New Eklund Post! Re:Cap/NHL teams Splitting?

[Riddarn]

About a super league including Europe, the teams in Europe wouldn't generate enough revenues to compete with the ones in NA, so better forget about it.

Any attempt to create a european NHL division or super league will fail miserably. The fans are too loyal to their local teams and domestic leagues, and there are nobody who would pay the ridiculous ticket prices. Frankly I think those astronomical ticket prices are a bigger threat to the sport long term than this little labour dispute.

 

[grego]

I know you can not move an NHL team on a whim in the NHL, but as to the logos that is hard to say. Definately the NHL logo and all those names to the league are tied up by the NHL

But to move a team needs approval by the Board of Governors. They have blocked teams from getting moved before by the vote a of a few people on the board.

If you need an example I would give, the proposed move of the St Louis Blues, to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan ( a move that if it had gone through would have seen the team move in the 90s because they could have never supported a team through escalating pay of the 90s in a city of about 220 000 ).

 

[Russian Fan]

I doubt a 6 team league would gather enough interest to survive on its own. About a super league including Europe, the teams in Europe wouldn't generate enough revenues to compete with the ones in NA, so better forget about it.

I wouldn't say that :

#1- The Euro money is worth more than the US dollar
#2- Unlike North America , hockey in Europe built their revenue based on TV , Sponsorship. In the US & Canada , revenues is built from the gate & the merchandise.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

I know you can not move an NHL team on a whim in the NHL, but as to the logos that is hard to say. Definately the NHL logo and all those names to the league are tied up by the NHL

But to move a team needs approval by the Board of Governors. They have blocked teams from getting moved before by the vote a of a few people on the board.

If you need an example I would give, the proposed move of the St Louis Blues, to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan ( a move that if it had gone through would have seen the team move in the 90s because they could have never supported a team through escalating pay of the 90s in a city of about 220 000 ).

any owner that wants to move can move that team. please see the court case

Al Davis vs The NFL

As long as that owner doesn't have a lease agrement with the city he is leaving he can move his team any place he wants. The NHL would lose any court case if they tried to block a franchise move.

 

[Riddarn]

I wouldn't say that :

#1- The Euro money is worth more than the US dollar
#2- Unlike North America , hockey in Europe built their revenue based on TV , Sponsorship. In the US & Canada , revenues is built from the gate & the merchandise.

The european clubs are also gate and merchandise based. Sponsorship is part of it too, but not the biggest part.

 

[CREW99AW]

And if they do? So what? More than enough other players to go around. 27 players made over $6.5 million last year, if you give one each to the 24 teams in the "new" NHL, that still leaves dozens and dozens of other players free for the Super Six. Like Tanguay, and Kovalchouk, and Heately and so on.

If the 24 up the salaries of those guys, into the $6 million + range, not only are they contributing to the "inflationary system" they are so afraid, but they eat up all their cap room. 27 guys making over $6.5 million. Over 50 more made over $4 million. And that DOESN'T include up and comers like Gaborik, Hejduk, Gagne, Hossa, Lecavalier and a bunch of others. Nor does it include rookies like Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby, who in theory would be forced to accept $800,000 caps on their earnings (or up to a million, whatever).

You'd end up with a bidding war. One side has tonnes of money, and no restrictions on how to spend it. The other side claims they have no money, and they aren't allowed to spend past a certain amount anyways.

Who do you think would win?

I didn't say one of the 24 nhl teams would pay Tanguay or Kariya $6m+.I said they would pay more then the $1.5m the Avs are listed paying Tanguay or the $1.2m you have them listed paying Kariya.Just as you point out the breakaway 6 would sign players from the 24 nhl teams,expect the 24 nhl teams to go after the lower paid stars from the breakaway 6 league.

and of the 25 players who made over $6.5m in 2003-2004,almost all are from the 6 teams who'd breakaway.



1 Forsberg, Peter $ 11,000,000 Colorado Avalanche
2 Jagr, Jaromir $ 11,000,000 New York Rangers
4 Fedorov, Sergei $ 10,000,000 Anaheim Mighty Ducks
5 Lidstrom, Nicklas $ 10,000,000 Detroit Red Wings
6 Tkachuk, Keith $ 10,000,000 St. Louis Blues
7 Sakic, Joe $ 9,880,939 Colorado Avalanche
8 Pronger, Chris $ 9,500,000 St. Louis Blues
9 Blake, Rob $ 9,326,519 Colorado Avalanche
10 LeClair, John $ 9,000,000 Philadelphia Flyers
11 Modano, Mike $ 9,000,000 Dallas Stars
12 Sundin, Mats $ 9,000,000 Toronto Maple Leafs
13 Guerin, Bill $ 8,866,445 Dallas Stars
14 Holik, Bobby $ 8,850,000 New York Rangers
15 Weight, Doug $ 8,500,000 St. Louis Blues
18 Joseph, Curtis $ 8,000,000 Detroit Red Wings
20 Roenick, Jeremy $ 7,500,000 Philadelphia Flyers
21 Turgeon, Pierre $ 7,500,000 Dallas Stars
22 Belfour, Ed $ 7,000,000 Toronto Maple Leafs

I also don't agree that the breakaway 6 all have tons of $ and no restrictions on how to spend it.At least 2 of the 6 teams saying they are losing money(Stars+Wings)

So the breakaway 6 would start out with
1.$55m-$70m+ payrolls.
2.at least 2 of the 6 teams saying they are losing money(Stars+Wings)
3.no major tv deal.
4.a competing league(who's fans will support their local teams and not the breakway 6).
5.a large part of Cablevision's(NYR) profits, comes from advertising.I doubt Dolan would want to lose the heated Ranger/Isles or Ranger/Devil rivalries.

 

[PecaFan]

Um, guys? This is lovely speculation and all, but it's based on a totally bogus foundation.

A breakaway league will be lucky to have $60 million in *revenue*, not salary. Nobody is going to pay big bucks to watch some fly by night "New Original Six" league with no history.

 

[me2]

Umm, okay??


Forsberg, Peter $ 11,000,000 C
Sakic, Joe $ 9,880,939 C
Blake, Rob $ 9,326,519 D
Selanne, Teemu $ 5,800,000 RW
Foote, Adam $ 4,300,000 D
Morris, Derek $ 3,500,000 D
Hejduk, Milan $ 3,200,000 RW
Nikolishin, Andrei $ 1,750,000 C
Konowalchuk, Steve $ 1,575,000 LW
Tanguay, Alex $ 1,500,000 LW
Skoula, Martin $ 1,350,000 D
Skrastins, Karlis $ 1,200,000 D
Kariya, Paul $ 1,200,000 LW
Worrell, Peter $ 800,000 LW
McCormick, Cody $ 700,000 C
Hinote, Dan $ 700,000 RW
McAllister, Chris $ 650,000 D
Larsen, Brad $ 565,000 LW
Aebischer, David $ 550,000 G
Liles, John-Michael $ 550,000 D
Sauve, Philippe $ 500,000 G
Smith, D.J. $ 500,000 D
Svatos, Marek $ 450,000 RW
Moore, Steve $ 425,000 C
Hahl, Riku $ 385,000 C
Cummins, Jim $ 350,000 RW
Kliazmine, Sergei $ 350,000 LW
Brigley, Travis $ 325,000 C

Total: $ 63,382,458

And how is this "Super team" significantly better than the current, ooh lets say, Colorado Avalanche?

 

[me2]

You'd end up with a bidding war. One side has tonnes of money, and no restrictions on how to spend it. The other side claims they have no money, and they aren't allowed to spend past a certain amount anyways.

Who do you think would win?

The stars. They won't be worth the dollars from a winning hockey point of view, but they'll get it since its not about winning hockey.

As for the leagues, neither, they'd both end up complete losers. The weaker clubs have about 1/2 as much to spend per team, but 4 times as many teams. They could try for a payroll around $25m-40m each. The 6 teams spending $70m are going to struggle against that buying power, its the stars that will win in the bidding wars as both sides try to grab the marque players PURELY for branding. Wasting their money on stars won't make them better teams, just better recognised. Its the 600 other players that will get slaughtered because there is no cash left to pay them.

 

[JohnnyReb]

And how is this "Super team" significantly better than the current, ooh lets say, Colorado Avalanche?

I don't know about it being better than the Colorado Avalanche, but I'd put pretty good money on it beating the Nashville Predators.

Which would you rather pay money to go see?

The stars. They won't be worth the dollars from a winning hockey point of view, but they'll get it since its not about winning hockey.

As for the leagues, neither, they'd both end up complete losers. The weaker clubs have about 1/2 as much to spend per team, but 4 times as many teams. They could try for a payroll around $25m-40m each. The 6 teams spending $70m are going to struggle against that buying power, its the stars that will win in the bidding wars as both sides try to grab the marque players PURELY for branding. Wasting their money on stars won't make them better teams, just better recognised. Its the 600 other players that will get slaughtered because there is no cash left to pay them.

Exactly. Which is why the Super Six use it as a threat - "we'll bring down the whole league, to get what we want." The whole premise was based on the fact that the Super Six did not like the way things were going in the CBA negotiaions, and wanted to force things more their way.

Sounds stupid, but isn't that what's happening now?

 

[CREW99AW]

I don't know about it being better than the Colorado Avalanche, but I'd put pretty good money on it beating the Nashville Predators.

Which would you rather pay money to go see?



Exactly. Which is why the Super Six use it as a threat - "we'll bring down the whole league, to get what we want." The whole premise was based on the fact that the Super Six did not like the way things were going in the CBA negotiaions, and wanted to force things more their way.

Sounds stupid, but isn't that what's happening now?

I want to see whichever team is playing against my team,trying to keep them from getting 2 pts for their playoff race.

Mac Engel wrote in the Star-Telegram that 10 yrs ago Bettman wanted to hold out for a salary cap when the league locked out the players.In a recent article he quotes Gord Miller, who says big market owners in Philadelphia, Toronto, Detroit and New York went behind Bettman's back and got a different deal done.

looks like Bettman was determined to avoid a repeat of that and had that clause written into his contract,where he only needs the support of 8 teams to block the owners who want to settle for a luxury tax instead of salary cap.

 

[thinkwild]

Exactly. Which is why the Super Six use it as a threat - "we'll bring down the whole league, to get what we want." The whole premise was based on the fact that the Super Six did not like the way things were going in the CBA negotiaions, and wanted to force things more their way.

Sounds stupid, but isn't that what's happening now?

6-8 hardliners, led by the makers out of spite of the Lapointe and Federov contracts, now complaining the problems were systemic. Good point. And so 6 current nhl businessmen owners that feel they know what they are doing and arent spending themselves into bankruptcy and are operating quite fine in a market of the best could equally get fed up with the process being hijacked by hardliners.

Or what if the 6 Canadian teams played out the season for a special cup?

 

[Icey]

Mac Engel wrote in the Star-Telegram that 10 yrs ago Bettman wanted to hold out for a salary cap when the league locked out the players.In a recent article he quotes Gord Miller, who says big market owners in Philadelphia, Toronto, Detroit and New York went behind Bettman's back and got a different deal done.

looks like Bettman was determined to avoid a repeat of that and had that clause written into his contract,where he only needs the support of 8 teams to block the owners who want to settle for a luxury tax instead of salary cap.

Actually its not a clause that was "written" into his contract but rather a clause of the CBA that the owners voted on. Its the same reason that the owners get fined if they speak out regarding the CBA, Bettman is just enforcing what they voted on.


They are not necessarily under Bettman's rule but rather protecting themselves from each other.

Kind of sad if you ask me.