Can Hockey Survive in Que/Htf/Win with new CBA

[thinkwild]

Here are the top revenue teams (according to the NHLPA): Outside of the Rangers numbers figures being 33m off the numbers for the top five teams are all comparable to Forbes. What's interesting here is after Toronto the Wild are the next team making a profit.
1) Toronto
2) Dallas
3) Colorado
4) Detroit
5) Philadelphia
6) Rangers
7) Montreal
8) Boston
9) Minnesota
10) Vancouver

None of the top revenue teams made the finals the last couple of years. Some lost big money, some made money.

The folks at Forbes claimed the Wild made a 20m profit in 2002-03, not myself. They also claim they made a 9m dollar profit in 2003-04. If the Wild revenue reaches the level of sharing they will have to pay as well. Right now they are ninth which says a lot about our business, doesn't it?

Well it says to me that a small market team like Minnesota, that develops its own team smartly and patiently, and then sells out all its games and has playoff success, can become a big market revenue team.

 

[NYIsles1*]

None of the top revenue teams made the finals the last couple of years. Some lost big money, some made money.

Six of the top eight revenue producers played in the 2003-04 playoffs and lost money.

Detroit went to the second round and lost 20m. Philadelphia played four home games in the semi-finals and there is Mr Snider telling everyone his team lost money. Colorado, Dallas were in the playoffs and lost money. Toronto goes to the second round every year and only made 14.1m. Boston reported a loss, Montreal went to the second round and took big losses.

Want to try and explain about about this being a big market sport again because between this and the ratings/television contract make a better case for the NHL on the same level with arena football and MLS in all markets.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Pretty good definition of the AHL or ECHL there ..

You have to spend money to make money and the better managing of your costs the more $$$ you will make ... But if you want to make millions you need to spend millions in order to attract someone else's money ..

If the owners want to ice replacement players and if they think fans will pay them the money to see that, then all the power to them .. Sadly that is not how like works ..

I go to see movie in the theatre to watch my favourite Actors and Actresses appear.. When the theatre is showing low budget films lacking in Star quality I spend my money elsewhere at the expense of the owner ..

In order for all people to make money then the Stars of film needs to be paid their millions so that their films can make millions all around. Its very rare a Blair Witch project comes along that is the exception to the rule .. You get what you pay for ..

Would Braveheart or Gladiator been as successful financially without Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe being replaced by low budget no-name actors ?? Would the NHL be as successful without Joe Sakic and Marty Brodeur being replaced by players making 50 k??

Missed my point by about a mile there. Sakic and Brodeur want to make millions so they NEED billionaires to buy and own hockey teams. You don't seem to think that the owners should make money for investing millions to give the NHLPA opportunities to make a whole lot of money but, hey, neither does Goodenow.

 

[thinkwild]

Detroit went to the second round and lost 20m. Philadelphia played four home games in the semi-finals and there is Mr Snider telling everyone his team lost money. Colorado, Dallas were in the playoffs and lost money. Toronto goes to the second round every year and only made 14.1m. Boston reported a loss, Montreal went to the second round and took big losses.

Detroit was making lots of money when they are winning. if they had a modern arena with the suites they would make lots more. Illitch can probably afford to run a loss for one year as his team starts renewing. He and his team have earned that ability.

And yes there's Mr Snider saying the URO's showed he lost money. While his Team President is saying but the organziation of course made money. Saskin challenged him to prove the Flyers lost money. One they wont take up.

Colorado and Dallas are losing you say even though they made the playoffs. Because salaries are too high? I'd say because they are spending too much on salaries. Pittsburgh sold off their players and renewed. If these former Cup winners who made lots of money dont want to make the decision, they will lose money. Its not a CBA problem, its a choices problem. THe CBA provides for them to make the tough choices on the tough journey to developing a champion. Boston and Montreal are big established markets. With a 24% rollback and a $50mil cap they couldnt compete and make money?

Want to try and explain about about this being a big market sport again because between this and the ratings/television contract make a better case for the NHL on the same level with arena football and MLS in all markets.

Im not trying to explain the large markets have an advantage. I in fact think they have a curse. THe curse of the large market forced to spend in a spiral of one last missing piece UFA signings that never pay off, and as you point out cause them to lose money. While the tortoise teams plod along, developing a core over time, waiting for their opportunity to become big market like minnesota or Tampa Bay and making money along the way.

As you are pointing out, the big markets have no advantage. If they spend before they have proved they can win the playoff revenue to support it, they lose money. Ottawa spent thinking we would go the finals again, but we lost in the 1st round. Bye Bye Lalime and Bonk and $5mil of RFA salaries. And we didnt cry about it. But thats not good enough you must be saying. If the only consequence of buying up all the UFAs and using their spending advantage is that they lose money, there is no incentive for them not to lose money. They need a cap, otherwise they will continue to spend until they lose money.