honest ... if VAN can do it, why cant others ?

[NFITO]

why can VAN make money, while similar sized mid markets can't??

there's a lot more to it than just looking at market size here... as Tom already said, the fans are spending tons of money on the team - PPV, jersey sales, lotteries, selling out every game, etc...

this just can't happen in every mid sized or small market.... there is something that Vancouver has that many of those markets never had, and likely never will - and that's a hockey following, which comes in large part from the canadian culture.

let's face it, there is a huge difference, generally speaking, in the popularity of the sport between Canada and the US... in Carolina they make it to the finals, and a year later, they miss the playoffs, and now they are a team that is not that stable financially... same thing for Anahiem - this team made the finals and still lost money that year, and now rumours of them relocating to Kansas City.

Then you have Calgary, a team that misses the playoffs for 7 years and still has a loyal following there... they still were selling PPV before this finals run... they still have jersey sales there... Edmonton is smaller than most markets in the NHL, but have a loyal fan base that most teams south of the border can not match.

I don't think you can compare the markets here, just because of size. Hockey is and always has been the #1 sport in canada... in the US, hockey is way down on the list - behind all the major team sports, behind NASCARR, behind figure skating for crying out loud!!!

take away the strong American markets in Detroit, Minny, Philly etc, and it looks even worse... why can't Phoenix attract more fans? because there isn't that hockey culture there that could support them through the bad times, and sellout every game during the good times... they aren't going to make a lot of money on PPV and other revenue sources.

That's the problem here, not market size. If you want to compare the canucks market, compare them to teams with similar hockey background in their communities... a team like Minny for example. But don't compare it to teams that have the population base, like Miami or TBay, when they just don't have the hockey culture there to support the teams the way we do up here in Canada.

While a lot of praise should be handed to Burke and the canucks organization as a whole for turning their ship around and coming up with creative ideas for new revenue streams, we should also realize that they were doing so in a market that didn't have to create new fans as much as bring back old ones... it's a market that didn't have to get people to love hockey, but give people a reason to love their team again.... there's a huge difference between that and creating a new fan base from one that is hockey ignorant and never had the love for the sport to begin with.

 

[littleHossa]

Calgary attendance was one of the worst before their playoff season Vancouver attendance was very bad before Burke came in, it's not just about canadian culture.

 

[NFITO]

Calgary attendance was one of the worst before their playoff season Vancouver attendance was very bad before Burke came in, it's not just about canadian culture.

Calgary's attendance was never that bad... take a look at the NHL attendance stats:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2004

Calgary was 16th last year, before that finals run... this is a team that is based in a small market, that has missed the playoffs for 7 straight years, and still hovers around the mid mark in the NHL.... the year before they were 15th... when you look at percentage to capacity it's even higher - top 10 sometimes in the NHL... in 2001-2002, Calgary was 8th in the NHL in overall % capacity, a team that missed the playoffs for 4 years then.

Vancouver's attendance was also relatively the same during their bad years... about mid mark in the NHL.

considering how bad these teams were, that's a pretty good attendance mark overall.

would you get that in Anahiem if they missed the playoffs for 7 years, or would we even have a team there during such a long futilty?

hockey culture has everything to do with it IMO.... again, we're not talking about creating new fans here, like many cities in the states have to do... we're talking talking about bringing back old fans... about bringing *back* a love for their team... this is much easier to do that convincing people to love and support something that they never had in the past.

 

[degroat*]

why can VAN make money, while similar sized mid markets can't??

there's a lot more to it than just looking at market size here... as Tom already said, the fans are spending tons of money on the team - PPV, jersey sales, lotteries, selling out every game, etc...

this just can't happen in every mid sized or small market.... there is something that Vancouver has that many of those markets never had, and likely never will - and that's a hockey following, which comes in large part from the canadian culture.

let's face it, there is a huge difference, generally speaking, in the popularity of the sport between Canada and the US... in Carolina they make it to the finals, and a year later, they miss the playoffs, and now they are a team that is not that stable financially... same thing for Anahiem - this team made the finals and still lost money that year, and now rumours of them relocating to Kansas City.

Then you have Calgary, a team that misses the playoffs for 7 years and still has a loyal following there... they still were selling PPV before this finals run... they still have jersey sales there... Edmonton is smaller than most markets in the NHL, but have a loyal fan base that most teams south of the border can not match.

I don't think you can compare the markets here, just because of size. Hockey is and always has been the #1 sport in canada... in the US, hockey is way down on the list - behind all the major team sports, behind NASCARR, behind figure skating for crying out loud!!!

take away the strong American markets in Detroit, Minny, Philly etc, and it looks even worse... why can't Phoenix attract more fans? because there isn't that hockey culture there that could support them through the bad times, and sellout every game during the good times... they aren't going to make a lot of money on PPV and other revenue sources.

That's the problem here, not market size. If you want to compare the canucks market, compare them to teams with similar hockey background in their communities... a team like Minny for example. But don't compare it to teams that have the population base, like Miami or TBay, when they just don't have the hockey culture there to support the teams the way we do up here in Canada.

While a lot of praise should be handed to Burke and the canucks organization as a whole for turning their ship around and coming up with creative ideas for new revenue streams, we should also realize that they were doing so in a market that didn't have to create new fans as much as bring back old ones... it's a market that didn't have to get people to love hockey, but give people a reason to love their team again.... there's a huge difference between that and creating a new fan base from one that is hockey ignorant and never had the love for the sport to begin with.

Umm, You do realize that just like Carolina the Canucks lose money when they're losing games, right?

The reason why the Canucks have made money over the past two years is because they've fielded a top team with a reasonable roster over those two years. They were able to do that because of the development of the top Canucks players, NOT because of anything to do with the Canadian culture. Put the same team in Carolina over the last two years and they would have made money too.

 

[GKJ]

If every team follows Vancouver's model for business, the union would sue for collusion.

No they wouldn't. You can't be guilty of collusion is you're just being smart. Brian Burke got Todd Bertuzzi and Markus Naslund to re-sign with the Canucks for less than they could have if they were to test the market (as a UFA or RFA regardless).

Brian Burke got these guys to believe that taking a little less for the team, will help them later on. Markus Naslund makes almost $1.5M less than Pierre Tuergon does per year. The Canucks have good management, and kept the guys who they beleive don't have huge egos (and despite what people have to say about Todd Bertuzzi on the ice, he doesn't have a huge ego, nor goes around and runs his mouth).

Good management + Good salaries + Good fan support + Good marketing (the Canucks put some of their games on pay per view) = Successful business

 

[NFITO]

Umm, You do realize that just like Carolina the Canucks lose money when they're losing games, right?

The reason why the Canucks have made money over the past two years is because they've fielded a top team with a reasonable roster over those two years. They were able to do that because of the development of the top Canucks players, NOT because of anything to do with the Canadian culture. Put the same team in Carolina over the last two years and they would have made money too.

how do we know that the canucks lose money when they're losing?? is it because of the 3-4 year blip we saw a few years ago?? do you use that one 3 year window to base all projections?

the canucks have been a losing team for pretty much their entire existence... take out the 82 and 94 finals run, and the 90-93 regular season success they had, and this was a losing franchise... but it wasn't until the post 96 fiacso, after dishing out the huge dollars for Messier, and seeing this team go to 4th overall in the NHL in payroll that this team was actually losing money.

yes if the canucks have a losing team, while being in the top 5 in league payroll, then they will be losing money.... but this team did break even after the payroll was brought down prior to their run for the division title.

more importantly, the fans came back quick... while the team was still in the middle of the pack, not at the end, in NHL attendance during their dark times in the late 90s, all it took was 1 season after the reshuffling to load up the arena again and take them back to the top 10 in NHL attendance.

will this happen in Carolina?

the canucks losing money because they are losing games is too loose a correlation... there are many other factors involved... how many teams in the league that are among the worst, while being among the top in payroll will actually make money?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It is possible for similar sized markets to do what Vancouver is doing.

Lets not pretend its easy to do though.

Good management has as much to do with luck as it does with skill. Where is Vancouver if Bertuzzi and Naslund dont live up to potential? Probably still in the crapper.

So your whole argument comes down to this, i know youll disagree but trust me this is what you are saying. If a small market team does almost everything right (and has a little luck). Then they can increase payroll, be competitive, and make a little money.

They just better not make a mistake cause right down the rebuilding road they go.

To answer your question. If Vancouver can do it why cant everyone else? The answer is simply that Vancouver is the exception not the rule.

what other business does NOT have to make good managment decisions and get a little luck to roll in a multi million dollars in profits ? you think million dollar profit margins grow on trees ? of course if you make bad management decisions you should expect to LOSE money.

why should an NHL team be any different from any other business ? i fail to see why us fans should sacrifice so the poorest NHL teams (in terms of business ability) can still turn a profit.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Umm, You do realize that just like Carolina the Canucks lose money when they're losing games, right?

The reason why the Canucks have made money over the past two years is because they've fielded a top team with a reasonable roster over those two years. They were able to do that because of the development of the top Canucks players, NOT because of anything to do with the Canadian culture. Put the same team in Carolina over the last two years and they would have made money too.

good to see you have come around to our side of the debate.

dr

 

[iagreewithidiots]

why should an NHL team be any different from any other business ? i fail to see why us fans should sacrifice so the poorest NHL teams (in terms of business ability) can still turn a profit.

Because the NHL teams are franchises of the business. The teams are not individual businesses that are in competition with each other to put eachother out of business.

All teams being profitable is better for the business.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Because the NHL teams are franchises of the business. The teams are not individual businesses that are in competition with each other to put eachother out of business.

All teams being profitable is better for the business.

well of course if all the franchises were earning 20m a year it would GREAT for the business. thats a no brainer.

but why should they expect it no matter how poorly they run their team ? if i run my business poorly, should i expect a 20m bottom line ?

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I fail to see how evidence that the Canucks make money when they're winning but lose their asses when they're losing supports the players' argument.

It supports the player's argument because the players say there is no competitive balance argument. The league is fair. Therefore if the owners across the league have financial problems there are lots of different ways to solve it.

The Canucks just aren't making money. They are making lots of money. In financial terms they have become Colorado. Weren't you one of the people who claimed Vancouver would never be able to compete with the Colorado's and Detroit's and Toronto's? I know I was the one that said that they could.

If you were so wrong about Vancouver, which other markets are you wrong about?

It's nice to see that if all the stars are aligned correctly that a team will make money for a couple years. MAYBE that'll make up for the years of losses the team endured during the years leading up to the couple years they actually made money.

For sure it will. The Canucks supposedly lost $37 million the year before Burke arrived. While that was obviously an exaggeration, it was easy to see why. They were like Washington. They had one of the highest payrolls in the league and got the 4th overall draft pick. They were giving away tickets to get the announced crowds up over 12,000 a night. Burke solved that problem and set up the rebuild by slashing payroll to $25 million.

Then they were lousy for a couple of years but pretty much broke even, like Edmonton broke even this year. The Oilers made $2 million while missing the playoffs.

In the end here, it's clear you're missing the point with these entire CBA negotiations. Owners should be able to AT THE VERY LEAST break even with a losing team. The players make their salary regardless of whether they score 50 goals or score 2 goals or have a torn ACL. Why shouldn't the owners have the same luxury?

The entire point of the CBA negotiation is money. The point of this thread is that the labour dispute has nothing to do with competitive balance. The point of this thread is to show how bogus this argument from Ted Leonsis is:

"Competitiveness should not be defined by finances and market size. The key components for putting forth a strong franchise should be a team’s ability to draft and develop players, make astute trades and prudently sign free agents."

Competitiveness is not defined by finances or market size. The key components are a team's ability to develop players, make good trades (slash payroll) and prudently sign free agents. (And the least important of these components is signing free agents.)

Evidence? Vancouver. If the Canucks can do it, why not Calgary, Tampa, Phoenix, San Jose, Buffalo or Edmonton. If the Canucks can become big spenders why can't the others?

Tom

 

[iagreewithidiots]

but why should they expect it no matter how poorly they run their team ? if i run my business poorly, should i expect a 20m bottom line ?

Because like you said it would be great for business.

If every team could expect 20 million every year then obviously somebody is spending money on their product.

Put in a cap if the players dont like it hike it.

 

[iagreewithidiots]

Evidence? Vancouver. If the Canucks can do it, why not Calgary, Tampa, Phoenix, San Jose, Buffalo or Edmonton. If the Canucks can become big spenders why can't the others?

It is possible for similar sized markets to do what Vancouver is doing.
Lets not pretend its easy to do though.
Good management has as much to do with luck as it does with skill. Where is Vancouver if Bertuzzi and Naslund dont live up to potential? Probably still in the crapper.
So your whole argument comes down to this, i know youll disagree but trust me this is what you are saying. If a small market team does almost everything right (and has a little luck). Then they can increase payroll, be competitive, and make a little money.
They just better not make a mistake cause right down the rebuilding road they go.To answer your question. If Vancouver can do it why cant everyone else? The answer is simply that Vancouver is the exception not the rule.

Ill repeat the answer as many times as i see the question repeated.

 

[chriss_co]

Just because a team is successful on the ice doesn't mean they will be successful off-ice.

First of all, lets agree on the word 'success'. For me, making the playoffs is a success. Which means in the current market, 16 of 30 teams will be successful each year. Now, just because a team is successful doesn't mean they will sellout their building every game. Let me first refer you to the Florida Marlins. Look at the attendances that they draw and they have a pretty good team (they are right in the hunt for the wildcard spot just like last year). Want a hockey example? Well, I'll give you Nashville. That team has horrible attendances even though they made the playoffs.

So what is the problem? The answer is the culture/popularity of hockey in the respective cities. Canada loves hockey. A team doesn't have to make the playoffs every year to sell tickets. In many US markets, a team better be successful or else you wont sell tickets. The NHL is so different from other major league sports because the lifeline to clubs are ticket sales. In other markets, like NFL, MLB etc, TV deals are astronomical. Teams can afford huge salaries.

So why can Vancouver do it and similar sized cities can't? Its simple. Yes, good management. But more importantly, they have a huge fan support base. This means they can sellout their games at higher ticket costs than other markets.

Vancouver is not a small market. That is why it is easier for them to generate revenue than say Edmonton. The most crippling factor afflicting small market canadian teams is the US-Canada dollar. We were lucky this year because the Canadian dollar was strong. In past years, its been weak. The difference in the US-Canadian dollar costs teams like Edmonton and Calgary one-two superstar players. For markets in Edmonton and Calgary, we have to generate $60 million in ticket sales for a $40 million payroll. That burden is huge and something that needs to be corrected (how? lowering salaries across the league is how you overcome that hurdle)

Overall, the difference between many US markets and say Vancouver is the actual fan base. The people who will spend money on pay-per-view. The fans that spend money on merchandise. The fans who will fork out the several hundred dollars to go watch a hockey game.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

It is possible for similar sized markets to do what Vancouver is doing.

Lets not pretend its easy to do though.

Of course it is not easy. Teams are competing for playoff revenues. Both Calgary and Vancouver can't run to the Stanley Cup Final. One gets the money, the other doesn't. There are winners and losers. There is only room for four or five elite teams at any one time. Vancouver's success in the West has come at the expense of Dallas and St. Louis.

So your whole argument comes down to this, i know youll disagree but trust me this is what you are saying. If a small market team does almost everything right (and has a little luck). Then they can increase payroll, be competitive, and make a little money.

Not quite. I'm going much further than that. If a small market team does everything right, they become elite, a rich team, a big spender. I've made this claim for years. Weren't you one who claimed that this could not be done in the small markets?

They just better not make a mistake cause right down the rebuilding road they go.

Damn rights. You can't stay on top if you make mistakes. Even if you don't make very many mistakes, the core Burke put together can't last forever. Eventually the team will be back on the rebuild road and maybe for a long time. That's why fans in Vancouver - who are paying through the nose for this team - should see the money they spend show up in the payroll of the team.

Nonis was specifically asked at his press conference whether the Canucks needed a salary cap to remain competitive. He ducked the question, saying the Canucks would compete under any system that emerged from the CBA dispute.

To answer your question. If Vancouver can do it why cant everyone else? The answer is simply that Vancouver is the exception not the rule.

That is not the question. Vancouver is the exception to the rule because everyone can't win. Everyone can't become a financial powerhouse because every game has a winner and a loser. The best is always an exception to the rule.

The question is not "Why can't everyone do it?" That has a very obvious answer. Everyone can't ice a winner. Someone must be at the top and someone must be at the bottom. The question is "Why can't anyone do it?"

I say that if Buffalo had made choices that were as good as Ottawa, Tampa or Vancouver, we'd be saying, "Buffalo can do it. Why can't Vancouver?"

Tom

 

[Legolas]

I am so skeptical of this $45 million profit number, it isn't even funny. Over $20 million per year profit is Toronto Maple Leafs numbers...that should be unheard of in any other Canadian city (as far as I know).

Having said that, the ideological problem here is that the owners want a cap (as everyone knows) and the players don't. The players are basically saying the owners got themselves in this mess, so go ahead and get themselves out of it, and there's no reason why the players should have to help them out with that. The owners decide how much the players are paid, end of story. I know I'm just rehashing what has already been said. I think that there's some facts that we get as fans like this Vancouver profit number that makes us wonder what the hell is going on. I suppose the bottom line is that the players are right in that the old system could work, but if the owners are refusing to put in the effort to make it work and want a better system that is easier to have financial success, it's pretty much a moot point to try and convince them otherwise isn't it?

That's why this lockout I think is going to be very drawn out, and I think ultimately the players are going to lose. At the end of the day, the owners can all fall back on their other businesses and such. At the end of the day, there's absolutely nowhere on the face of the earth where the players can make even close to the money they make in the NHL. However, I still think that no matter what system is ultimately agreed to, the owners will find a way to screw it up, guaranteed.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Just because a team is successful on the ice doesn't mean they will be successful off-ice.

This is true. You could put the Detroit Red Wings in Peoria and they would lose money. But isn't this what defines an NHL market? An unsuccessful team is unsuccessful off the ice in every market. The Rangers lost $40 million last year.

When the team is lousy it is hard to sell tickets. If you manage well with a lousy team you make a little or lose a little with a low payroll. Revenues are low.

If the team improves and the fans yawn, is it an NHL market? I'll listen to an argument that says Edmonton and Nashville are not NHL markets. Maybe they are too small or maybe they don't like hockey enough to pay major league prices to watch a team contend for the Stanley Cup. A CBA can't solve that problem. It shouldn't solve that problem.

(Revenue sharing would do the trick, but is that fair? It costs a Canuck fan $100 to get on a waiting list for a season ticket. That money should go to the Oilers so ticket prices in Edmonton are half what they are in Vancouver?)

Calgary will definitely generate big revenues if they keep winning.

Tom

 

[chriss_co]

Of course it is not easy. Teams are competing for playoff revenues. Both Calgary and Vancouver can't run to the Stanley Cup Final. One gets the money, the other doesn't. There are winners and losers. There is only room for four or five elite teams at any one time. Vancouver's success in the West has come at the expense of Dallas and St. Louis.

Not quite. I'm going much further than that. If a small market team does everything right, they become elite, a rich team, a big spender. I've made this claim for years. Weren't you one who claimed that this could not be done in the small markets?

Tom

First, are you saying only 4 or 5 teams should be allowed to spend large payrolls and make money from season to season?!?!? What about the other 25 teams? How do they become a rich team?? Well, your answer is to start from the beginning. ie. draft and develop players. Well, the problem with the NHL is that teams can't afford to keep the players that they draft and develop once they become a superstar. The economics dont allow small markets teams like Edmonton to afford guys on the brink of turning into Bertuzzi's and Naslunds.

Calgary received the maximum profit last year. They went to every home game possible in the playoffs and sold out every game. They maximized more or less their regular season. What did they get out of it? Definitely not $45 million. Not even $20 million. In fact, what they made doesnt even amount to anything significant to counter all the losses they've made the past 7 years.

Small markets don't turn into big markets by being successful. You need people interested in the game and you need people to be able to afford to go to games.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I am so skeptical of this $45 million profit number, it isn't even funny. Over $20 million per year profit is Toronto Maple Leafs numbers...that should be unheard of in any other Canadian city (as far as I know).

Why are you skeptical? The number comes directly from the GM of the team. Furthermore, that money does not include luxury box dollars and most of the corporate sponsorship dollars end up in the rink.

The Canucks sold every single ticket this year. They charge people to get on a waiting list for season tickets. If a season ticket holder wants to sell a game ticket, the Canucks help him scalp the ticket for half the profit. On their local TV contract they drew more viewers per game than Toronto.

They sold 17 games on pay per view at $11 a pop, 25,000 a game and rising. They charged bars and movie theatres to show the pay per view games. They now get a piece of every lottery ticket sold in the province. They have corporate sponsors up the yin-yang with every square inch of GM Place covered in advertising.

When the Canadian dollar sank like a rock several years back, the team jacked up prices to compensate. When the Canadian dollar skyrocketed last year, they didn't drop prices to compensate - they jacked up them up again.

Every single revenue stream has become a revenue river.

Tom

 

[hockeytown9321]

Because the NHL teams are franchises of the business. The teams are not individual businesses that are in competition with each other to put eachother out of business.

All teams being profitable is better for the business.

But a McDonalds near a college is going to have inherent advantages over a McDonalds in the milddle of nowhere. The one near the college could have the worst service and the worst food, but make a ton of money. The one in the middle of nowhere could have the best service and best food, but there just aren't enough people to support it. McDonalds needs the one near the college to offset the losses of the one in the midle of nowhere. Just like the NHL needs the revenue Detroit or Philadelphia produce to offset the lack of revenue form Nashville or Carolina. Carolina could have the best team in the league, but they are not ever going to produce the amount of revenue Detroit does.

A cap pretty much takes all the advantages a team has. Instead of rewarding the best franchises, a cap rewards the worst. Its like saying the McDonalds near the collge cannot serve more customers than the one in the middle of nowhere, because they can't compete otherwise.

 

[I in the Eye]

Having said that, the ideological problem here is that the owners want a cap (as everyone knows) and the players don't. The players are basically saying the owners got themselves in this mess, so go ahead and get themselves out of it, and there's no reason why the players should have to help them out with that. The owners decide how much the players are paid, end of story. I know I'm just rehashing what has already been said. I think that there's some facts that we get as fans like this Vancouver profit number that makes us wonder what the hell is going on. I suppose the bottom line is that the players are right in that the old system could work, but if the owners are refusing to put in the effort to make it work and want a better system that is easier to have financial success, it's pretty much a moot point to try and convince them otherwise isn't it?

That's why this lockout I think is going to be very drawn out, and I think ultimately the players are going to lose. At the end of the day, the owners can all fall back on their other businesses and such. At the end of the day, there's absolutely nowhere on the face of the earth where the players can make even close to the money they make in the NHL. However, I still think that no matter what system is ultimately agreed to, the owners will find a way to screw it up, guaranteed.

I agree...


Things should be able to work in the current system... I'm convinced that what makes a winner for a small market team is the same that makes a winner for a big market team... I'm also convinced that the teams and GM's with money to spend on player personnel will spend it... I don't think that Sather forgot the strategy that worked in Edmonton... Sather was armed with the formula for building good teams in Edmonton... but instead of using that formula in NY, IMO, because he had this huge budget, he went away from that formula and went straight for the big name expensive star players... and this is Glen Sather - until recently, some argued to be one of the best GM's the NHL has known...

IMO, just because a team has the money for getting the big name players, doesn't mean that they should spend it on the big name players... Throughout the history of the NHL, IMO, the formula for a successful team is start small and cheap with young players, and steady growth until you become elite... IMO, it happens in cycles... IMO, it's the only way to build a successful team year in, year out (for at least, 3-5 years)...

IMO, the big teams with the huge payrolls (instead of spending it on high priced players) should be investing their budget into things that will help their young, learning team grow FASTER and BETTER - i.e. training investments, coaching investments, scouting staff, etc.)... Once the team becomes close to elite (or elite), THEN acquire the stud 2nd line RW... When you're ready to make a serious push for the cup... But the problem is, by this time, the player becomes so expensive because the market pushed his value over what you can afford... and even if you can afford it, if you are a cost conscious team, acquiring 'the perfect fit' stud 2nd line RW can disrupt YOUR team salary structure - therefore, you don't acquire him...

If every GM and team followed the same cycle to reach success (start small and young, steady growth, become elite (or a better team in the league), fill in your holes by acquiring as good as players as you can), then IMO, things would work wonderfully... If every GM and team was looking at the forest instead of the trees, IMO, the old system works for both the owners and the players... Obviously, Bettman and the NHL as a whole thought the same thing - thus why they agreed to the old system in the first place...

But every GM doesn't (for whatever reason), and THAT's the reality...
IMO, the old system gave the GM's and teams the 'benefit of the doubt'... which (on the whole) as proven to be a mistake...

IMO, the next system has to be as idiot-proof as possible (for the good of the game)... If the GM's and teams don't have the sense to control the budgets they have in a 'free market' - from an NHL perspective, then control the budget... If the GM's don't employ the proven 'cycle to success' for whatever reason, then limit the budget to limit the options to reach success...

Yes, it sucks for the players... and true - why should they have to suffer for the team's stupidity? Well, IMO, it's all a part of the food chain... I feel sorry for the cockroach that gets eaten by the bird as well... But what can you do? Such is life in the food chain...

The NHL and the owners CAN change the system... because they have the power to do it (and they have the right to do it)... IMO, eventually, things will go in their favour - because, in the end, they are stronger than the union... They just have chosen not to flex their muscles until now... IMO, the players have been compensated more than fairly the last 10 years or so... and it's time to correct things now - artificially, because I don't think the teams can do it naturally... Apparently, neither does Bettman...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

First, are you saying only 4 or 5 teams should be allowed to spend large payrolls and make money from season to season?!?!?

I'm saying there should only be five or six teams with large payrolls, yes. The fans in those five or six places are paying through the nose. Why should the money spent by an Avalanche or a Canuck fan subsidize the Calgary Flames? The Flames can make money with a loser if they keep the costs down. With a winner, they will have a large payroll.

It has always been this way. We just did not see the payrolls in the old days. You don't think the Flames and the Oilers didn't spend twice or three times what the Canucks spent on payroll in the 1980's? Calgary and Edmonton had star players coming out the yin-yang. The Canucks had nobody. You don't think McDonald, Fleury, MacInnis, Suter, Nieuwendyck et al weren't paid more than Stan Smyl, Gary Lupul and Larry Goodenough?

Why was it fair to see Calgary keep all those players when every time the Canucks got somebody good they ended up trading him for several players?

What about the other 25 teams? How do they become a rich team?? Well, your answer is to start from the beginning. ie. draft and develop players. Well, the problem with the NHL is that teams can't afford to keep the players that they draft and develop once they become a superstar. The economics dont allow small markets teams like Edmonton to afford guys on the brink of turning into Bertuzzi's and Naslunds.

This is what everyone used to say about Vancouver. On the brink of turning into Bertuzzi or Naslund? When did Edmonton ever trade such a player? When Naslund was on the brink of being Naslund he was making less than $2 million a year. When Bertuzzi was on the brink of being Bertuzzi he was making less than $2 million a year. The team became good because those players became Bertuzzi and Naslund and because the team was good, the revenues were there to pay them.

Doug Weight became Doug Weight in Edmonton. They did not trade him when he was on the brink of becoming Doug Weight. The Oilers had him for the best part of his career. He became expensive and the Oilers were mediocre. In the same sutuation the Canucks traded Trevor Linden, Pavel Bure, and Alexander Mogilny. It was the smart move. Because they made good trades they became good.

Edmonton made good trades, but drafted lousy. Until they learn to develop players they will always be lousy. It has nothing to do with money.

Calgary received the maximum profit last year. They went to every home game possible in the playoffs and sold out every game. They maximized more or less their regular season. What did they get out of it? Definitely not $45 million. Not even $20 million. In fact, what they made doesnt even amount to anything significant to counter all the losses they've made the past 7 years.

Calgary did not come close to maximising their regular season revenue last year. Canuck tickets cost twice what Flames tickets cost. Won't a lot more fans watch an elite team in Calgary than a team that misses the playoffs? Won't they pay a lot more? Why will more fans watch in Vancouver and pay more in Vancouver than they will in Calgary?

Small markets don't turn into big markets by being successful. You need people interested in the game and you need people to be able to afford to go to games.

It did in Vancouver. It did in Colorado. It did in Dallas. It did in St. Louis. It did in Detroit. It did in New Jersey. If it does not in Calgary, then Calgary is an AHL market. I don't believe it. Calgary will do boffo business if they keep winning.

Tom

 

[QuickDynamite]

The difference between Vancouver and teams like Nashville and Florida is: since the inception of the Canucks, they were always selling out games. Even after missing the playoffs they were still selling out games. Vancouver is a hockey market. Nashville and Florida are not hockey markets.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I don't think that Sather forgot the strategy that worked in Edmonton... Sather was armed with the formula for building good teams in Edmonton...

Garbage. Sather built the great Edmonton team on the basis of Gretzky and three great drafts. When that team had run its course he correctly took it apart. From that point he made great trades, but the team did not produce internally throughout the 1990's. Instead of admitting that, Sather blamed budget and money for all his problems. His failure to develop talent kept the team on the treadmill. Their only source of young players was trading away the best veterans.

Glen Sather, great GM is one of hockey's biggest myths. He hasn't made the playoffs in more than a decade. His record developing young players the last 15 years has surely been the worst record of any GM ever in a 15 year period.

Lowe seems to be doing better. We'll see if he does it better than a couple of dozen other GMs. If he does Edmonton can win another Cup. If he doesn't, it will take a fluke for him to win. This is exactly as it should be.

Throughout the history of the NHL, IMO, the formula for a successful team is start small and cheap with young players, and steady growth until you become elite... IMO, it happens in cycles... IMO, it's the only way to build a successful team year in, year out (for at least, 3-5 years)...

I agree. This is the only way in Edmonton, New York and Vancouver. In my opinion it can happen in all 30 markets. Pittsburgh and the Islanders need a new rink. If a team does all three things right (draft and develop players, make astute trades and make prudent free agent choices) they become elite and they can afford to become elite.

But every GM doesn't (for whatever reason), and THAT's the reality...
IMO, the old system gave the GM's and teams the 'benefit of the doubt'... which (on the whole) as proven to be a mistake...

This is exactly the way it should be. The teams that do it right should reap the rewards. If a team doesn't do it right (for whatever reason) they shouldn't.

Look at what you are saying:

1) There is one way to build a good hockey team.

2) The handful of teams with the best management succeed because they adopt the best strategy and execute it perfectly. These teams are the ones that year in, year out, contend.

3) This is unfair. We have to make the system idiot proof so that teams with idiots managing also have a chance to win.

4) The way we do that is to handcuff the best managed teams. We can't let Vancouver or Detroit or Colorado reap the rewards of their success. They have to either give money ponied up by their fans to the idiots or they have to give up players they have developed for their fans to the idiots.

If everybody has a chance to win then well managed teams and poorly managed teams both have a chance to win.

What determines which teams win under this system?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The difference between Vancouver and teams like Nashville and Florida is: since the inception of the Canucks, they were always selling out games. Even after missing the playoffs they were still selling out games. Vancouver is a hockey market. Nashville and Florida are not hockey markets.

Do you live in Vancouver? Vancouver was definitely not selling out games when they were losing. Revenues tanked. They always do with a loser. In every market.

The team struggled to sell 7,000 season tickets (they have 17,000 now). The announced crowds were ridiculous. The books said average paid attendance was about 12,500. If you wanted a couple of tickets to see the game, you watched the Canucks on TV and waited until the "hot ticket offer" came on. "Call this 800 number in the next hour and you get two tickets for the price of one".

The luxury boxes weren't sold out and even the sold ones were often empty. I knew someone who worked for one of the large forest companies and I could score freebies in ten minutes if the opponent was unattractive. The only good thing about being the fan of a team that sucks is that tickets are cheap and easy to get.

When the team is great, tickets cost an arm and a leg and can be very hard to find. Vancouver has premium pricing so if you want to see a good team - Detroit, Toronto, Colorado - it costs 20% over the face value of the ticket. Revenues per game are probably twice what they were four years ago. This also translates into more concession spending and more merchandising money.

Even if you don't go to the games - I don't go often any more - it costs a lot more. When the team sucked, I could get 79 games with the basic cable. The others weren't televised. I watched all 82 Canuck games last year, but it cost me $70 more on the basic cable and $180 more on the pay per view. The Canucks are getting a big chunk of the difference.

The Canucks were legitimately described as a small revenue team. They could not afford expensive players. They had to sell off talent. People pointed at them and said "See. There is something wrong with the NHL when teams have to dump all their stars for financial reasons."

The financial reason was the fans would not pay very much for a team that sucked. They wouldn't spend $200 at the rink to watch the Minnesota Wild thump them 5-1. People didn't want to spend nothing to watch the Wild thump them on free TV.

Today they are a big revenue team that can afford a big payroll. When you factor in the rink profits, they are also a big profit team. The result is that McCaw is about to realize a massive capital gain on his property. I don't begrudge him a single penny of it. That's the way the business is supposed to work.

Tom