And what about NHL Reduction?

[Headshot77]

This is a horrible idea. Contracting two teams would tank franchise values. It is much better for the league to keep their few problem children financially for this reason.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

they should, but they wont.

the owners may like getting their cut of the fat franchise fee, but talent dilution is a thing

I love how talent dilution is still an argument after an expansion team made it to the SCF IN THEIR FIRST YEAR.

 

[Nino33]

what the majority of posters are not admitting to themselves, is where do NHL franchises assign players,

as has been stated ad nauseum FLORIDA cannot be relocated ANYWHERE unless posters want to send 40 M to Broward County

I'm not sure what "where do NHL franchises assign players" is referring to (I don't know what it means)

As for the 40 million, couldn't it be part of a relocation deal? Buying a team costs hundreds of millions, a new arena costs a similar amount or more...is 40 million a big obstacle in a billion dollar deal?

 

[PCSPounder]

The people complaining about talent dilution and overlooking the posters citing Vegas... you're funny. Not in a good way.

The real talent dilution is the number of competent GMs. I think that's a factor regarding Vegas.

That's also something smart people can work to overcome without folding teams.

Of course, I think the NHL should be financially punished for public funding extortion and lockouts by the forced institution of promotion and relegation, so I'm no help.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The people complaining about talent dilution and overlooking the posters citing Vegas... you're funny. Not in a good way.

.

you do understand what talent dilution means, right?

It means the average talent level of the league gets driven down because of too many roster spots to fill. As in, what would've been 2nd/3rd liners, are now 1st/2nd liners

A team grabbing a bunch of players and making a Cup Finals run doesnt disprove dilution.

 

[PCSPounder]

you do understand what talent dilution means, right?

It means the average talent level of the league gets driven down because of too many roster spots to fill. As in, what would've been 2nd/3rd liners, are now 1st/2nd liners

A team grabbing a bunch of players and making a Cup Finals run doesnt disprove dilution.

Your assumption is that the talent level is static, that things cannot be improved... arguably even that populations are static. None of THAT is true.

In a way, the discussion is moot.

 

[NorthCoast]

I love how talent dilution is still an argument after an expansion team made it to the SCF IN THEIR FIRST YEAR.

And isn't the avg. age of players also decreasing every year. So all the mid 30 year olds that used to be good enough to play are now being beaten out of a job by a rookie.

And it's not good for the fans, even in the big cities that remain. Play it out...how many teams would you have to get rid of before it had a meaningful impact on a teams chances of making/winning in the playoffs. Is getting rid of 4 teams going to dramatically change your odds? No. So take away what? 15 teams. Great. I am Jacobs and I just lost a whole bunch of revenue from National TV contracts and team value. Where do I make it up? Tickets.

Are you willing to pay 2X ticket prices for 2X better chance at the cup?

 

[Cacciaguida]

If the league thought it was overextended if would be relocating instead of taking expansion bids.

Get over yourself. That 24 team league was over 25 years ago and it's not coming back.

 

[JETZZZ]

32 teams, 4 conferences of 8, top half of each conference makes playoffs. Works perfectly.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Contraction will not happen in the forseeable future. The reason is franchise value. The NHL will protect the value of its franchises above all other factors. If you contract a franchise you're essentially saying that franchise has no value - it is worthless. What does that do to the value of the 30 other teams (soo to be 31). The NHL is pushing hard that a franchise is worth $650 million.

Besides, MLB tried contraction back in 2001. They were going to contract the Twins and Expos. You'll of course recognize that both teams still exist (the Expos of course after moving to DC).

 

[The Feckless Puck]

The only "talent dilution" in the league is at the administrative and coaching level, where the same group of retreads keep getting hired to ever-diminishing returns because they refuse to adapt to the evolution of the game.

I should also note that there are a lot of players who have to leave for Europe or Scandinavia to play these days who, in the days before the league expanded, would have been 2nd or 3rd line players but who now can't even get a PTO because of all the younger, faster talent available each season.

 

[vorky]

I don't get your spin, as that's still 100% financial
The "history and future" is the KHL spent money in it's history it didn't have, and now in the future it can't keep doing that...the teams leaving can't afford to stay, and they're hoping the teams they add can afford it...that's all financial, as simple as that

It is all about the players market. The league has too many Russian teams, who are not able to fill a roster spots with top Russian players. There is not so many top-end Russian players to fill all Russian teams. That is all. Russian KHL clubs can sign only 5 foreigners, the rest of a roster are Russians. And this restriction has nothing to do with the KHL, it is a condition of the Russian Hockey Federation. If a decision was on the KHL, there would be no limit based on nationality.

That is all problem why the KHL decided to contract teams.

I have a question. How many KHL documents related to the contraction/expansion have you studied?

 

[Nino33]

It is all about the players market. The league has too many Russian teams, who are not able to fill a roster spots with top Russian players. There is not so many top-end Russian players to fill all Russian teams. That is all. Russian KHL clubs can sign only 5 foreigners, the rest of a roster are Russians. And this restriction has nothing to do with the KHL, it is a condition of the Russian Hockey Federation. If a decision was on the KHL, there would be no limit based on nationality.

That is all problem why the KHL decided to contract teams.

I have a question. How many KHL documents related to the contraction/expansion have you studied?

I've been following your posts/links for years, among others sources (you're kinda like RT as a source, i.e. with tons of spin/bias)


In regards to you noting "it is a condition of the Russian Hockey Federation" & the point of this thread...to me your comment shows the KHL is really just a national league pretending that it's more (and doing so is financially hurting it), and because the NHL is not a national league they don't have the issues the KHL has (so no contraction in the foreseeable for the NHL)

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

When have two organizations come together and agreed to reduce the amount of money they make?

 

[jkrdevil]

The economy would have to tank to Great Depression levels and the population would have to decline.

 

[Gnashville]

sure, as soon as all the dead weight that is propped up by revenue sharing is gone...Arizona, Florida, Carolina, Columbus

How about we contract the Bruins, Leafs, Blackhawks, Habs first since they are driving the cap up? It works both ways. Anyway who is going to pay back the owner of each contracted team? It’s going to cause the ticket prices to double in some places.
Oh let’s contract to 24 teams and lose 7 teams
Each team is worth around 1/2 billion so that is 3.5 billion just to make it more enjoyable for a very small minority of fans.

 

[sexydonut]

A generation ago, the Blackhawks, Red Wings, Penguins, Capitals, Kings, etc. were considered deadweight. Even the Canadian market Canucks were supposed candidates for relocation in the early 90s.

 

[vorky]

I've been following your posts/links for years, among others sources (you're kinda like RT as a source, i.e. with tons of spin/bias)


In regards to you noting "it is a condition of the Russian Hockey Federation" & the point of this thread...to me your comment shows the KHL is really just a national league pretending that it's more (and doing so is financially hurting it), and because the NHL is not a national league they don't have the issues the KHL has (so no contraction in the foreseeable for the NHL)

That is great you read my posts.

You have to honour the law of a country you are based in. That is a reason for RFA/UFA system & the CBA in the NHL. Does the NHL as a private entity have the power to change the legal system of the USA?

A very similar situation is with the KHL. One difference is there. The KHL proposed the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation to change a law on sports leagues. The KHL is now considered as an international league based in Russia.

As for the rest. The European nations honour the law of international governing bodies as the IIHF.

The results of your analysis, I mean the last sentence in brackets, are wrong. You claim there can not be contraction because the NHL is not a national league. And implying there is a contraction because the KHL is a national league. Right? If so, the results are fundamentally wrong. The NHL can do a contraction whenever the league wants. On the other hand, a contraction in the KHL is much more difficult, because of co-existence of the KHL & the FHR. You might not agree, but the KHL contraction is a proof of the KHL´s international status. A contraction was not possible a few years ago, now it is a reality due to KHL´s status.

 

[Nino33]

You claim there can not be contraction because the NHL is not a national league. And implying there is a contraction because the KHL is a national league. Right?

No, not really
I'm claiming that the NHL is a real business, not a national league overpaying low quality players for nationalistic reasons like the KHL

The NHL can do a contraction whenever the league wants. On the other hand, a contraction in the KHL is much more difficult, because of co-existence of the KHL & the FHR. You might not agree, but the KHL contraction is a proof of the KHL´s international status. A contraction was not possible a few years ago, now it is a reality due to KHL´s status.

The NHL hasn't done it in 40 years, but it's much more difficult to do in the KHL when it's happening there year after year? Your views are based on fantasy/propaganda, not reality

And regarding "A contraction was not possible a few years ago"- you don't understand basic business; a contraction occurs because a team can't pay their bills (like Atlant Moscow Oblast in 2015), not because a piece of paper says they can - successful teams in successful leagues don't contract

Only in Russia can failure be so trumpeted as success (the KHL...even better now that there's contraction! HaHa).

 

[vorky]

I looked at wiki, where is written that 7 NHL clubs have been relocated since 1980. Adding, "there are 19 defunct and relocated NHL teams". That exactly fits your words, "a contraction occurs because a team can't pay their bills." And we can add Phoenix Coyotes or Arizona or how this bankrupted club is called now.

Agree with you, a contraction occurs when a team is not successful. By successful, I mean results on ice, and of course financial statements, including a business potential for the future. The KHL analysed the clubs, the market and came to mind to contract teams.

Your problem is that you do not understand why all clubs happened to be the KHL members. You do not get the background. A list of teams would be different if the KHL was established a few years earlier or later.

Yes, a contraction was not possible before 2014.

The KHL has 10 years. You need to look at the league from this point of view. And you need to add non-hockey factors to the picture, like all political and economic climate in the world. The Great Depression took place during the 1930s, right? How many NHL clubs were defunct or relocated as the result? How many teams did the NHL have at the time? Different times, different problems. But the core is the same - a league is young, financial problems occur in a country. Tell me, what was a position of the NHL before and after The Great Depression? After World War II.

Do you really think the KHL was stronger with Yugra, Lada or Novokuznetsk?

 

[patnyrnyg]

Contraction will not happen in the forseeable future. The reason is franchise value. The NHL will protect the value of its franchises above all other factors. If you contract a franchise you're essentially saying that franchise has no value - it is worthless. What does that do to the value of the 30 other teams (soo to be 31). The NHL is pushing hard that a franchise is worth $650 million.

Besides, MLB tried contraction back in 2001. They were going to contract the Twins and Expos. You'll of course recognize that both teams still exist (the Expos of course after moving to DC).

Thought it was the Tigers and Twins? Tigers were REALLY struggling financially at the time. Yes, it was discussed. They realized it would take years to see a financial benefit to doing so.

The whole economy of sports would have to shift to see a contraction in any of the 4 major sports. For it to happen, I think you would need ALL of the following to happen simulataneously:

1) Obviously an owner who can't afford to run a team. Whether it be because the team is just losing too much money, owner's other interests are in the tank, a divorce or scandal that has the owners assets frozen by a court.

2) Nobody willing to buy the team either locally or buy them to relocate. Considering when teams are put up for sale, only one seems to have a problem finding a buyer, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

3) Change in attitude of other owners in league. Leagues shift from operating as 1 company (NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB) with 32 different departments or locations to 32 completely independent companies that are pure competitors and not working together. I think for this to happen, it would require the money from league-wide tv deals, merchandise deals to completely dry-up. If Fox, CBS, NBC decide it is no longer worth it to pay the NFL for the rights fees and the teams had to go back to local deals. Considering the size of the tv deals, it would be a LONG time before something like this happens. Could rights fees go down? Sure, but they would gradually go down.

 

[Nino33]

I looked at wiki, where is written that 7 NHL clubs have been relocated since 1980. Adding, "there are 19 defunct and relocated NHL teams". That exactly fits your words, "a contraction occurs because a team can't pay their bills." And we can add Phoenix Coyotes or Arizona or how this bankrupted club is called now.

When a team is sold and relocated that's not contraction (what this thread is talking about)

And we can add Phoenix Coyotes or Arizona or how this bankrupted club is called now.

No, you can't, as they're still actually in the league and there are no plans to contract them

This is completely different than the KHL, where this year (from wiki) "two teams were excluded from the league with both teams moving to the Supreme Hockey League" (and the KHL went from 27 to 25 teams) - the Coyotes haven't been excluded from the NHL

Since 1941-42 (before there was a Soviet League in the USSR) the NHL has seen contraction occur once - in 1979 the NHL went from 18 teams to 17 teams, and then up to 21 the following year. The KHL had more contraction occur this year than the NHL has in the last 76 years!

Your problem is that you do not understand why all clubs happened to be the KHL members. You do not get the background. A list of teams would be different if the KHL was established a few years earlier or later.

I'm talking about what this thread is talking about, how likely it is to for contraction to occur in the NHL.

You can't say a league contracted when the number of teams didn't decrease & no teams left the league!

And I get the background, but it's not a political forum (and not really relevant to how likely it is to for contraction to occur in the NHL)

Yes, a contraction was not possible before 2014.

Wikipedia shows the KHL had 24 teams for 2009-2010 and 23 teams for 2010-2011
Also from wiki...
2009 Khimik Viskresensk did not play in the 2009–10 season due to financial problems, but they retained KHL membership and may return at a later date, meanwhile playing in the Russian Major League.
2010 - Lada Togliatti dropped out of the league and joined the Russian Major League instead, after failing to meet the league's financial requirements.

Unlike in the NHL, they weren't sold/moved, they left the league to play in a lower league

The KHL has 10 years. You need to look at the league from this point of view.

No, I don't. The KHL is just a new name for previous Russian national leagues (that goes back to Soviet times), it's not "new" IMO (just like it's not really a business IMO)

Do you really think the KHL was stronger with Yugra, Lada or Novokuznetsk?

That would be a different discussion (not what this thread's about)



I'm done here. Thank you very much for the conversation.

 

[vorky]

Good, @Nino33 still does not get the point.

A technical question. Explain to me how a club is accepted to play the KHL. You can blame me for nitpicking and I am fine with it.

You claim "when a team is sold and relocated that's not contraction." Fine. I will tell you another nitpicking thing when a team does not apply to play next season, it is not a contraction.

You want to talk about details, your choice.

You do not differ between a contraction and a planned contraction. You mentioned Khimik & Lada (2010). Yes, Khimik was a case when a team did not achieve a level of a league. That is what we are talking about. There had to be a deal between the KHL & the FHR before the launching of the KHL. As a result, teams like Khimik were accepted to the KHL.

That is a reason for a planned contraction now. The reasons are fundamentally different from those presented by you. You talk about lack of money, I talk about wrong teams. The result can be only one - the league will be strengthened.

The NHL had its problems during the Great Depression. You know very well how many teams were defunct or relocated.

The KHL has been living the same times. The times when a league is affected by non-hockey related things. Looks like the NHL did good after the Great Depression and the World War II. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me. And I tell you, the KHL will be fine as well.

Someone has mentioned it already. If the US had serious financial problems in the future, the NHL would have them as well. Then, if this happens, we can talk about a contraction again.

No, you call it relocation.

 

[vorky]

Why have the NHL relocations happened? Sure, many reasons, but the key one is that a team does not work in city A and the league believes it will work in city B.

The KHL has been doing the same. A team does not work in city A and the league believes it might work in city B. Yes, the KHL does not relocate a team to another city as has been done in the NHL. The reason is simple, Europeans have sentimental feelings towards their clubs. Quebec Nordiques moving to Denver would not work in Europe.

Both leagues believe a result of this process is a strengthened league.

 

[Groo]

Oh, come now, try to see it from his Original 6 perspective...

What if the NHL had 6 teams, and each of those teams had 4 or 5 farm clubs each in NHL-B, where all those other non-all-star-caliber players belong?

It would cease to exist other than a regional sport