's freeze ice sheets in deserts & jungles..oh, & use media wh*re-lackeys to promote how "environmentally responsible" we are...

Well the way things are going, there won't be anywhere that has ice or snow.

[Dazzle]

12 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Maybe if they'd kept the game in regions that were passionate, & climate-appropriate? Let's freeze ice sheets in deserts & jungles..oh, & use media wh*re-lackeys to promote how "environmentally responsible" we are...

I feel you are missing the point. There's nothing wrong with making things environmentally responsible. Teams like Carolina and the Lightning are proving that there IS hockey interest outside of the so-called traditional markets. The teams themselves have to be competitive. Teams like Atlanta failed because they sucked yearly with bad management. It's not that there wasn't an interest. As bad as the Coyotes are, they have fans too, but because of inept management of the arena, as well as a team that is very poor competitively, is it any wonder why people won't get excited about the hockey game?

 

We have to tackle one thing here: the NHL has made a lot of effort expanding the teams, but the management of those teams are not well run (for whatever reason). If you were a fan that wanted to spend money on a sport that you have no clue on, would you not want a team that looks exciting for the future? Arizona has the potential to be exciting. That rebuild could help them. But the issue is: would it be too late?

[Fanuck]

Sadly, it seems like there's a select group of teams that went for the 'money grab' regarding their regional broadcast rights which didn't pan out, and now every team has to pay for it.  I get that there's a 'revenue sharing' agreement in place, but it seems like the same teams in the league have been propping up the exact same teams that can't generate their own revenue and this has been going on for decades.  We're not talking about teams who can't generate attendance here (mostly), we're talking about teams that simply made poor business management decisions and partnered with a group they probably shouldn't have because of $$$$ signs now everyone's going to get hit by this. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Just now, Dazzle said:

I feel you are missing the point. There's nothing wrong with making things environmentally responsible. Teams like Carolina and the Lightning are proving that there IS hockey interest outside of the so-called traditional markets. The teams themselves have to be competitive. Teams like Atlanta failed because they sucked yearly with bad management. It's not that there wasn't an interest. As bad as the Coyotes are, they have fans too, but because of inept management of the arena, as well as a team that is very poor competitively, is it any wonder why people won't get excited about the hockey game?

 

We have to tackle one thing here: the NHL has made a lot of effort expanding the teams, but the management of those teams are not well run (for whatever reason). If you were a fan that wanted to spend money on a sport that you have no clue on, would you not want a team that looks exciting for the future? Arizona has the potential to be exciting. That rebuild could help them. But the issue is: would it be too late?

Apologies Dazzle..I enjoy your posts but these endless, circular debates have a tendency to munch up precious minutes. The day is just underway here in Asia.

 

Now if you'd like a heated, passionate discussion on NHL expansion, I was all ramped up 'bout that back in the early 90's! Here, step into this DeLorean & let's argue at my fav TimHo's...

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, Fanuck said:

Sadly, it seems like there's a select group of teams that went for the 'money grab' regarding their regional broadcast rights which didn't pan out, and now every team has to pay for it.  I get that there's a 'revenue sharing' agreement in place, but it seems like the same teams in the league have been propping up the exact same teams that can't generate their own revenue and this has been going on for decades.  We're not talking about teams who can't generate attendance here (mostly), we're talking about teams that simply made poor business management decisions and partnered with a group they probably shouldn't have because of $$$$ signs now everyone's going to get hit by this. 

I think you are onto something here, but I think there's a lot of bias on the idea that teams have to be able to generate their own revenue. The shortsightedness of management (including ownership) has led to low interest in hockey. For some owners, owning a team is nothing more than another revenue stream. They don't necessarily "care" about the team, and that's a problem.

 

Hockey is an amazing sport and it should be made available to as many people as possible. Management and ownership has to run these teams properly. Maybe an idea could be that an expansion draft could allow a new team to have access to ALL free agents before any other team. It's not a solution, but perhaps a step in the right direction. There's just no way to "police" them into not being idiots with spending though.

[Dazzle]

6 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Apologies Dazzle..I enjoy your posts but these endless, circular debates have a tendency to munch up precious minutes. The day is just underway here in Asia.

 

Now if you'd like a heated, passionate discussion on NHL expansion, I was all ramped up 'bout that back in the early 90's! Here, step into this DeLorean & let's argue at my fav TimHo's...

Hey, no worries. I hope I didn't come across as hostile. I'm trying to make an effort to be a better poster starting right away.

[Curmudgeon]

Fun fact, apropos of nothing in particular: The top NHL fortune accumulated over a career is Jaromir Jagr's $218.6 million. Sidney Crosby is third at $187.7. Guess who is in second place? Ovechkin? Pronger? Fedorov? Sakic? No, no, no, no. In second spot, and soon to be top, is Gary Bettman, with an NHL fortune of $213.8 million. I'm thinking the Arizona Coyotes might be his someday retirement project.

[Fanuck]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Hockey is an amazing sport and it should be made available to as many people as possible. Management and ownership has to run these teams properly. Maybe an idea could be that an expansion draft could allow a new team to have access to ALL free agents before any other team. It's not a solution, but perhaps a step in the right direction. There's just no way to "police" them into not being idiots with spending though.

I'm all for considering any possibilities.  That said, the NHL is it's own worst enemy.  They want to grow the game internationally yet withdraw from the largest international stage in the world - the Olympics, and at the same time have one of their NHL franchises play out of a WHL sized arena.  It's no wonder the other 'big 3' pro leagues in NA view the NHL as a sideshow. 

 

The NHL seems to have no understanding that poor business decisions, in the real world, come with consequences and those consequences typically don't involve other business' paying for your poor decisions. 

[Fanuck]

8 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

Fun fact, apropos of nothing in particular: The top NHL fortune accumulated over a career is Jaromir Jagr's $218.6 million. Sidney Crosby is third at $187.7. Guess who is in second place? Ovechkin? Pronger? Fedorov? Sakic? No, no, no, no. In second spot, and soon to be top, is Gary Bettman, with an NHL fortune of $213.8 million. I'm thinking the Arizona Coyotes might be his someday retirement project.

And there you have the answer as to why management salaries in the NHL have no ties to the salary cap or revenue sharing. 

[Provost]

I think the concern about it affecting the cap is overblown a bit.  They aren't big value franchises that provide much revenue from those regional TV deals anyways.

It also opens the door for finding new media partners for those markets and the league could do even better on new ones.  

[Ghostsof1915]

19 minutes ago, Provost said:

I think the concern about it affecting the cap is overblown a bit.  They aren't big value franchises that provide much revenue from those regional TV deals anyways.

It also opens the door for finding new media partners for those markets and the league could do even better on new ones.  

Oh joy. More digital ads.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

I did read an article today about U.S. NHL viewership being down around 20%.  Second year of NHL on ESPN/TNT.  Oof.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

this contract is not worth very much in the grand scheme of things... likely worth 100 -150 million a year... or maybe 1.5 -2.0 % of its revenue....

 

The NHL revenue is estimated to be in the 6+billion this year.

 

If this effects salary cap, it will only mean that it will not raise 4 million in cap this year and the standard 1 million raise will be the new cap next year.