How to create a new Pro hockey league

[jmart21]

I know that I am new here but why do I get the sense that you are arguing for the sake of arguing?

So are you saying if the NHL decided to lock out this season and next, you would not support a new league that formed?

That's not what I am saying at all.

I'm saying its silly that to think the problem is that we have American teams.

The problem is the players and the owners. No matter what the league, there will always be players and there will be owners. There will still be a CBA required and here will still be hard negotiations. Just because its an all Canadian league doesn't rule out the possibility of a lockout nor the likelihood of one.

No offense but what you (the fan) wants really doesn't matter.

 

[G51 K81*]

How in heck would revenues fall hard? Its the current revenues that not only support the current Canadian hockey market but also supports the current non hockey markets where hockey has no business being in. We supply the talent, and we supply the money that goes to keep hockey alive in the deep south where the tv show "swamp people" have a higher rating. Maybe we can bring in a few american teams into our new league but they will have to follow our rules and the Head hockey office remains in Canada.

Does anyone know exactly how the NHL head offices are currently in New York. The NHL was formed in Canada. When exactly did it go state side?

So you are saying if you add a team to London and Hamilton, Leafs ticket prices will be unaffected?

 

[Sam Slick*]

So you are saying if you add a team to London and Hamilton, Leafs ticket prices will be unaffected?

To add a team to London and Hamilton....In A NEW LEAGUE they the ticket prices would drop big time. Salaries would not be as high, running cost and overhead would not be so high, so ticket prices would reflect that.

 

[Sam Slick*]

That's not what I am saying at all.

I'm saying its silly that to think the problem is that we have American teams.

The problem is the players and the owners. No matter what the league, there will always be players and there will be owners. There will still be a CBA required and here will still be hard negotiations. Just because its an all Canadian league doesn't rule out the possibility of a lockout nor the likelihood of one.

No offense but what you (the fan) wants really doesn't matter.

Thats not true. We never had an issue like this before there was a CBA in the NHL. The league lasted for 70 years before Alan Eagleson formed the Players association in the 70's. And, the CBA was not implemented until much later after that.

Then the owners hire the lock out king in Bettman. When I owned my restaurant, I did not have a CBA in place. I followed already existing labor laws. I hired my waitresses and paid them a fair salary.

Many of you are forgetting this from the very basics where greed starts. Since when is a person who plays a game worth millions and millions of dollars in the first place. If it was up to me, there would not be one player earning more than $500 k a season. Its ridiculous that they are arguing over money where they already are earning those millions and want more.

Since when does a business owner have to bow to the employees?

 

[Drew311]

Thats not true. We never had an issue like this before there was a CBA in the NHL. The league lasted for 70 years before Alan Eagleson formed the Players association in the 70's. And, the CBA was not implemented until much later after that.

Then the owners hire the lock out king in Bettman. When I owned my restaurant, I did not have a CBA in place. I followed already existing labor laws. I hired my waitresses and paid them a fair salary.

Many of you are forgetting this from the very basics where greed starts. Since when is a person who plays a game worth millions and millions of dollars in the first place. If it was up to me, there would not be one player earning more than $500 k a season. Its ridiculous that they are arguing over money where they already are earning those millions and want more.

Since when does a business owner have to bow to the employees?

It is completely unrealistic to assume players would be fine to play in a league with no CBA. No CBA essentially means no rules. Rich, greedy owners, along with their lawyers, would take full advantage of a situation like this. It would be a complete disaster.

It seems like you're basing this new league in a fantasy world where everyone gets along and money is not a factor in people's decisions.

 

[jmart21]

Thats not true. We never had an issue like this before there was a CBA in the NHL. The league lasted for 70 years before Alan Eagleson formed the Players association in the 70's. And, the CBA was not implemented until much later after that.

Then the owners hire the lock out king in Bettman. When I owned my restaurant, I did not have a CBA in place. I followed already existing labor laws. I hired my waitresses and paid them a fair salary.

Many of you are forgetting this from the very basics where greed starts. Since when is a person who plays a game worth millions and millions of dollars in the first place. If it was up to me, there would not be one player earning more than $500 k a season. Its ridiculous that they are arguing over money where they already are earning those millions and want more.

Since when does a business owner have to bow to the employees?

So ou think your new league will poach all of the NHL stars, becoming "The" league without even having a CBA??? Oh sweet baby Jesus.

 

[Sam Slick*]

It is completely unrealistic to assume players would be fine to play in a league with no CBA. No CBA essentially means no rules. Rich, greedy owners, along with their lawyers, would take full advantage of a situation like this. It would be a complete disaster.

It seems like you're basing this new league in a fantasy world where everyone gets along and money is not a factor in people's decisions.

You mean no CBA in a league like we had for 80 years before bettman came along?

Was the WHA a fantasy league? Ok, you can keep dreaming about how bettman has done such a good job in the last 20 years and I will keep hoping for something else.

You talk about "rich greedy owners", what about rich greedy players? It seems to me the owners are the ones who built the business, not the players. 28 of the 30 team owners came up from nothing. Only 2 owners were born with a silver spoon. So these owners are greedy because they did something with their lives that just happen to make money. I bet they worked for it. How many players can say that? Last lockout I was on the players side, this time around I am for the owners. The players want more. They already make millions and millions and want more and more. Its a shame and I pity them for their greed.

See you next lockout.

 

[Sam Slick*]

So ou think your new league will poach all of the NHL stars, becoming "The" league without even having a CBA??? Oh sweet baby Jesus.

Where in any post did I say a new league would poach any stars?

ps. The WHA and Bobby Hull says hello....

 

[ConnorTO]

look... as someone who started watching hockey at a late age...

hockey doesn't really exist outside of NHL
one of the things that makes NHL the NHL is the history...
you just cant abandon that man

yeah some teams relocate... some teams move
but you will always have the HEART... which is the original six, and etc.

just cant do it man
people are just acting so stupid cause they're butt hurt over the lockout
oh yeah EUROPEAN HOCKEY IS BETTER
yeah who needs the NHL when you have the KHL

but what they are saying is pure stupid

 

[Sam Slick*]

look... as someone who started watching hockey at a late age...

hockey doesn't really exist outside of NHL
one of the things that makes NHL the NHL is the history...
you just cant abandon that man

yeah some teams relocate... some teams move
but you will always have the HEART... which is the original six, and etc.

just cant do it man
people are just acting so stupid cause they're butt hurt over the lockout
oh yeah EUROPEAN HOCKEY IS BETTER
yeah who needs the NHL when you have the KHL

but what they are saying is pure stupid

Bold is one of the dumbest things I have read on here.

I am just coming in here saying what just about every poster in all the other threads are saying that they are "done" with the NHL etc.

You came into the game late you say? Ever heard of the WHA? EVer hear of the name Bobby Hull? A new league is not fantasy, it is completely possible. I have history on my side.

You, like many others, will be singing a new tune if this lockout carries into next season.

At least the leafs are tied for first overall so far this season.....

 

[Drew311]

You mean no CBA in a league like we had for 80 years before bettman came along?

Was the WHA a fantasy league? Ok, you can keep dreaming about how bettman has done such a good job in the last 20 years and I will keep hoping for something else.

You talk about "rich greedy owners", what about rich greedy players? It seems to me the owners are the ones who built the business, not the players. 28 of the 30 team owners came up from nothing. Only 2 owners were born with a silver spoon. So these owners are greedy because they did something with their lives that just happen to make money. I bet they worked for it. How many players can say that? Last lockout I was on the players side, this time around I am for the owners. The players want more. They already make millions and millions and want more and more. Its a shame and I pity them for their greed.

See you next lockout.

So these greedy players you speak of, you expect them to join a league that offers them no rights and a 100k salary?

Also you bring up the WHA like it has any realvance today. You do realize that players 30 years ago didn't make millions of dollars per year? If you think how the NHL operated 60 years ago has anything to do with how the NHL operates today, I don't know what else I can say to convince you that your dream of a magical Canadian league with no rules won't work.

Players are used to making massive amounts of money and their current lifestyles reflect this. Players also enjoy having rights and a say about what goes on from a hockey operations standpoint. Good luck convincing a bunch of millionaires to play hockey for 100K a year, with no assuance of what happens to their contracts. I get it, it's a sad realization, but that is just the way it is. This is why I mention your idea is a complete fantasy and doesn't have an ounce of realism to it. It's straight out of a 10 year old's school writing assignment.

 

[Sam Slick*]

So these greedy players you speak of, you expect them to join a league that offers them no rights and a 100k salary?

Also you bring up the WHA like it has any realvance today. You do realize that players 30 years ago didn't make millions of dollars per year? If you think how the NHL operated 60 years ago has anything to do with how the NHL operates today, I don't know what else I can say to convince you that your dream of a magical Canadian league with no rules won't work.

Players are used to making massive amounts of money and their current lifestyles reflect this. Players also enjoy having rights and a say about what goes on from a hockey operations standpoint. Good luck convincing a bunch of millionaires to play hockey for 100K a year, with no assuance of what happens to their contracts. I get it, it's a sad realization, but that is just the way it is. This is why I mention your idea is a complete fantasy and doesn't have an ounce of realism to it. It's straight out of a 10 year old's school writing assignment.[/QUOTE]

Why do some of you say these kinds of things? Why would you say "magical"? You think that a new league that comes up is some how "magic"? Thats strange....

Who said anything about a 100k salary? I said 500 k.

So you are defending their lifestyles? Yea, insurance for a ferrari has got to be expensive. Far be it for someone to not feel sorry for them when they are locked out.

My idea is not a complete fantasy and its youngster such as yourself that will be first in line to buy tickets if the NHL goes into another season with no CBA if a new league forms. You can throw all your money at the players for all I care, and trust me, they will scoop it up without so much as a thank you.

Your last sentence is just pure baiting. I had to read the rules and regulations just a few days ago and what you just wrote is a suspendable offence that can give you infractions, so I suggest you delete that part before a mod sees it.

Your reply to me was filled with condescention.

Enjoy your hockey season.....oh wait.....

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

So these greedy players you speak of, you expect them to join a league that offers them no rights and a 100k salary?

Also you bring up the WHA like it has any realvance today. You do realize that players 30 years ago didn't make millions of dollars per year? If you think how the NHL operated 60 years ago has anything to do with how the NHL operates today, I don't know what else I can say to convince you that your dream of a magical Canadian league with no rules won't work.

Players are used to making massive amounts of money and their current lifestyles reflect this. Players also enjoy having rights and a say about what goes on from a hockey operations standpoint. Good luck convincing a bunch of millionaires to play hockey for 100K a year, with no assuance of what happens to their contracts. I get it, it's a sad realization, but that is just the way it is. This is why I mention your idea is a complete fantasy and doesn't have an ounce of realism to it. It's straight out of a 10 year old's school writing assignment.[/QUOTE]

Why do some of you say these kinds of things? Why would you say "magical"? You think that a new league that comes up is some how "magic"? Thats strange....

Who said anything about a 100k salary? I said 500 k.

So you are defending their lifestyles? Yea, insurance for a ferrari has got to be expensive. Far be it for someone to not feel sorry for them when they are locked out.

My idea is not a complete fantasy and its youngster such as yourself that will be first in line to buy tickets if the NHL goes into another season with no CBA if a new league forms. You can throw all your money at the players for all I care, and trust me, they will scoop it up without so much as a thank you.

Your last sentence is just pure baiting. I had to read the rules and regulations just a few days ago and what you just wrote is a suspendable offence that can give you infractions, so I suggest you delete that part before a mod sees it.

Your reply to me was filled with condescention.

Enjoy your hockey season.....oh wait.....

You might want to read a bit about how the WHA got big players to join them. 500k salaries isn't going to cut it, you'll have to be competitive w/ KHL salaries. Also WHA put teams in big markets that didn't have teams.

I think that the NHLPA dissolves before a new league forms. Hell, if the NHLPA dissolves, and CBA is eliminated, what would be the difference to starting a new league? Only difference is you still have rich owners and you retain the brand power of the NHL.

 

[Joey Hoser]

You mean no CBA in a league like we had for 80 years before bettman came along?

Players in the early NHL were barely athletes in comparison to today and most didn't even make their living playing hockey.

 

[Epictetus]

This is basically, as a business owner, removing the biggest economic market in the world. Why a Canadian would want a product to be just Canadian is beyond me, especially when you are already producing profits from a market that buys into your product and is much larger than your own.

 

[indigobuffalo]

This is just awful. Hasn't this whole idea been put to rest yet? The NHL is too powerful in NA for a rival league to start up. The KHL stands a chance because they are on the other side of the world.

Canada is part of NAFTA and consequently our economy is tethered to the USA (and Mexico...) so we would not be able to stand apart from them the way that Russia can.

Further, this antiquated notion that the ticket sales alone are what keeps teams like the Maple Leafs valued at $1B is non-sense. Marketing and brand value are the keys, not the fan base, although that's a part of it.

A new league loses all the heritage, i.e no Stanley Cup, no Maple Leafs, no Canadiens, no Bing or Conn Smythe or Lester B. Patrick or anything.

There are so many logical inconsistencies to this proposal that I have to stop listing them now, or it'll cause an aneurism.

Let's just say it's an absolute non-starter.

 

[jmart21]

This is just awful. Hasn't this whole idea been put to rest yet? The NHL is too powerful in NA for a rival league to start up. The KHL stands a chance because they are on the other side of the world.

Canada is part of NAFTA and consequently our economy is tethered to the USA (and Mexico...) so we would not be able to stand apart from them the way that Russia can.

Further, this antiquated notion that the ticket sales alone are what keeps teams like the Maple Leafs valued at $1B is non-sense. Marketing and brand value are the keys, not the fan base, although that's a part of it.

A new league loses all the heritage, i.e no Stanley Cup, no Maple Leafs, no Canadiens, no Bing or Conn Smythe or Lester B. Patrick or anything.

There are so many logical inconsistencies to this proposal that I have to stop listing them now, or it'll cause an aneurism.

Let's just say it's an absolute non-starter.

thank you.

 

[Drew311]

Bb...but.....what about Bobby Hull??

 

[jmart21]

Bb...but.....what about Bobby Hull??

I hear he is playing in this new league. NHL watc your back, this is going to be "THE" league!!!!

 

[indigobuffalo]

As for the people saying that the NHL should go down to 24 teams and all those people wanting to cast-off the Sunbelt Teams...

The NHL should actually add more teams. It's good that they are going up to 32 teams, but I would like to see them jump upwards towards 42 within the next few years.

Why? Because more teams means more exciting hockey. Less teams would only further stagnate the lack of scoring and make hockey a boring, unappealing game. Most people think that condensing the talent pool means "All-Star"-like hockey scores like 10-8 or 12-9, whereas it's actually quite the opposite.

An overlooked fact about the All-Star games is that goalies aren't really trying (they're asked not to to increase goals and make the gamemore enjoyable to fans) and the defensemen are told not to lay anyone out and they also don't try as hard, at least not defensively.

If the league was condensed to 24 or fewer teams, the games would mostly finish in SO/OT with scores of 1-0. That's because the defenses would be stacked, every team would have a great goaltender/defensive pairing.

By contrast, 42 NHL teams means that placed like Halifax, Saskatoon, Quebec City, and a few others in the US like Seattle, Hartford, Kansas City, Las Vegas and more can have NHL teams too.

And having those teams means that while the NHL will still have it's Sidney Crosbys and Alex Ovechkins, the overall quality of their opponents will massively decrease. Many of the "career AHLers" or even ECHLers would suddenly be getting into the NHL because there just wouldn't be enough legit NHLers to fill the benches.

That means that Phil Kessels would be dekeing out Mike Kostkas and sniping pucks past Jussi Rynnas'.

There is a historical precedent for this too.

When the NHL started expanding in the 60's through the 70's, the quality of players league-wide decreased. At the same time, the WHA started up in the 70s and further decreased the average quality of players. Add in a superstar like Wayne Gretzky, and badabing-badaboom you get a player averaging 2PPG or better. Even **** players like Gary Leeman can hit 50-goal seasons if you dilute the talent pool enough.

In short, less teams makes boring hockey. More teams makes exciting hockey.

 

[showtime8]

This is just awful. Hasn't this whole idea been put to rest yet? The NHL is too powerful in NA for a rival league to start up. The KHL stands a chance because they are on the other side of the world.

Canada is part of NAFTA and consequently our economy is tethered to the USA (and Mexico...) so we would not be able to stand apart from them the way that Russia can.

Further, this antiquated notion that the ticket sales alone are what keeps teams like the Maple Leafs valued at $1B is non-sense. Marketing and brand value are the keys, not the fan base, although that's a part of it.

A new league loses all the heritage, i.e no Stanley Cup, no Maple Leafs, no Canadiens, no Bing or Conn Smythe or Lester B. Patrick or anything.

There are so many logical inconsistencies to this proposal that I have to stop listing them now, or it'll cause an aneurism.

Let's just say it's an absolute non-starter.

Although I completely agree with what you're saying, I don't see why another league can't be started up in North America. The only hurdle that the new league would face is history. That's the only thing thats on the NHL side.

Its almost the same as saying if Walmart is already in your city, then why would any other businesses try to come in?

Are any tickets in the league affordable? Outside of Florida/Tampa Bay/Phoenix, I wouldn't say that sitting up in the 300 section of a building, paying over $100 is reasonable.

 

[Drew311]

As for the people saying that the NHL should go down to 24 teams and all those people wanting to cast-off the Sunbelt Teams...

The NHL should actually add more teams. It's good that they are going up to 32 teams, but I would like to see them jump upwards towards 42 within the next few years.

Why? Because more teams means more exciting hockey. Less teams would only further stagnate the lack of scoring and make hockey a boring, unappealing game. Most people think that condensing the talent pool means "All-Star"-like hockey scores like 10-8 or 12-9, whereas it's actually quite the opposite.

An overlooked fact about the All-Star games is that goalies aren't really trying (they're asked not to to increase goals and make the gamemore enjoyable to fans) and the defensemen are told not to lay anyone out and they also don't try as hard, at least not defensively.

If the league was condensed to 24 or fewer teams, the games would mostly finish in SO/OT with scores of 1-0. That's because the defenses would be stacked, every team would have a great goaltender/defensive pairing.

By contrast, 42 NHL teams means that placed like Halifax, Saskatoon, Quebec City, and a few others in the US like Seattle, Hartford, Kansas City, Las Vegas and more can have NHL teams too.

And having those teams means that while the NHL will still have it's Sidney Crosbys and Alex Ovechkins, the overall quality of their opponents will massively decrease. Many of the "career AHLers" or even ECHLers would suddenly be getting into the NHL because there just wouldn't be enough legit NHLers to fill the benches.

That means that Phil Kessels would be dekeing out Mike Kostkas and sniping pucks past Jussi Rynnas'.

There is a historical precedent for this too.

When the NHL started expanding in the 60's through the 70's, the quality of players league-wide decreased. At the same time, the WHA started up in the 70s and further decreased the average quality of players. Add in a superstar like Wayne Gretzky, and badabing-badaboom you get a player averaging 2PPG or better. Even **** players like Gary Leeman can hit 50-goal seasons if you dilute the talent pool enough.

In short, less teams makes boring hockey. More teams makes exciting hockey.

It's not so much an issue of the talent pool, the issue is having a profitable NHL with so many teams currently hemorrhaging money. Currently 13 out of 30 teams are losing money on an annual basis, and you're proposing the NHL pick up 8 or 9 new teams in non-traditional hockey markets? How long has the NHL been trying to sell hockey in the sunbelt, with little to no results? I agree that many other Canadian cities should have teams, but trying for another decade to sell hockey to people in the southern and western US is just a waste of time, and money. The CBA would have to be dramatically altered, specifically pertaining to rules about profit sharing and salary cap to even create a glimmer of hope for what you're proposing, and teams like TOR, MTL, NYR, VAN want no part of it.

Personally, I don't want to see ECHL and AHLers playing along side Crosby, Ovechkin and Giroux. The NHL is considered the best hockey league in the world for a reason, and to dilute the talent pool just so the best players can appear better is a horrible idea. A hockey team still needs to be constructed to win (snipers, grinders, checkers, etc.). Removing 6 teams wouldn't automatically mean that Chris Kunitz will be on the Penguins 4th line, or Joni Pitkanen will be the Hurricanes 5th defenseman. There is only a small percentage of elite players in the NHL and this wouldn't change with a smaller league. Every team will still need a couple of stay at home defensemen and a handful of penalty killers.

 

[robdicks]

To add a team to London and Hamilton....In A NEW LEAGUE they the ticket prices would drop big time. Salaries would not be as high, running cost and overhead would not be so high, so ticket prices would reflect that.

If Salaries go down players will go to the American NHL, and the Russian KHL. Don't be naive. Canadian players don't stay in the CFL just because they are Canadian, and they wouldn't stay in the Canadian NHL just because they're Canadian.

Besides, this is an awful business idea. If the NHL was to move some southern market teams I would understand and support that, but ignoring Boston, Pitt, Phi, Buf, Det, Chi, NY, and a few other teams I'm missing is ridiculous.

The other problem is that every time a team is struggling in the U.S. it is because they are struggling on the ice. Your new league will have struggling Canadian teams.

Who is to say that if on a 4-5 year playoff drought that fans would support a team from:

1) the maratimes
2) Quebec City
3) Hamilton
4) Kitchener

 

[ACC1224]

Although I completely agree with what you're saying, I don't see why another league can't be started up in North America. The only hurdle that the new league would face is history. That's the only thing thats on the NHL side.

Its almost the same as saying if Walmart is already in your city, then why would any other businesses try to come in?

Are any tickets in the league affordable? Outside of Florida/Tampa Bay/Phoenix, I wouldn't say that sitting up in the 300 section of a building, paying over $100 is reasonable.

It's not even remotely the same. Stores can sell the same merchandise while there is only 1 of each player.

 

[G51 K81*]

Although I completely agree with what you're saying, I don't see why another league can't be started up in North America. The only hurdle that the new league would face is history. That's the only thing thats on the NHL side.

Its almost the same as saying if Walmart is already in your city, then why would any other businesses try to come in?

Are any tickets in the league affordable? Outside of Florida/Tampa Bay/Phoenix, I wouldn't say that sitting up in the 300 section of a building, paying over $100 is reasonable.

Not true at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

Almost all of these would apply.

Also good luck on starting your business in direct competition with Wal-Mart. You will get steam rolled.