Which Teams Would Fold First?
- Thread starter snakepliskin
- Start date
- Status
havent seen this thread in forever... but a heads up on it; this could get real ugly.
I'm answering the initial question of survival. If we go another year without revenue, which at this point I think no matter what the deal will be done by the time camp opens in september, if not sooner.
Theoretically, the entire landscape of hockey would be changed with a 2nd year off. It's so much to make up for and the NHL franchises would come off hurting in the start.
I'm answering the initial question of survival. If we go another year without revenue, which at this point I think no matter what the deal will be done by the time camp opens in september, if not sooner.
Theoretically, the entire landscape of hockey would be changed with a 2nd year off. It's so much to make up for and the NHL franchises would come off hurting in the start.
As a Thrasher faithful, I have to say that Atlanta will have a hard time recovering from a 2nd year lockout.
Atlanta will not fold but will suffer a difficult recovery (IMHO).
Atlanta will not fold but will suffer a difficult recovery (IMHO).
Once heard Pierre McGuire say on Montreal radio station that Carolina was the league's financial "dirty little secret." But I've also heard that Karmanos is a hardcore owner on the level of a Jacobs or Wirtz and would never let his team go.
The owners are so secretive about their finances it's really imposible to say from a mere fan's standpoint who's in trouble, so anything I say here is just conjecture and speculation at best.
But seeing Lemieux get dragged through the mud during this lockout just makes me wonder if he's dying to get the deffered money owed to him and get the hell out a.s.a.p. I mean, how the hell is he or anyone going to convince Pittsburgh corporate types and polititians to build him a new arena now?
But every time this debate gets started up on these boards the argument gets put out there that relocation and contraction are next to impossible because every team except Pittsburgh has a long term arena lease agreement (even the Islanders in old Nassau coliseum) which trying to break would bring severe economic repercutions, not to mention that city councillors could supposedly bring hard legal action on any franchise that tries to move. But I guess a counter-argument would be if the franchise is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy anyways, forget finacial or legal penalties, ciao... we're gone!!!
I've been reading rumours that six owners want out, but again the classic argument I usually come across is that all the owners are in it for the long haul because sports franchises always become worth more and more given time, and these owners know they'll be able to sell for a profit somewhere down the line: the buy low sell high. Good time to buy a franchise now (hello, Vancouver and Anaheim) but don't sell now, wait till the league rebounds. (will it ever?)
I'm just a regular fan, no legal expert. I just get the feeling that contraction, though many would like to see it, seems unlikely.
I would love for someone knowledgable in these matters to post a scenario here in which contraction could realistically happen, just assume, for argument's sake, that there are six owners that want out. Describe a possible scenario that would play out in the coming 12 months that would result in an announcemant that a couple of teams are folding.
If someone paints this picture on this thread, I thank them in advance for their sober explanation (I know that this can get touchy beacuse no one wants to see their team go, markets that would be contracted could be harmed and turned off to hockey, but I just want an impartial rational scenario divorced of fanaticism.)
The owners are so secretive about their finances it's really imposible to say from a mere fan's standpoint who's in trouble, so anything I say here is just conjecture and speculation at best.
But seeing Lemieux get dragged through the mud during this lockout just makes me wonder if he's dying to get the deffered money owed to him and get the hell out a.s.a.p. I mean, how the hell is he or anyone going to convince Pittsburgh corporate types and polititians to build him a new arena now?
But every time this debate gets started up on these boards the argument gets put out there that relocation and contraction are next to impossible because every team except Pittsburgh has a long term arena lease agreement (even the Islanders in old Nassau coliseum) which trying to break would bring severe economic repercutions, not to mention that city councillors could supposedly bring hard legal action on any franchise that tries to move. But I guess a counter-argument would be if the franchise is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy anyways, forget finacial or legal penalties, ciao... we're gone!!!
I've been reading rumours that six owners want out, but again the classic argument I usually come across is that all the owners are in it for the long haul because sports franchises always become worth more and more given time, and these owners know they'll be able to sell for a profit somewhere down the line: the buy low sell high. Good time to buy a franchise now (hello, Vancouver and Anaheim) but don't sell now, wait till the league rebounds. (will it ever?)
I'm just a regular fan, no legal expert. I just get the feeling that contraction, though many would like to see it, seems unlikely.
I would love for someone knowledgable in these matters to post a scenario here in which contraction could realistically happen, just assume, for argument's sake, that there are six owners that want out. Describe a possible scenario that would play out in the coming 12 months that would result in an announcemant that a couple of teams are folding.
If someone paints this picture on this thread, I thank them in advance for their sober explanation (I know that this can get touchy beacuse no one wants to see their team go, markets that would be contracted could be harmed and turned off to hockey, but I just want an impartial rational scenario divorced of fanaticism.)
McDonald19
Registered User
well there is a rumor that there are up to 6 teams that may look into folding if their isn't a new CBA by July 1st...(ok its an Eklund rumor)
I guess we have to bring up the usual teams...Florida, Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina...etc.
I guess we have to bring up the usual teams...Florida, Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina...etc.
nomorekids
The original, baby
nomorekids said:
No. But if an owner decides a franchise is worth more to him bankrupt and folded than alive and losing money, he might just pull the trigger.
And seriously, if this lockout were to drag into NEXT summer, I think the entire league would be in DIRE straights.
me2
Go ahead foot
Newsguyone said:
"Todays offer is $40m hard cap and 30 franchises, tomorrow's offer is $40m hardcap and 28 franchises".
It'd be a wake call for the NHLPA if the a franchise or two folded. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
katodelder said:
I know Mario already has the land to build a new arena, he just needs the financing and last I heard, he was going to be one of the first in line to get the slots (or something gambling related) license that the state was close to passing, and that the money made from that would help with the new arena. It's been a few months since I've heard anything about it, so if anybody can update me on it, I'd be very appreciative.
As far as which teams folded, I agree with most of the opinions I've read here and elsewhere. If the lockout ends before the new season, then a few teams might struggle but all the teams should be make it. If the lockout carries into even the littlest part of next season, the league as a whole will have a very hard time recovering.
Fan backlash is going to be rough, especially in the more non-traditional markets, but should be recoverable if the teams can produce a good product.
Fan backlash is going to be rough, especially in the more non-traditional markets, but should be recoverable if the teams can produce a good product.
codswallop
yes, i am an alcoholic
dunwoody_joe said:
I agree that it could be hard on the team. Five sub-par years, just looking to turn the corner, then two years off. Not exactly good for building up the fans (you could probably say that about quite a few cities though, I would guess).
But you know how it goes in Atlanta; you get a bit of success and fans magically appear. Back when I was a kid and actually gave a damn about baseball, we'd buy upper deck seats to the Braves games then move right down front in the 2nd inning. Easy to do with only 5000 people there. But the second they started having some success, the park was full. The fair-weather trend pretty much still holds up today.
Don't think there's much to worry about financially though. The new group of owners has piles of cash and they really wanted the two teams. Losing a little in the short term is worth it to them, as they'll reap the benefits down the road when the Thrashers start having even a little success.
The value of patience, a great quality to have. It's just too bad we don't see more of that quality with some fans (not directed at you dj, but to others here that shall remain nameless).
doc5hole
Registered User
The Lighting failed to sell out a playoff game until the Conf. final, then they drew 30K to their celebration. Maybe they should be on this list, too.
Sotnos
Registered User
Maybe you should do some research before you post such things. Linkdoc5hole said:
Sellout is 19,500. I think you can see for yourself there that 2/5 (more like 3/5, one Montreal game had 19,435) sold out in the first two rounds. Tampa also broke the record for overall attendance during the playoffs.
Come on, I know you now want to tell us all that the playoff tickets were $20, I'm sure you've heard that one too.
Next...
Completely OT (and my apology to the thread starter), but have the Lightening management had any sort of Stanley Cup celebration yet, for the season-ticket holders (a banner-raising or something similar)?Sotnos said:Maybe you should do some research before you post such things. Link
Sellout is 19,500. I think you can see for yourself there that 2/5 (more like 3/5, one Montreal game had 19,435) sold out in the first two rounds. Tampa also broke the record for overall attendance during the playoffs.
Come on, I know you now want to tell us all that the playoff tickets were $20, I'm sure you've heard that one too.
Next...
Hockeyfan02
Registered User
jacketracket said:
There's supposed to be a replica ring ceremony. It came in a letter to season ticket holders after the season was cancelled. I know Tortorella is supposed to be there. I think Feaster might be too. I have no idea when it is, just that my dad got something in the mail about it the weekend after the season was cancelled.
rwilson99
Registered User
doc5hole said:
If your going to contract our team try spelling the name right.
You should also consider that our building is the 2nd largest in the league, and each of our games would have sold out every arena with the exception of the ACC.
Tampa will be fine, too much money to be made off the arena, which is the focal point of a real estate redevelopment boom in our downtown.
bleedgreen
Registered User
i dont think any team is that dire of straights. for every arguement you make for a team being weak, someone with knowledge of that team can give you 5 why they are strong. ive always wondered if florida should have 2 teams - on a philisophical angle, not to pick on either team. same arguement could go for CA i suppose. i dont want the ducks to go anywhere, but i wouldnt mind a name change (i know, its a beat up horse already). i wouldnt be surprised to see in the end a team or two not making it even with the new cba - but i bet its a team or two we wouldnt expect. you know the league would just move them - so its an issue that will never truly be settled. always fun to speculate i suppose.
rwilson99 said:
point of correction... the acc is not the largest building.. the bell centre in montreal is..
mike
- Status
