Owners cave again??

Status
Not open for further replies.

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
bhawk24bob said:
no, i said the nhl needs a team in chicago. whether you like it or not, the nhl needs teams in the biggest markets for a ton of reasons, all going back to money. i'll tell you what, we'll relocate the blackhawks to the quad cities, the bruins to little rock, the islanders to omaha, and we'll see where we're at. do you get the point? all are comparible to the size of edmonton in both population and how much the networks would care.

Here's the difference: They had 55,000 fans at a single game in Edmonton last year. I somehow doubt Omaha could scrape together that many fans for one game. Size of the city isn't the only factor, if it was there would be a team in Mexico City.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
bhawk24bob said:
no, i said the nhl needs a team in chicago. whether you like it or not, the nhl needs teams in the biggest markets for a ton of reasons, all going back to money. i'll tell you what, we'll relocate the blackhawks to the quad cities, the bruins to little rock, the islanders to omaha, and we'll see where we're at. do you get the point? all are comparible to the size of edmonton in both population and how much the networks would care.

When was the last time the blackhawks were broadcast nationaly? And correct me if I'm wrong but does Wirtz not black-out many of the Hawks home games (all of the ones that aren't sold out)?

Seems to me that fans in Chicago don't watch Hawks games on T.V. anyways... so them not having a team isn't going to change that.
 

Wolfpack

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
1,036
0
PitkanenPower said:
So then why is Edmonton having revenue problems? For all intents and purposes, most NHL arenas are around the same size. Why do the Oilers have trouble generating the revenue that Philadelphia does?


Well, let's see... where do I begin...

CDN dollar is worth currently 80% of the US dollar (as low as 60% a few years ago.) Since Edmonton is bringing in revenue in CDN dollars but paying players in US dollars, they're 20% behind off the bat.

Philly obviously generated much more money in TV & radio broadcast rights because of their massive population base.

Philly can charge a lot more for tickets.

Oilers travel expenses are probably at least 3 or 4 times that of the Flyers.

See where I'm going here? These are just off the top of my head - there are many more factors. You are an NFL fan - why is it that the Packers are able to make the playoffs almost every year when Green Bay has a population of less than 1/2 million - the smallest mareket in the league? It's because the NFL has a CBA that WORKS.
 

Reilly311

Guest
gc2005 said:
Here's the difference: They had 55,000 fans at a single game in Edmonton last year. I somehow doubt Omaha could scrape together that many fans for one game. Size of the city isn't the only factor, if it was there would be a team in Mexico City.


You think all of those 55,000 fans were edmonton fans? :lol
 

bhawk24bob

Registered User
Jan 25, 2005
378
5
gc2005 said:
Here's the difference: They had 55,000 fans at a single game in Edmonton last year. I somehow doubt Omaha could scrape together that many fans for one game. Size of the city isn't the only factor, if it was there would be a team in Mexico City.

you just don't get it do you? ITS NOT ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOW UP AT THE GAMES. we could stick all 30 teams up in canada, and besides toronto and montreal, where would the money come from? the owners are in this to make money...even those in the smaller markets. they couldn't care less about how many people show up at the games, as long as they're making money. professional sports are a business, and that's what this lockout is about- not evening out the quality of the teams.
 

NorthOiler

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
317
0
NWT
cneely said:
You miss the point. Teams need corporate support in terms on being able to pony up 15k for a pair of season tickets, or 500k for a luxury suite. Not oo many individuals can afford to do that, so teams need to depend on corporate ticket sales.


I'll gaurantee you they pay far less property tax than any of the Canadian teams do.

I heard the Montreal Canadians pay more in property tax than all the American teams combined - No link ... just something I heard a few years back.

Hopefully the Canadian cites which have an NHL team realize the economic impact this lock out has had on its own economy - maybe consideration for a tax reduction in order??? :dunno:
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
dawgbone said:
That's a lovely thought... until you factor in the fact that NHL player rosters consist of 23 players, not 25. And I realize that not every team is going to go over $40 mil. Not every team goes over that now... that doesn't change the fact that league economics are screwed up.

And I doubt you'll see a 10 year agreement... the old CBA was extended 2 times, and this kind of deal might not be extended depending on how the league's economic situation changes. If popularity continues to dwindle, the league is going to want to re-negotiate... likewise if it booms, the players are going to want to renegotiate.

So while it kind of works out in your little world... it may not work that way in real life. And I am not forgetting about the franchise player tag, because that matters. It's still a $60+ mil payroll, regardless of what the cap is, and that franchise player will still be a comparable for arbitration (if applicable) or a UFA contract. I don't think this changes much league-wide.


Oh man, how could I have been so wrong. I mean, instead of an average salary of $2.0833M, we're talking about $2.2727M. Pack it all in folks. We could get really technical and try to figure out the average number of 2-ways that get bought out by a team every year that could get counted towards a cap, but I mean come on. If we're going to quabble over a half-million, then I ask the question one more time for good measure - should that team be in the League?

Also, if you read my response to Bruinz, you'll see my previous comments about the franchise player. Let's take a team like Colorodo for example. They have their cap-eligble players maxed out at $50M and want to franchise Forsberg. Two things happen - 1. they higher they want to franchise Forsberg, the less they're going to want to max out at $50M, and 2. the hight they want to franchise Forsberg, the less likely Forsberg is to go to another team. Why? Because every other team is already going to have their franchise player, who they may not be able to fit under a cap, and certainly won't have the ability to fit Forsberg under the cap. So in effect, Forsberg's salary is only going to impact Forsberg. I think you'll see a lot less market-setting with a franchise tag for the franchise player.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
bhawk24bob said:
you're so off base it's laughable. do you actually think that anybody would miss edmonton, calgary, or ottowa outside of those cities? could the nhl exist without them? easily, in fact it would be better for it. vancouver's a different story because seattle is so close. could the nhl exist without teams in l.a., chicago, new york, or any other big city out east? absolutely not. i think you need to take a hard look in the mirror and realize edmonton's place in this. sure it would suck to be an oilers fan, but this lockout isn't for the oilers; it's for the nhl.

you can laugh all you want about the hawks attendance over the last 4 years. i bet if you take an average over the last 10 years, the hawks still have better attendance than the oilers. over the course of the oilers existance? i guarantee the hawks are still higher.


You're half right. The league could live just fine without the Oilers Flames, or Sens. It could also live just fine without the Hawks, Leafs, or Rags. Look at the NFL. This is a league that is absolutely thriving without an LA team. Do you think millions salivate over the NFL games say "God this league sucks... no LA".

Do you honestly think that fans of a Leafs Sens game would not go because there was no hawks. It would be largely irrelevant.
 

bhawk24bob

Registered User
Jan 25, 2005
378
5
dawgbone said:
When was the last time the blackhawks were broadcast nationaly? And correct me if I'm wrong but does Wirtz not black-out many of the Hawks home games (all of the ones that aren't sold out)?

Seems to me that fans in Chicago don't watch Hawks games on T.V. anyways... so them not having a team isn't going to change that.

where do mlb, basketball, and football get a ton of their money from? national tv contracts. a HUGE part of negotiating those contracts comes from where teams are located. do you think espn or nbc really care that edmonton has a team? nope. would they care if chicago (3rd biggest market in america) didnt have a team? bigtime. do you think having a mediocre team in l.a. and terrible teams in chicago and new york have contributed to the downfall of the nhl over the last 4 or 5 years? of course they did. what made the nba so popular in the late 80s and 90s? having good teams in new york and chicago.
 

bhawk24bob

Registered User
Jan 25, 2005
378
5
oil slick said:
You're half right. The league could live just fine without the Oilers Flames, or Sens. It could also live just fine without the Hawks, Leafs, or Rags. Look at the NFL. This is a league that is absolutely thriving without an LA team. Do you think millions salivate over the NFL games say "God this league sucks... no LA".

Do you honestly think that fans of a Leafs Sens game would not go because there was no hawks. It would be largely irrelevant.

there is a clause in the contract that fox has with the nfl that states that there has to be a team in l.a. by 2006.
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
Wolfpack said:
Well, let's see... where do I begin...

CDN dollar is worth currently 80% of the US dollar (as low as 60% a few years ago.) Since Edmonton is bringing in revenue in CDN dollars but paying players in US dollars, they're 20% behind off the bat.

Philly obviously generated much more money in TV & radio broadcast rights because of their massive population base.

Philly can charge a lot more for tickets.

Oilers travel expenses are probably at least 3 or 4 times that of the Flyers.

See where I'm going here? These are just off the top of my head - there are many more factors. You are an NFL fan - why is it that the Packers are able to make the playoffs almost every year when Green Bay has a population of less than 1/2 million - the smallest mareket in the league? It's because the NFL has a CBA that WORKS.


All valid points (except bringing up Green Bay opens up the "but they're owned by the public" can of worms). My question THEN becomes... if the Oilers (and just hear me out as I play devil's advocate) cannot compete with the US dollar, cannot generate the TV/radio revenue that other teams can, cannot charge more for their tickets, and now apparantly (from the sentiment in this thread) cannot reconcile the $12M difference between a $38M cap and a $50M cap (minus one player, granted), why do they then have the right to

a.) remain in Edmonton or
b.) remain in the League.

I think some people are getting the wrong impression of my stance. I am all for Canadian teams. I am much more for them than I am for warm weather teams. I just have a problem with having to service the lowest common denominator instead of meeting in the lower-end of the middle, which is what the rumors are stipulating.
 

Wolfpack

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
1,036
0
The more I think about this, the more unlikely this deal sounds. Why would the NHL go from a hard stance of reducing the average salary in the league from $1.8 million to $1.3 million to proposing a deal where the average salary has the potential to move UP to more than $2 million per player?

Doesn't make any sense. That's not negotiating, that's selling the farm.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
bhawk24bob said:
there is a clause in the contract that fox has with the nfl that states that there has to be a team in l.a. by 2006.

And how has NFL ratings been doing without LA (or without a decent team in Chicago for that matter)? The answer is awesome. I'm sure they would prefer to have LA vs. New York finals, but they are mostly trying to get a great product on the field. Do they hate to show Green Bay or Minnesota games on TV? not at all, because Farve and Moss are compelling characters, and the games are fun.

This is what the NHL needs, and frankly if they want to show exciting games, and great skill, I'm not sure Chicago fits the bill at the moment.
 

Cully9

Registered User
Oct 15, 2004
101
0
bhawk24bob said:
where do mlb, basketball, and football get a ton of their money from? national tv contracts. a HUGE part of negotiating those contracts comes from where teams are located. do you think espn or nbc really care that edmonton has a team? nope. would they care if chicago (3rd biggest market in america) didnt have a team? bigtime. do you think having a mediocre team in l.a. and terrible teams in chicago and new york have contributed to the downfall of the nhl over the last 4 or 5 years? of course they did. what made the nba so popular in the late 80s and 90s? having good teams in new york and chicago.

So, as long as the U.S. Networks, which are paying a pittance for NHL rights, don't care about Canadian cities, the league is better off without them? That's a sensible approach: sell out your die-hard constituents over an entity that is doing its damnedest to ignore you. It's that kind of approach that leaves people home alone on prom night.

There's no evidence that taking teams out of Edmonton, Ottawa or Calgary will get the NHL any closer to a rich U.S. TV deal, and it would also mean that Canadian rights fees would be significantly less. Say what you like about the Canadian dollar, but CBC, TSN and Sportsnet pay healthy sums for their respective NHL rights because more Canadians will watch a national game than Americans will, despite the population disparity.

I mean if the Stanley Cup finals are getting a million viewers in the States, how is that any better than having 3-4 million Canadians watching?
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
PitkanenPower said:
All valid points (except bringing up Green Bay opens up the "but they're owned by the public" can of worms). My question THEN becomes... if the Oilers (and just hear me out as I play devil's advocate) cannot compete with the US dollar, cannot generate the TV/radio revenue that other teams can, cannot charge more for their tickets, and now apparantly (from the sentiment in this thread) cannot reconcile the $12M difference between a $38M cap and a $50M cap (minus one player, granted), why do they then have the right to

a.) remain in Edmonton or
b.) remain in the League.

I think some people are getting the wrong impression of my stance. I am all for Canadian teams. I am much more for them than I am for warm weather teams. I just have a problem with having to service the lowest common denominator instead of meeting in the lower-end of the middle, which is what the rumors are stipulating.

Just a question... can the packers generate the same T.V. revenue, charge the same ticket prices, etc... as the Eagles?

The point is, the NFL can make a system where there are 30 healthy and successful (financially anyways) teams. Granted, a big part of that is a T.V. deal that virtually guarantees a profit, but wouldn't it serve the NHL better if they can have 30 healthy teams that they can build a national fanbase out of?

You aren't punishing rich teams by forcing them to limit their spendings... I just don't see how anyone can say that. Philadelphia making $16 mil more per year in profits is not punishment.
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
bhawk24bob said:
there is a clause in the contract that fox has with the nfl that states that there has to be a team in l.a. by 2006.

:dunno: Uh, I don't know about that one. NFL expansion franchises are announced several years in advance, and there's been no significant talks about teams moving. Seeing as it's 2005, the League couldn't be betting on a team moving.
 

shnagle

Registered User
Apr 27, 2003
131
70
NYC
Visit site
Wolfpack said:
Well, let's see... where do I begin...

CDN dollar is worth currently 80% of the US dollar (as low as 60% a few years ago.) Since Edmonton is bringing in revenue in CDN dollars but paying players in US dollars, they're 20% behind off the bat.

Philly obviously generated much more money in TV & radio broadcast rights because of their massive population base.

Philly can charge a lot more for tickets.

Oilers travel expenses are probably at least 3 or 4 times that of the Flyers.

See where I'm going here? These are just off the top of my head - there are many more factors. You are an NFL fan - why is it that the Packers are able to make the playoffs almost every year when Green Bay has a population of less than 1/2 million - the smallest mareket in the league? It's because the NFL has a CBA that WORKS.
Green Bay survives because in addition to being in a salary capped league, they get revenue from meaningful revenue sharing and a huge TV contract. That is the only reason small market teams are able to survive financially in the NFL. The NHL has neither.
 

F. Duchemin

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
776
0
St-Hilaire
JWI19 said:
They have to limit what a so called franchise player is. Sorry signing a UFA and calling him your franchise player is just plain wrong. For a players to be deemed a franchise player they need to be drafted by that team and/or been a member with that team for at least 5 consecutive years.

Nice idea. ( reply to a post in first page.. )
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
PitkanenPower said:
Hold on, now, this is starting to get ridiculous.

A $36M cap where a significant portion of teams would have to cut, buyout, or disperse up to half their payroll (read: talent) to satisfy the 5 or 6 teams who suffer from poor revenue generation (for whatever reasons) is good for the game? Yet a cap only $14M more where there is a possibility for one player to not count towards that cap is going to bring on bankruptcy? Why do I get the feeling that if the cap was set at Calgary's payroll (minus Iginla's "franchise" salary), we wouldn't be having this conversation?

Stop making sense! :)

You are up against a few persecuted fans of inept (or ineptly funded) teams who think the NHL (and NHLPA) should bow to their needs alone.

Look at the big picture? What's good for the entire game, and moderately beneficial to all teams, as opposed to a few?

Not on their myopic agenda.

For them, reality (as in: compromising; getting part of what you want, as opposed to everything) bites. :joker:
 
Last edited:

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
PitkanenPower said:
First of all, when you're complaining that disparity exists between two teams - one with a $22M payroll, one with a $77M payroll - and they both made the playoffs last year, then there is a problem going on in your logic.

Second, and I'll say it again, it sounds more and more like a lot of you were expecting a low cap not to just level the payroll across the league, but to pick up some high priced talent along the way.

Third, if you were fine with a $38M hard cap, but now are not fine with a $50M hard cap (minus one player) because you think teams won't be able to compete with a :eek: $12M :eek: payroll disparity, then you need to rethink what kind of league you're looking for. I think the NLL might be more up your alley. But then again, the NLL contracts and moves teams all the time when their market can't support it. Hmm, what an interesting concept.......

1. "they both made the playoffs last year..." do you really believe that there is any kind of comparison between the Red Wings and the Preditors??? Give me a break!!
How many times in the last 10 years have the Wings been Cup contenders at playoff time? 10? How many Cups have they won in the last ten years? 3? How many times have the Preditors made the playoffs? 1. How many times have they been contenders? NEVER!!! come on...did you write that with a straight face??
In the last ten years Detroit, Colorado, Dallas, St Louis, Toronto and Philly are always in the top 7 in payroll and have missed the playoffs a grand total of once in the last 10 years and are usually legit cup contenders. If you think that any team in the bottom 10 in payroll is EVER in the cup contender list, you are lost and they only occasionally go as far as to make the playoffs at all.

2. Yes, the $38m hard cap would help spread the marquee players more round the league rather than have 4 or 5 stacked teams and 8 or 10 no name teams. Thats just not good for the league.

3. You are spinning the numbers to your benefit and not reading them truely. you say, "you were fine with a $38M hard cap, but now are not fine with a $50M hard cap (minus one player) because you think teams won't be able to compete with a :eek: $12M :eek: payroll disparity, then you need to rethink what kind of league you're looking for.".....we its not a $12m disparity. its more like a $22m disparity.
Those 5 or 7 big spender teams with payrolls currently between $60m and $80m can afford $50 + one big contract while at least half of the league can't afford to go much over the $38m mark. so..you say $50m (minus one player) and then forget that about adding the big contract for that one player back into the financial disparity. oops
 

i am dave

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
2,182
1
Corner of 1st & 1st
dawgbone said:
Just a question... can the packers generate the same T.V. revenue, charge the same ticket prices, etc... as the Eagles?

The point is, the NFL can make a system where there are 30 healthy and successful (financially anyways) teams. Granted, a big part of that is a T.V. deal that virtually guarantees a profit, but wouldn't it serve the NHL better if they can have 30 healthy teams that they can build a national fanbase out of?

You aren't punishing rich teams by forcing them to limit their spendings... I just don't see how anyone can say that. Philadelphia making $16 mil more per year in profits is not punishment.


Well, first of all, there's no local TV contract to be had in the NFL. Secondly, the Eagles are profitable and successful, AND $22M under the cap. Third, the NFL has a high cap AND franchise tags.

I agree with you that the NHL can also have 30 healthy teams. I disagree with you in that I think teams like Edmonton can still be healthy with a $50M cap. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate when I'm talking about Edmonton folding or moving because I don't see the difference between life and death for a franchise existing over a $12M difference in a cap (granted, minus one player).

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but from my side it really looks like a lot of people were expecting a low cap, which would have forced many teams to cut/buyout/disperse players - good players - that would end up on teams like Edmonton. It sounds like some folks were looking more for a fantasy draft than establishing a salary cap.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
bhawk24bob said:
where do mlb, basketball, and football get a ton of their money from? national tv contracts. a HUGE part of negotiating those contracts comes from where teams are located. do you think espn or nbc really care that edmonton has a team? nope. would they care if chicago (3rd biggest market in america) didnt have a team? bigtime.

Why would they care if Chicago has a team? No one in chicago watches the blackhawks anyways. Besides, the t.v. money the NHL gets from Canada, is much more than what they get from NBC. Do you think the NHL would get as much money from CBC or TSN (for national broadcasts) without a team in Edmonton, or Calgary.

Guess what? Edmonton brings more T.V. revenue for the NHL than Chicago does... because the NBC deal offers no money for the NHL up front.

do you think having a mediocre team in l.a. and terrible teams in chicago and new york have contributed to the downfall of the nhl over the last 4 or 5 years? of course they did.

I doubt that. Chicago has been mediocre for 40 years. The Rangers still sellout and still have a high viewership. L.A. got rid of Gretzky, and that hurt them. But aside from that, a general degrading of the excitment of the product has lead to the downfall of the NHL. The NBA has been successful over recent years despite only having a couple of very strong big markets.

what made the nba so popular in the late 80s and 90s? having good teams in new york and chicago.

When the hell were the knicks a good team? And I'd argue Michael Jordan had more to do with popularity than the Knicks. Put Jordan on any team and he would still have been just as popular, and so would the league. Cleveland isn't a huge market, but Lebron is one of the most exciting things in the league.

You have to have something people want to see... not necessarily where the most people want to see it.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
Trottier said:
Stop making sense! :)

You are up against a few persecuted fans of inept (or ineptly funded) teams who think the NHL (and NHLPA) should bow to their needs alone.

Look at the big picture? What's good for the entire game, and moderately beneficial to all teams, as opposed to a few?

Not on their myopic agenda.

For them, reality (as in: compromising; getting part of what you want, as opposed to everything) bites. :joker:


I see. So the last 10 years of a few teams offering ridiculouse contracts to any UFA they can think of has been.... good for the game? Yes, I see that over paying so that the same 8 teams can have all the marquee players has really made the NHL a vibrant, wonderful league.

Thanks for pointing out our myopic agenda.
 

bennysflyers16

Registered User
Jan 26, 2004
84,295
62,228
oil slick said:
I see. So the last 10 years of a few teams offering ridiculouse contracts to any UFA they can think of has been.... good for the game? Yes, I see that over paying so that the same 8 teams can have all the marquee players has really made the NHL a vibrant, wonderful league.

Thanks for pointing out our myopic agenda.


Were the Oiler fans complaining in the 80's when they had all the marquee players ?? Also, the days of the 10 million dollar player are over. The owners have slowly been fixing that of late.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
bhawk24bob said:
you're so off base it's laughable. do you actually think that anybody would miss edmonton, calgary, or ottowa outside of those cities? could the nhl exist without them? easily, in fact it would be better for it. vancouver's a different story because seattle is so close. could the nhl exist without teams in l.a., chicago, new york, or any other big city out east? absolutely not. i think you need to take a hard look in the mirror and realize edmonton's place in this. sure it would suck to be an oilers fan, but this lockout isn't for the oilers; it's for the nhl.

you can laugh all you want about the hawks attendance over the last 4 years. i bet if you take an average over the last 10 years, the hawks still have better attendance than the oilers. over the course of the oilers existance? i guarantee the hawks are still higher.

I guarantee you, that you could take away all the American teams and have an all Canadian league, and it would survive just fine. Chicago, other than being an original six team, brings nothing to the league. Say what you want, but Canada is way more important to the existence of the league than you'd like to admit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->