Does the NHL owe big market teams anything?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stoneburg

Registered User
Mar 21, 2004
2,453
321
Fishing
I can see where you're coming from, but when you restrict one side from doing something like spending money these organizations have and can afford to spend on players, isn't it fair to say those organizations deserve SOMETHING in return

Dude, life is not fair, neither is business.
 

hockeyfan33

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
282
0
Visit site
davemess said:
The big market teams are going to make more money under this cba than the old one...... how much more do they need?


you can say that all you want and try to point out facts, but that will not be proven until it happens
 

Deebo

Registered User
Jan 28, 2005
8,327
1,822
Toronto
AM said:
You mean, what should they get for just about managing the NHL into the ground?

I figure 50 canes for each executive.

Its abit leanient, but I say, let bygones be bygones!


colarado and toronto just signed deals at rates that were set by the rest of the league
 

hockeyfan33

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
282
0
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
What the NHL has done is GUARANTEED these big market teams will turn into even bigger cash cows for the corporations that own them.

do you have any HARD FACTS that state these franchises will make more post lockout then pre lockout or are you just ASSUMING since they have to spend less on salary that they will automatically turn more profit?
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
hockeyfan33 said:
do you have any HARD FACTS that state these franchises will make more post lockout then pre lockout or are you just ASSUMING since they have to spend less on salary that they will automatically turn more profit?

Try these hard facts.

BIG market team

2003-2004: Revenues = $100M, Salary structure = $65M, Profits = $15 million
2005-2006: Revenues = $100M, Salary structure = $36M, Profits = ???

Now I know this is a really hard question for most to wrap their heads around, but try doing the math. What are profits likely to be? Even if revenues drop 20% down to $80M, do the math. Profits are GUARANTEED to be UP. This isn't rocket science, even for an NHLPA member.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
73,083
38,136
AM said:
You mean, what should they get for just about managing the NHL into the ground?

I figure 50 canes for each executive.

Its abit leanient, but I say, let bygones be bygones!

I understand by your comments that you've a recently become a hockey fan. Your attempt at humour although it may seem funny to you, doesn't make sense to those who have followed the game for a long time. Read up on the history of the game, fascinating stuff. Then you can make references to 'canes' in the right context.
 

Boozers

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
1,486
1
Edmonton
avid_leaf_guy said:
With the salary cap in place, it's clear it was put in place for the smaller market teams, what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Teams like Detroit, Colorado, Philly, Toronto.

What does the NHL owe them since the teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Edmonton, etc... got their demand in a hard cap, and a low one at that?

We dont owe the big markets diddly squad. You had a huge competitve advantage over the last several years, and in Toronto u had one of the best chances to win it all over the last several years and u blew it plan and simple, Its about time the small market teams get their due trying losing all markee players every year because u can't afford them. NHL doesn't owe Toronto and other big market teams anything
 

Takeo

Registered User
Jul 9, 2003
20,151
0
Visit site
avid_leaf_guy said:
With the salary cap in place, it's clear it was put in place for the smaller market teams, what do you think the NHL owes the large market teams that lost out on an entire season and a shot at the Stanley Cup?

Teams like Detroit, Colorado, Philly, Toronto.

What does the NHL owe them since the teams like Pittsburgh, Nashville, Edmonton, etc... got their demand in a hard cap, and a low one at that?

The NHL owes big market teams nothing. Screw them. They've had their fun.
 

mytor4*

Guest
avid_leaf_guy said:
Wow, talk about sounding arrogant. Big words coming from a fan of one of the most poorly run sports organizations in North America.

If you can't play with the big boys, get off the field... isn't that how business works? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If you cannot run a business in a proper fashion, why blame the successful businessmen?

if you don't like the new nhl comming up i say we owe you a buyer willing to buy your team to get you out of here.
 

ej_pens

Registered User
Mar 12, 2003
2,062
1
Visit site
It's quite amusing to see people mention Boston (5th largest media market, 7th largest metro population) and Anaheim (2nd in both, also was owned by Disney) as not being big markets.

Don't kid yourself. Both are big market teams, even if their owners don't (didn't) act like it.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
ej_pens said:
It's quite amusing to see people mention Boston (5th largest media market, 7th largest metro population) and Anaheim (2nd in both, also was owned by Disney) as not being big markets.

Don't kid yourself. Both are big market teams, even if their owners don't (didn't) act like it.

The myth continues that Boston is cheap. In fact, they are alnost always in the top 1/3 or 1/4 of the league in payroll. It's intersting that most of their so-called cheap moves haveturned out to be great hockey decisions: dumping Khristch's big arbitration award (what a stiff), dumping Defore (no one else would touch at even half his asking price) and trading Allision (who hardly played after the trade). They've all turned out great for Boston.
 

ej_pens

Registered User
Mar 12, 2003
2,062
1
Visit site
arnie said:
The myth continues that Boston is cheap. In fact, they are alnost always in the top 1/3 or 1/4 of the league in payroll.

Well, "cheap" is a relative term. They could have a payroll in the top third of the league (that's not real tough to accomplish) and still be "cheap", if they have the ability to spend a lot more without going into debt.
 

Hoss

Registered User
Feb 21, 2005
1,033
0
The big markets now have an opportunity to dominate by increasing thier infrastructure. The best equipment, trainers, facilities and coaches money can buy.
 

19nazzy

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
17,217
31
I hope the big market teams continue to dominate to show how pointless this cap will be and how we lost 1 year for nothing.
 

syc

Registered User
Aug 25, 2003
3,062
1
Not Europe
Visit site
arnie said:
The myth continues that Boston is cheap. In fact, they are alnost always in the top 1/3 or 1/4 of the league in payroll. It's intersting that most of their so-called cheap moves haveturned out to be great hockey decisions: dumping Khristch's big arbitration award (what a stiff), dumping Defore (no one else would touch at even half his asking price) and trading Allision (who hardly played after the trade). They've all turned out great for Boston.

Bostons not cheap they're just dumb with money. Who in their right mind would give Lapointe 7 million a year.

What a poorly run organization.
 

sensens

Registered User
Jun 11, 2003
2,765
26
Vancouver
Visit site
Machiavelli said:
I can see where you're coming from, but when you restrict one side from doing something like spending money these organizations have and can afford to spend on players, isn't it fair to say those organizations deserve SOMETHING in return
Dude, life is not fair, neither is business.
Interesting... I'm wondering what kind of compensation you think they deserve for making money. There is certainly business in sports, but what we're finally seeing is the acknowledgement that we're not talking about open-market competition here... nobody wins in the long run if the Leafs or Red Wings drive everyone else out of business, which was pretty much the direction the league was moving in. The very profitable teams will remain profitable, and that's good business for the owner. If you're looking for a competitive advantage, go out and round up the best scouts, coach, and management money can buy... personally, that's where I think you'll start seeing the big-market teams flexing their muscle the most (not that they weren't already to a certain extent).
 

syc

Registered User
Aug 25, 2003
3,062
1
Not Europe
Visit site
Hoss said:
The big markets now have an opportunity to dominate by increasing thier infrastructure. The best equipment, trainers, facilities and coaches money can buy.

And scouts! THese rich teams just got twice as rich and since they can't buy players they will exploit the system another way. I think many of these small market fans who hope for doom and gloom for the Leafs, Avs, and Wings will be surprised.

Hrmm the Oilers offered me 3 mil and the Wings offer 3 mil but the wings go all out to keep their players comfortable. Who would I sign with?

Players know that the reason for this owner stacked CBA is due to the fact that the small market teams wanted it and they won't forget it. I'm sure certain teams are now on most players **** list.

No the NHL does'nt owe the large teams anything. They just gave them a holy grail of business.
 

ryz

Registered User
Dec 24, 2004
3,245
0
Canada
Hoss said:
The big markets now have an opportunity to dominate by increasing thier infrastructure. The best equipment, trainers, facilities and coaches money can buy.
I don't agree with a lot of what Hoss says but this is bang on. This is the way that the traditional "big spenders" can gain an advantage over the rest of the league in the new environment.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
ryz said:
I don't agree with a lot of what Hoss says but this is bang on. This is the way that the traditional "big spenders" can gain an advantage over the rest of the league in the new environment.


And I have no problem with this whatsoever. Big market teams will also have the draw of more marketing opportunities in local advertising, National Recognition, and endorsements if a player signs in a market like Toronto. Shaq got huge amounts by signing with the Lakers above and beyond his salary. And again, I have no problem with this at all. It will not totally throw things out of whack and a well run team without these advantages can easilly compete in a Capped environment. I will take a little bit of inequity, that is life. Just as long as any team, if well run, has a legit chance.
 

hockeyfan33

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
282
0
Visit site
The Iconoclast said:
Try these hard facts.

BIG market team

2003-2004: Revenues = $100M, Salary structure = $65M, Profits = $15 million
2005-2006: Revenues = $100M, Salary structure = $36M, Profits = ???

Now I know this is a really hard question for most to wrap their heads around, but try doing the math. What are profits likely to be? Even if revenues drop 20% down to $80M, do the math. Profits are GUARANTEED to be UP. This isn't rocket science, even for an NHLPA member.
what if those big market teams fans aren't too happy with the new cba and don't come back like they used to? And then what?


There is no way you can guarantee the profits of big market teams will be higher post cba than pre cba, again, your 2006 numbers aren't hard facts (guarantee) they are just assumptions.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
Hoss said:
The big markets now have an opportunity to dominate by increasing thier infrastructure. The best equipment, trainers, facilities and coaches money can buy.


Hmmmm, have they not had this advantage all along? They have always been unable to outspend the small market teams, so I don't see why things will change? They have always had money, so what is going to be the difference? They have more money now? I can see this as being a potential problem, but no different than it has been in the past. After all, the Rangers bought both Michel Bergeron from Quebec and Glen Sather from Edmonton, so what will be the difference?

:dunno:
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
hockeyfan33 said:
what if those big market teams fans aren't too happy with the new cba and don't come back like they used to? And then what?


There is no way you can guarantee the profits of big market teams will be higher post cba than pre cba, again, your 2006 numbers aren't hard facts (guarantee) they are just assumptions.

Well, that isn't what we have been hearing all along now, is it? The BIG markets were safe as a church and the small markets were the ones in trouble with this lockout, killing their markets. Funny how things change when you're down to your last straw.

:shakehead
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
hockeyfan33 said:
what if those big market teams fans aren't too happy with the new cba and don't come back like they used to? And then what?


There is no way you can guarantee the profits of big market teams will be higher post cba than pre cba, again, your 2006 numbers aren't hard facts (guarantee) they are just assumptions.

For some markets this may be the case. Detroit and Colorado come to mind. Then again their owners subsidized losses by tens of millions artificially inflating those sold out attendence numbers by buying players at far more cost than their local market could bear, didn't they? So maybe the true market for those places is lower anyways. Other Markets like Toronto, Montreal? Give me a break, they will sell out no matter what. Then again, do not break your collective arms patting yourself on the backs for that for being such wonderful business men (and being condescending to the rest) as I see in some posts from fans of those teams. You have had hockey in those markets for what . . .7 . . .8 generations . . . approaching 150 years in some places in Canada I am betting. Where hockey has been THE SPORT for all of that time. And you think that it is wonderful that you have great attendence there? Wonderful businessmen? How about giving places like Nashville and Atlanta a break, and other places, some of which have known hockey for less than 5 years and before which it had the recognition of Boce Ball and Curling.

Every Market is critical in the new NHL . . . and some will take time to develope, and all teams will need to adjust to the new CBA. The howls and screams that I hear from big market fans . . .well, sorry, I have no pity for, for reasons stated above.
 

Vomiting Kermit*

Guest
syc said:
Hrmm the Oilers offered me 3 mil and the Wings offer 3 mil but the wings go all out to keep their players comfortable. Who would I sign with?
And the Oilers don't?

A couple examples: Coffey said he enjoyed playing for all the teams he did (Wings included), but if he had to pick one, it would be the Oilers. Doug Weight said coming back to Edmonton is like going back home to Michigan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->