5 biggest strategic issues NHL faces in next 5 years?

[Dado]

Oh, wait - because you say the league will contract teams, it's going to happen?

Well, I'm convinced.

Oh the eye-roll irony.

Let's rephrase:

"Oh wait - because you say the league won't contract teams, it's not going to happen."

Well, I'm convinced!

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Oh the eye-roll irony.

Let's rephrase:

"Oh wait - because you say the league won't contract teams, it's not going to happen."

Well, I'm convinced!

I've at least provided a reason, backed up by ... well, some logic. I've done this multiple times in the past. Let me repeat: contraction is never seen as a good thing for a professional sports league. It's an absolute last-resort move. Companies that do business with leagues that contract see "weak business, uncertain future" and either don't renew contracts or demand more strict, more favorable [to the company] terms in future contracts. If contraction was such a good thing, MLB would have contracted a pair of teams a couple years ago; the NFL would be talking about it now, and the NBA would dropping more than random, ambiguous "nothing is off the table" comments going into the next round of labor talks - they'd straight up be saying, "for the good of the league, we may whack 4 teams."

Meanwhile, you've backed your opinion up with nothing more than "I believe, ..." At least try to provide some real-world rationale behind why contraction (A) will happen, and (B) would be seen as a good thing, both short-term and long-term.

 

[Dado]

... contraction is never seen as a good thing for a professional sports league.

As has been pointed out several times, the (arguably) most successful league on the planet has contracted multiple times.

Your above assertion is simply, plainly wrong.

Meanwhile, you've backed your opinion up with nothing more than "I believe, ..."

I have offered reasons in the past on this subject.

:shrug:

(edited)

It's etheir massive revenue sharing, or contraction. There are simply too many team with financial problems. And the macro economic situation is not going to get better for quite some time.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

As has been pointed out several times, the (arguably) most successful league on the planet has contracted multiple times.

Your above assertion is simply, plainly wrong.

You might as well compare the Apollo program to your local school's "build a rocket in science class" project. The two have about as much in common.

I have offered reasons in the past on this subject.

:shrug:

It's etheir massive revenue sharing, or contraction. There are simply too many team with financial problems.

1. I haven't been around in a year and a half. Please list the reasons again.
2. In case you didn't realize, revenue sharing happens no matter how many teams there are and where they're located. In fact, if you take out the "low-revenue teams that need revenue sharing" you actually make it worse on the remaining teams at the bottom end of the revenue scale ... unless you're going to just whack away until there's about 16 [or fewer] teams left. I'll let you figure out whether that makes the NHL better or worse in the eyes of fans and companies in North America.

 

[knorthern knight]

If contraction was such a good thing, MLB would have contracted a pair of teams a couple years ago;

Actually they did try. According to the timeline at the above article, they ran into problems when people found out...

• The Major League Baseball Players' Association filed a grievance claiming that the owners' vote to contract two teams violated the collective bargaining agreement.
• District Judge Harry Crump ordered the Minnesota Twins to honor the final year of their HHH Metrodome lease and play their entire 2002 home schedule there. Lawyers for the team and MLB tried to appeal the decision, but the Minnesota Sopreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
• The House Judiciary Committee called for a hearing on baseball's antitrust exemption

I don't think the NHL would willingly contract, but if they want to, DON'T make a big announcement or press release. Make it look like you're trying to sell or relocate the franchise(s). After a circus like the current Phoenix Fiasco, issue a press release saying something like... "Gosh, darn, golly, gee willikers, we tried to save the franchises, but there was no way to do it". Of course, there's no excuse not to move the first 2 failing franchises to Winnipeg and Quebec City.

BTW, the Cleveland Barons disappeared in 1978, being merged into the Minnesota North Stars, so the modern NHL does have a precedent.

 

[rojac]

BTW, the Cleveland Barons disappeared in 1978, being merged into the Minnesota North Stars, so the modern NHL does have a precedent.

Yup, and you have to go back to 1942 when the New York/Brooklyn Americans suspended operations to find the second last NHL franchise to disappear. So, because 1 team folded over a period of 67 years, you think there's a precedent for folding 6?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Actually they did try. According to the timeline at the above article, they ran into problems when people found out...

1. As you pointed out, MLB attempted to ignore the CBA it had negotiated with the union. That was a much bigger issue than the other two you mentioned. It still doesn't refute my assertion that leagues don't contract teams on a whim - it's a complete last resort.

2. How legally binding Crump's order would have been in forcing the Twins to actually play is open to debate. Without having access to the lease, it's possible that the Twins [or in this case, MLB] could have met the lease by simply paying an amount equal to the revenue the team would have been expected to generate for the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. As any good lawyer will tell you, "a contract is whatever the two parties agree it should be."

3. Congress wanted to hold a hearing to revoke the antitrust exemption, ... they threaten to do that when some House member's team loses a game on a bad call in the bottom of the 12th - and it's still never happened yet. [The rest of the rant omitted, as it veers off in a political direction not aimed at either party.]

BTW, the Cleveland Barons disappeared in 1978, being merged into the Minnesota North Stars, so the modern NHL does have a precedent.

I didn't say "the NHL has never done it." I said "it's not seen as a good thing" and "it's a last-resort option." Do you think the NHL wanted to merge Cleveland and Minnesota? Did NHL executives go around swapping high-fives and shouting, "yes, we finally got rid of that hellhole - now, we just need to get rid of the other non-traditional markets and make the league even stronger?"

 

[Grudy0]

Yes, but even with precedent, the MLB scenario was a cat-and-mouse game with their players association. Everyone was pushing the legal limits, and no team was contracted.

So let's go with the theory that six teams need to be contracted. The NHL has purchased one team for $140 million in bankruptcy proceedings. The NHL will need to come up with another at least $700 million ($140M/team for 5 teams) just so they can terminate those. So the NHL needs each of the 24 remaining franchises to come up with at least $30 million to buy out five other ownership groups.

Unless anyone else can come up with a cheaper plan, which I sincerely doubt.

 

[kdb209]

3. Congress wanted to hold a hearing to revoke the antitrust exemption, ... they threaten to do that when some House member's team loses a game on a bad call in the bottom of the 12th - and it's still never happened yet. [The rest of the rant omitted, as it veers off in a political direction not aimed at either party.]

Congress did partially repeal MLB's anti trust exemption with the Curt Flood Act of 1998 - which revoked the exemption for labor issues.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Congress did partially repeal MLB's anti trust exemption with the Curt Flood Act of 1998 - which revoked the exemption for labor issues.

That's one (1) small part in about 922 discussions. Color me unimpressed with the threat of revoking the antitrust exemption.

 

[knorthern knight]

I was replying to the poster who asked why MLB hadn't contracted. To summarize, they tried, but ran into severe obstacles, and gave up. My point was that MLB's attempt was the ultimate example of how NOT to contract.

As I stated earlier, I don't think the NHL WANTS to contract (for image reasons). This is probably Winnipeg's and Quebec's best hope for franchises. However, if the NHL has to contract, the best way to do it is to at least make an effort to find new owners. It doesn't have to be as extreme as the Phoenix case, but don't give the impression that you're contracting a viable franchise.

 

[TheKiller93]

Well guys I got the job!

Thanks for your help guys. definitely was good to think through all these issues. I will try to come on here every once and a while and talk generally about what its like to work for the League.