TOR vs PIT

[SENSible1*]

great ! how do we gurantee that Wirtz sells local TV rights ?

shouldnt the players be allowed demand that since their pay is tied to the teams abilities to generate revenue ?

dr

Do you honestly think he won't?

Both these owners made decisions to pull back until they got a more favourable deal. Once they do, they'll expoit their markets for every penny they can get.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Do you honestly think he won't?

Both these owners made decisions to pull back until they got a more favourable deal. Once they do, they'll expoit their markets for every penny they can get.

he has never had a local tv deal since owning the team. i have no idea how long it is, but he has been the CHI owner for a long time.

he believes having local TV will mean people wont come to his games. lol.

ok, so how about once siding with the "dark side" ? hmm ?

dr

 

[Stephen]

hi, how are you ?

you might want to brush up on the NHL proposal that requires every team to have a payroll between 51% and 57% of league revenues.

dr

The point still stands. If the Pens can't pay $34 million dollars, and their owners/Pittsburgh can't or won't shell out for a better facility - if they can't survive on their own without handouts from other teams, I don't think it would make sense to keep them around.

 

[RandV]

If the Pittsburgh Penguins or any team needs a bunch of revenue sharing preconditions to survive, I wonder why anybody should even try to save them. Why should the economically viable teams give up their hard earned money to pay for a bad businesses? What incentive would there be to build a good business? 'Gee whiz, I spent half a billion dollars for a brand new arena, but instead of reaping the rewards and putting increased revenue back into my on ice product, I have to foot the bill for some bush league operation in Pittsburgh or some bs team in the tropics.' And would it be fair to fans of successful teams? Ok, I can pay $200 for a ticket to a Leafs game and pay truckloads of money for parking and beer, but instead of seeing my team actually use that money to improve the team, I'll be forced to watch the Leafs revenue go to foot the bill for some other mediocre team in Pennsylvania. Is that fair?

Nobody's forcing Pittsburgh to spend $34 million. If they can't do it, don't expect other people to pay your way.

Hmm, maybe because in many cases its not a matter of being a bad business, but being unfortunate to have your business in a poor marketplace? It's not a matter of a badly managed business vs well managed business. The Leafs have shown that you can be succesfull despite being poorly managed, like back in the days of whats his name. It's a matter of the rich helping the poor to create a competitive balance where any well managed team can compete. Unless of course you want it to be like MLB where its the same teams winning all the time.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The point still stands. If the Pens can't pay $34 million dollars, and their owners/Pittsburgh can't or won't shell out for a better facility - if they can't survive on their own without handouts from other teams, I don't think it would make sense to keep them around.

i think you are debating with the wrong guy my friend. i have never said otherwise.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

he has never had a local tv deal since owning the team. i have no idea how long it is, but he has been the CHI owner for a long time.

he believes having local TV will mean people wont come to his games. lol.

ok, so how about once siding with the "dark side" ? hmm ?

dr

I'm all for the PA having the power to take him to arbitration over the issue and having a say on the marketing of the game within a committee. I'm not sure your memory is 100% accurate, as I seem to recall that they had a TV deal and then withdrew it. I could be wrong though.

 

[Stephen]

Hmm, maybe because in many cases its not a matter of being a bad business, but being unfortunate to have your business in a poor marketplace? It's not a matter of a badly managed business vs well managed business. The Leafs have shown that you can be succesfull despite being poorly managed, like back in the days of whats his name. It's a matter of the rich helping the poor to create a competitive balance where any well managed team can compete. Unless of course you want it to be like MLB where its the same teams winning all the time.

Well, I guess that's just the luck of the draw, isn't it?

Why should the NHL continue to cater to a poor market place when that market place refuses to build a new facility to improve its financial lot? The Penguins are one of the most poorly run franchises anyway, from top to bottom. The previous ownership overspent beyond their means. They trade away all of their bankable star players away only to pay their old, injury prone owner $5 million a year to sit out 80% of the games. They sell off all NHL talent for ECHL junk. They alienate their fans to the point that they draw 10,000 a game. It's hard to believe that the Pens can't afford a $34 million dollar payroll when they were paying more than that for their teams in the mid 90s.

If Pittsburgh is a 'poor market place,' why should any business want to stay there?

 

[craig1]

The point still stands. If the Pens can't pay $34 million dollars, and their owners/Pittsburgh can't or won't shell out for a better facility - if they can't survive on their own without handouts from other teams, I don't think it would make sense to keep them around.

Did you bother to read any of the ramblings earlier in the post, or did you just decide to jump midstream and give the same ole line that was debunked earlier?

 

[V for Voodoo]

The Leafs, Rangers, Flyers and Wings could lower prices, they have the flexibility and fat to do so. I could see MLSE dropping ticket prices quite a bit since hey could slash $30m off the payroll and knock $15m of ticket revenue (massively lower ticket prices) and still pocket an extra $15m each year. PR would almost dictate they do it.

No chance in hell that Toronto slashes prices regardless of the outcome.
Supply and demand. Fans want the tickets, Leafs will charge as much as the fan is willing to pay.

 

[Steve Latin*]

Gee whiz, I spent half a billion dollars for a brand new arena, but instead of reaping the rewards and putting increased revenue back into my on ice product, I have to foot the bill for some bush league operation in Pittsburgh or some bs team in the tropics.'

The "bush league operation in Pittsburgh" has had more success in the last 15 years than that "major league operation" in Toronto. Revenue sharing ensures that a team with a few losing seasons resulting in dwindling ticket sales can get back on its feet again and become competitive. Yes, there are some hockey markets that will draw whether the team wins or loses, but these are few and far between. For everywhere other than Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, and Philadelphia ticket sales are correlated to record -- why should I in Pittsburgh pay the same money, as a fan, as you in Toronto only to watch my team lose to a stacked deck? However, if I know my team has a fighting chance, it's a different story. Don't like it? Form a 4 team league....

S L

 

[Steve Latin*]

Well, I guess that's just the luck of the draw, isn't it?

Why should the NHL continue to cater to a poor market place when that market place refuses to build a new facility to improve its financial lot? The Penguins are one of the most poorly run franchises anyway, from top to bottom. The previous ownership overspent beyond their means. They trade away all of their bankable star players away only to pay their old, injury prone owner $5 million a year to sit out 80% of the games. They sell off all NHL talent for ECHL junk. They alienate their fans to the point that they draw 10,000 a game. It's hard to believe that the Pens can't afford a $34 million dollar payroll when they were paying more than that for their teams in the mid 90s.

If Pittsburgh is a 'poor market place,' why should any business want to stay there?

You're a LEAFS fan and you're complaining about the Penguins being poorly managed? Have you forgot the last 20 years of the Leaf history? You're a funny, funny, guy.

Pittsburgh is a bad hockey market for a losing team stuck in a hopeless situation. However, for a good hockey team playing on a somewhat level playing field it can do quite well for itself. You might not realize it, but the Pens have one of the most lucrative local TV contracts / viewership in hockey.

If you fix it, they will come.

S L

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I'm all for the PA having the power to take him to arbitration over the issue and having a say on the marketing of the game within a committee. I'm not sure your memory is 100% accurate, as I seem to recall that they had a TV deal and then withdrew it. I could be wrong though.

im positive about the TV thing in CHI, but am willing to be proven wrong.

i think a marketing committee is a must, good idea.

dr

 

[sabresfan65]

The point still stands. If the Pens can't pay $34 million dollars, and their owners/Pittsburgh can't or won't shell out for a better facility - if they can't survive on their own without handouts from other teams, I don't think it would make sense to keep them around.

Have fun in your 6 team league, because if everyone thought like you thats all that would be left.

 

[me2]

No chance in hell that Toronto slashes prices regardless of the outcome.
Supply and demand. Fans want the tickets, Leafs will charge as much as the fan is willing to pay.

Call me deluded but the Leafs management is going to have to sell that $30m in payroll slashing somehow. The Leaf fans aren't going to like it when their team gets pulled to bits, and lowering ticket prices might be good way of getting back onside. Even if they give away $15m in ticket revenue they still pocket $15m extra. Long term prices will go back up but it might be nice if they did this short term.

 

[Bicycle Repairman]

The Harold Ballard Rule: Never lower ticket prices, regardless of team's fortunes.

The only Torontonians who benefit from lower Leaf ticket prices are the scalpers.

 

[Stephen]

The "bush league operation in Pittsburgh" has had more success in the last 15 years than that "major league operation" in Toronto. Revenue sharing ensures that a team with a few losing seasons resulting in dwindling ticket sales can get back on its feet again and become competitive. Yes, there are some hockey markets that will draw whether the team wins or loses, but these are few and far between. For everywhere other than Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, and Philadelphia ticket sales are correlated to record -- why should I in Pittsburgh pay the same money, as a fan, as you in Toronto only to watch my team lose to a stacked deck? However, if I know my team has a fighting chance, it's a different story. Don't like it? Form a 4 team league....

S L

So because I support a team that was mismanaged for 20 years, I can't criticize the Penguins for their management problems? For all of the mismanagement of Harold Ballard, the Leafs never became a financial disaster the way Pittsburgh has. Yes, the mighty Penguins have had a lot of success in the past fifteen years, something Leaf fans know nothing about, blah blah blah. The Pens were clearly mismanaged. Even with financial problems looming, the Pens remained one of the highest spending teams in the NHL well into the previous CBA.
(http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm) When financial disaster hits, they dump all of their stars and ice an AHL level team for 2 seasons without any interest in drawing fans. Then, they allocate $6 million of a $20 million payroll to pay their owner to play a grand total of 10 games, all the while drawing a pitiful team on the ice.

Even with rebuilding, where are the Penguins going to be in 5 years with their current financial setup? Can they survive on their own power? Who knows? All I'm saying is they shouldn't be propped up by other teams, and other teams shouldn't be handicapped to compete at a lower level just so the poor team can survive on a subsistence level like window dressing.

 

[Stephen]

Have fun in your 6 team league, because if everyone thought like you thats all that would be left.

I don't really see a big problem with a smaller league. What's with this 'the more the merrier' approach to the NHL anyway? What is the goal here, to put an NHL franchise in every town in North America? What is really the point in having a bunch of financially unstable, undersized markets included in the league anyway if the powers that be are going to have to rig up an elaborate life support sysetm to keep them going? How about we expand into Hamilton and Toledo and then have the Leafs and Rangers pay for their operation, just to be inclusive.

 

[Steve Latin*]

So because I support a team that was mismanaged for 20 years, I can't criticize the Penguins for their management problems?

Criticism isn't opportunistic, mean-spirited low blows.

For all of the mismanagement of Harold Ballard, the Leafs never became a financial disaster the way Pittsburgh has.

The Pens are a financial disaster? It seems to me they are one of the only teams in the league operating on a budget. They've done what they needed to do to mitigate their losses and keep their heads above water. have they lopt a bit of money over the past few years, where they finished in the bottom 5 of the league 3 times? Absolutely.... but probably a lot less than a "successful" team like the Kings or the Blues. They did what they needed to do, what's wrong with that?

Yes, the mighty Penguins have had a lot of success in the past fifteen years, something Leaf fans know nothing about, blah blah blah. The Pens were clearly mismanaged. Even with financial problems looming, the Pens remained one of the highest spending teams in the NHL well into the previous CBA.

No argument there. But what does it say about a system when a team needs to be grossly mismanaged in order to be successful? Where ownership is tempted into that line of thinking, and one guy does it and shoots everyone else in the foot to get ahead?

When financial disaster hits, they dump all of their stars and ice an AHL level team for 2 seasons without any interest in drawing fans. Then, they allocate $6 million of a $20 million payroll to pay their owner to play a grand total of 10 games, all the while drawing a pitiful team on the ice.

Enough with the Lemieux potshots. Any team in the league would be glad to have him at that price -- he's worth it for the ticket sales alone. Second, they didn't dump all their stars when a financial disaster hit -- they kept Jagr long after bankruptcy, which is the only "financial disaster" they've actually had.

Was the team pitiful? It sure was bad, but to call the Pens an AHL level team you better be including Washington, Chicago, and Columbus in that category too.

Even with rebuilding, where are the Penguins going to be in 5 years with their current financial setup? Can they survive on their own power? Who knows? All I'm saying is they shouldn't be propped up by other teams, and other teams shouldn't be handicapped to compete at a lower level just so the poor team can survive on a subsistence level like window dressing.

If it's about surviving on a subsistence level (like the Pirates, for instance), then I agree with you completely. But really revenue sharing is about introducing more parity in the league (which means a better on-ice product IMHO) and getting teams not in TOR, MTL, NY, PHIL, DET, etc through rough financial times so they don't alienate their fanbase, can keep their star players, and can field a non-AHL level team even when they're stuck in a multi-year rut.

It seems to be working in the NFL...

S L

 

[Steve Latin*]

I don't really see a big problem with a smaller league. What's with this 'the more the merrier' approach to the NHL anyway? What is the goal here, to put an NHL franchise in every town in North America? What is really the point in having a bunch of financially unstable, undersized markets included in the league anyway if the powers that be are going to have to rig up an elaborate life support sysetm to keep them going? How about we expand into Hamilton and Toledo and then have the Leafs and Rangers pay for their operation, just to be inclusive.

You're forgetting TV contracts, merchandising, etc... with 6 teams that adds up to squat. With 30, you're talking about the potential to reach a lot more people, and thus pull in a lot more money. Obviously there's an optimal number of teams somewhere -- you put a team in Hamilton and Toledo and your returns are going to dimish rapidly.

Besides, wouldn't a 6 team league just be boring? Half the fun of the post season is the Cinderalla story. You can't have that when you have 6 evenly matched powerhouses.

S L

 

[Lionel Hutz]

What purpose does this thread serve?

There's nothing worthwhile being discussed here.

 

[PecaFan]

Well yeah, but that's the same in pretty much all the threads. :lol

 

[I.am.ca]

great so if PIT is in fine shape, why are we shutting down the NHL to save them ?

dr

Ok lets pry that foot out of your mouth. Where during this whole mess does it say the Lockout is for the Penguins?

 

[I.am.ca]

So because I support a team that was mismanaged for 20 years, I can't criticize the Penguins for their management problems? For all of the mismanagement of Harold Ballard, the Leafs never became a financial disaster the way Pittsburgh has. Yes, the mighty Penguins have had a lot of success in the past fifteen years, something Leaf fans know nothing about, blah blah blah. The Pens were clearly mismanaged. Even with financial problems looming, the Pens remained one of the highest spending teams in the NHL well into the previous CBA.
(http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm) When financial disaster hits, they dump all of their stars and ice an AHL level team for 2 seasons without any interest in drawing fans. Then, they allocate $6 million of a $20 million payroll to pay their owner to play a grand total of 10 games, all the while drawing a pitiful team on the ice.

Even with rebuilding, where are the Penguins going to be in 5 years with their current financial setup? Can they survive on their own power? Who knows? All I'm saying is they shouldn't be propped up by other teams, and other teams shouldn't be handicapped to compete at a lower level just so the poor team can survive on a subsistence level like window dressing.

Well your Maple Leafs must REALLY SUCK cuz according to you the "AHL LEVEL TALENT" penguins beat your Maple Leafs 3-2 March 11th this year and went on a 12-3-2 run for the last 27 games and beat teams like the Leafs, Islanders, Stars and tied with the Flyers.

So i guess an AHL level team can do pretty well in the NHL, like beating the leafs ( :lol ).

 

[Jets4Life]

you start loosing american located teams-kiss any chance of a lucrative tv deal goodbye. no american media outlet is going to feature toronto vs ottawa. Teams fold in the US, you just locked hockey as a niche sport with no coverage outside of Canada and some larger US markets

You sound like Bettman circa 1993. And we all know how that little experiment turned out.

 

[I.am.ca]

How was hockey before the lucrative TV deal?

I remember hockey doing pretty well in 1990 when it wasn't on fox, i remember that ABC or Fox when they showed hockey on normal cable it blew big time, was nothing near CBC, TSN, SN in comparison to coverage and commentating.

Hockey folds in the states...would the people even notice? They'd mourn for 2mins before the baseball/football/basketball game is on tv.