Does the NHL owe big market teams anything?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Poignant Discussion*

I tell it like it is
Jul 18, 2003
8,421
5
Gatineau, QC
Takeo said:
The NHL owes big market teams nothing. Screw them. They've had their fun.

And the big markets don't owe the dregs one penny either. Hell Edmonton has been supported through the NHL's welfare system (Canadian Equalization) for the past few years. I just hope the profits from the big teams are not shared with teams that don't deserve a team in the first place. And thats about 10 teams in the NHL
 

se7en*

Guest
Kritter471 said:
Ah, so it's all about revenge then? How nice..

What? Who on earth said anything about revenge?

Again, the fact that the upcoming agreement is making big-market fans squirm is very telling. Do you see anything about "revenge" in there? :dunce:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

se7en*

Guest
NataSatan666 said:
I just hope the profits from the big teams are not shared with teams that don't deserve a team in the first place. And thats about 10 teams in the NHL

Name them.
 

iagreewithidiots

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
1,524
0
Visit site
I love the idea that big market teams have money because they are well run. While small market teams have no money because their owners are baffons.

Thats just not true. Are the Rangers a well run organization? They have tons of money.

I have an idea. Lets really run a free market. If New York or Toronto or Philadelphia or Detroit can support more teams let other teams move in.

After all those teams are just better run. What difference would it make if Pittsburgh moved to Toronto and Nashville moved to Detroit. They are great hockey markets Im sure they can support another team.

If the big market teams felt they were owed something or felt they were being slighted then why was the owners resolve so great? Why demand such a hard cap? Why lose a whole season? The owners only care about winning right?

Wrong. If you sit and thump your chest about how great a businessman your teams owner is. Talk about how smart he is and thats why your team has money to spend. Then what in your brain tells you they dont want to make the huge profits a cap will give them?

Big market teams stand to make huge profits while having no less a chance of winning as their small market counterparts. Thats great for them. Sounds like they are still getting the better end of the deal.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
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 big market clubs are not owned a single damn thing other then a punch in the mouth for causing all this to start with. :madfire:
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
It's not as easy as saying "No, they aren't owed anything because now we finally have competitve balance...what, should they apologize cause they can't outspend everyone and try to win a cup" with a stupid florida panther **** grin on your face.

It comes down to this...the league absolutly owes an apology to every single big market club for one simple reason. THEY DID NOT NEED A LOCKOUT. They did not need to miss 41 home games. They did not need there business damaged. They sat out an entire NHL season for the sake of 15 teams. They did the other teams a favor for God sakes.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
Master Shake said:
The big market clubs are not owned a single damn thing other then a punch in the mouth for causing all this to start with. :madfire:

eveyr single big market can afford to lose money. NYR can afford to lose $10 million. It's the small markets that can't survive without making money that's killing the whole system.
 

Ronald Pagan

Registered User
Feb 8, 2005
1,333
8
It comes down to this...the league absolutly owes an apology to every single big market club for one simple reason. THEY DID NOT NEED A LOCKOUT. They did not need to miss 41 home games. They did not need there business damaged. They sat out an entire NHL season for the sake of 15 teams. They did the other teams a favor for God sakes.

Oh please, that's the biggest load of crap I've read all week. And I read this board alot.

Are you saying that the severe economic problems with the NHL were not as important as 41 home games for the rangers? You're a complete dumb f**k is you think so. A rising tide raises all boats my friend. Competitive balance and, more importantly, a stable economic system will make every team better off. Now go screw off somewhere because that attitude is what was wrong with the NHL in the first place.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
nyrmessier011 said:
eveyr single big market can afford to lose money. NYR can afford to lose $10 million. It's the small markets that can't survive without making money that's killing the whole system.


Banks werent financing NHl teams anymore.

Big markets will make out even better under this deal. Thats why they are happy as well. Its only the fans and media of big markets who are complaining.

The big market clubs are the ones who forced the last deal in 94. They are not owned anything but a big punch in the mouth.

If anything the NHL could afford to lose the big market clubs. Big markets are only good for tv deals and well, they aint helping are they.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Ronald Pagan said:
Oh please, that's the biggest load of crap I've read all week. And I read this board alot.

Are you saying that the severe economic problems with the NHL were not as important as 41 home games for the rangers? You're a complete dumb f**k is you think so. A rising tide raises all boats my friend. Competitive balance and, more importantly, a stable economic system will make every team better off. Now go screw off somewhere because that attitude is what was wrong with the NHL in the first place.


BRAVO BRAVO

:handclap:
:clap:
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
nyrmessier011 said:
It's not as easy as saying "No, they aren't owed anything because now we finally have competitve balance...what, should they apologize cause they can't outspend everyone and try to win a cup" with a stupid florida panther **** grin on your face.

It comes down to this...the league absolutly owes an apology to every single big market club for one simple reason. THEY DID NOT NEED A LOCKOUT. They did not need to miss 41 home games. They did not need there business damaged. They sat out an entire NHL season for the sake of 15 teams. They did the other teams a favor for God sakes.


Bull-**** . . . I say again, just try to have a league without smaller or mid-market clubs. Keep 4 or 5 teams, play each other 20 times a year and see how long your Nirvana lasts, even among your own market place as fans grow board with your then useless excuse for a sport. The big markets need the other markets as much if not more than the other markets need the big markets.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
Ronald Pagan said:
Oh please, that's the biggest load of crap I've read all week. And I read this board alot.

Are you saying that the severe economic problems with the NHL were not as important as 41 home games for the rangers? You're a complete dumb f**k is you think so. A rising tide raises all boats my friend. Competitive balance and, more importantly, a stable economic system will make every team better off. Now go screw off somewhere because that attitude is what was wrong with the NHL in the first place.

You obviously can't comprehend the english language. My point is that Dolan has absolutly no problem paying an $80 million payroll. How can you justify where some teams are. Becuase teams were put in a ****** ass ****ing area, they have to create this artificial balance where some teams are able to spend twice the god damn cap limit so other teams that were put in horrific markets can survive. I'll ask you this...why in the hell did the NHL keep expanding if the old CBA was so bad. These markets can't handle an NHL team. You know the league is ****ed up when half the leagyue is going to be able to afford to spend $20 million over the cap.

Some teams are in such bad areas and have absolutly no market for hockey that some teams with great tradition and great fans had to miss an entire season so that some ****hole team in a ****hole area could compete. I am owed a ****ing apology...and you know what, your the ******** that should give it to me cause your probably a carolina or phoenix or some **** hole area fan.
 
Last edited:

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
nyrmessier011 said:
It comes down to this...the league absolutly owes an apology to every single big market club for one simple reason. THEY DID NOT NEED A LOCKOUT. They did not need to miss 41 home games. They did not need there business damaged. They sat out an entire NHL season for the sake of 15 teams. They did the other teams a favor for God sakes.

Does the league then not owe an apology to the small market teams that were well run, successful and made money? I dare say they needed even less to miss 41 home games and have their business damaged...

Folks need to get over this "big market v. small market" mentality. We're all just hockey fans, no? I'm a diehard fan of a small market team but although we were denied the joy of celebrating a Stanley Cup championship, I think the sport & the game are bigger. All 30 teams are in it together.

If the negotiating teams are bickering like children the way the people on these boards are, no wonder it's taken so long to get this mess straightened out!
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
the cap might not do anything to help the big market teams on the ice, but it does help the big market teams in that they will turn monster profits and no longer have to worry about the pressure of going out to get the big name stars...

a team that had a $70 mil payroll before, now will have a $35 mil payroll...if nothing else changes that owner just turned a $35 mil profit without doing anything and being that their bank accounts are the only thing that really matter, i'm sure the big market owners are just fine with that. not that they don't want to win, but for an additional $35 mil/year in profit i doubt they'll be crying too long if they don't
 

nyr7andcounting

Registered User
Feb 24, 2004
1,919
0
Master Shake said:
Big markets will make out even better under this deal. Thats why they are happy as well. Its only the fans and media of big markets who are complaining.
Yea, stupid fans. Who cares about them anyway.

Bottom line is you can say whatever you want about competative balance...but if Dolan can spend $70M on payroll, if he doesn't care about losing money annually, and IF NYR TICKETS ARE NOT GOING TO BE CHEAPER...than what's in it for me as a Rangers fan in NYC?

Nashville is now more competative because they don't have to make anymore money than they were making, but now teams that can afford $60M payrolls have to spend down to Nashville's level? It's great for Nashville, it's great for Dolan's wallet if he cares about making an annual profit from the Rangers, but what's in it for me? I can see both sides of the argument, but you can't ever blame a big market fan for not being happy he had to miss a season.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
nyr7andcounting said:
Yea, stupid fans. Who cares about them anyway.

Bottom line is you can say whatever you want about competative balance...but if Dolan can spend $70M on payroll, if he doesn't care about losing money annually, and IF NYR TICKETS ARE NOT GOING TO BE CHEAPER...than what's in it for me as a Rangers fan in NYC?

Nashville is now more competative because they don't have to make anymore money than they were making, but now teams that can afford $60M payrolls have to spend down to Nashville's level? It's great for Nashville, it's great for Dolan's wallet if he cares about making an annual profit from the Rangers, but what's in it for me? I can see both sides of the argument, but you can't ever blame a big market fan for not being happy he had to miss a season.

in the middle of my curse filled post that is what I meant. Sorry for losing it...it's just frustrating for fans of big markets who missed 82 games for absolutly no reason. I know it's frustrating for everyone like oilkiller said, but even the oilers had a purpose in this...would have been nice to have a purpose and not to sit around everyday hearing some teams from the south complain that they can't afford things.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Master Shake said:
Banks werent financing NHl teams anymore.

Big markets will make out even better under this deal. Thats why they are happy as well. Its only the fans and media of big markets who are complaining.

The big market clubs are the ones who forced the last deal in 94. They are not owned anything but a big punch in the mouth.

If anything the NHL could afford to lose the big market clubs. Big markets are only good for tv deals and well, they aint helping are they.
Big market clubs don't get anything under what's being floated with the new CBA. Big market owners reap the benefits. Pretty big distinction there. So Tom Hicks may be happy here in Dallas, but I don't imagine Doug Armstrong (GM) or Jim Lites (president) or Dave Tippett (coach) are thrilled on a personal level about having to shed contracts.

And big market clubs didn't force anything in 1994. The loopholes were put in by Goodenow and the PA lawyers, not by the non-existant Avs or on-the-rise Wings or finally peaking Rangers.

And don't give me that b.s. about affording to lose big-market clubs. From purely a market standpoint, the league could stand to lose small media markets like Calgary and Carolina and Columbus that don't sell merchandise or tickets well on anything other than a local level. Those three from a hockey standpoint are welcome additions to the league, but in terms of the revenue numbers that have been bandied about are the weak links. Will some of this be addressed with the new CBA? Ideally, yes. But will there always be weak links in the chain (witness: Arizona Cardinals)? Of course. And the larger markets/bigger draws (which, admittedly, change over time) will always be "more important" in terms of league revenues than the smaller teams.

And Hootchie Cootchie - the revenge mark wasn't necessarily directed at your comment. It's just this whole attitude of "we don't owe the big markets anything but a kick in the teeth cause it's all their fault. My precious little Oilers/Flames/Caps/Bruins/Pens/Isles/whoever were hurt by their high-spending ways, dangit, and I'm happy that they have to suffer. They deserve it" attitude that drives me bonkers.

The NHL wouldn't have gained the tenous foothold it has in the US nationally without the marketing power of the larger profile teams, and frankly, those are the teams that are going to get the national attention when this is settled even as new power emerged (I predict a SportsCenter special on "how the new CBA effects hockey teams - case study of the Avs, Wings, Rangers and some small market that will get very little attention in the story").
 
Last edited:

Master Shake*

Guest
nyr7andcounting said:
Yea, stupid fans. Who cares about them anyway.

Bottom line is you can say whatever you want about competative balance...but if Dolan can spend $70M on payroll, if he doesn't care about losing money annually, and IF NYR TICKETS ARE NOT GOING TO BE CHEAPER...than what's in it for me as a Rangers fan in NYC?

Nashville is now more competative because they don't have to make anymore money than they were making, but now teams that can afford $60M payrolls have to spend down to Nashville's level? It's great for Nashville, it's great for Dolan's wallet if he cares about making an annual profit from the Rangers, but what's in it for me? I can see both sides of the argument, but you can't ever blame a big market fan for not being happy he had to miss a season.


Dont like the rangers prices? You can always move to Carolina where they are alot cheaper. But you will also have to take a pay cut of about ohhh...30-50% of what you make now.
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Kritter471 said:
Big market clubs don't get anything under what's being floated with the new CBA. Big market owners reap the benefits. Pretty big distinction there. So Tom Hicks may be happy here in Dallas, but I don't imagine Doug Armstrong (GM) or Jim Lites (president) or Dave Tippett (coach) are thrilled on a personal level about having to shed contracts.

And big market clubs didn't force anything in 1994. The loopholes were put in by Goodenow and the PA lawyers, not by the non-existant Avs or on-the-rise Wings or finally peaking Rangers.

And don't give me that b.s. about affording to lose big-market clubs. From purely a market standpoint, the league could stand to lose small media markets like Calgary and Carolina and Columbus that don't sell merchandise or tickets well on anything other than a local level. Those three from a hockey standpoint are welcome additions to the league, but in terms of the revenue numbers that have been bandied about are the weak links. Will some of this be addressed with the new CBA? Ideally, yes. But will there always be weak links in the chain (witness: Arizona Cardinals)? Of course. And the larger markets/bigger draws (which, admittedly, change over time) will always be "more important" in terms of league revenues than the smaller teams.

And HockeyCritter - the revenge mark wasn't necessarily directed at your comment. It's just this whole attitude of "we don't owe the big markets anything but a kick in the teeth cause it's all their fault. My precious little Oilers/Flames/Caps/Bruins/Pens/Isles/whoever were hurt by their high-spending ways, dangit, and I'm happy that they have to suffer. They deserve it" attitude that drives me bonkers.

The NHL wouldn't have gained the tenous foothold it has in the US nationally without the marketing power of the larger profile teams, and frankly, those are the teams that are going to get the national attention when this is settled even as new power emerged (I predict a SportsCenter special on "how the new CBA effects hockey teams - case study of the Avs, Wings, Rangers and some small market that will get very little attention in the story").


Wrong. It was the big market clubs who forced the deal. They went over Bettmans head basically. He wanted to have this fight then. Thats why he got them to agree to a 8 owners siding with him to veto any deal. Because he KNEW the deal was going to blow up in the big markets faces and he could easily get 8 owners to block a bad deal.

All this was because of the big market clubs who wanted a deal in 94 and didnt want to lose a season. Its also why Goodenow thought the owners would cave again this year.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
Master Shake said:
Wrong. It was the big market clubs who forced the deal. They went over Bettmans head basically. He wanted to have this fight then. Thats why he got them to agree to a 8 owners siding with him to veto any deal. Because he KNEW the deal was going to blow up in the big markets faces and he could easily get 8 owners to block a bad deal.
And where is your source on this wonderful bit of psychic insight on Bettman's part?
 

transplant99

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
549
0
Visit site
The NHL wouldn't have gained the tenous foothold it has in the US nationally without the marketing power of the larger profile teams,

LOL!!

Numbers on TV were better years ago than in the last 10 or so....what "marketing power" of larger profile teams are YOU talking about?

Every team in Canada draws better TV ratings than the US market on a National level.

What a bizarre post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->