How does a lower UFA age help the "small markets"?

[mudcrutch79]

Each NHL team got about $4 million from national TV last year. I don't think its too much of a strech to say they could get it up to $6-7 million with the right teams being dominant. How much do you think Carolina's local TV contract is for? It certainly aint $4 million a year, let alone 6 or 7.

I had my numbers wrong, it's actually about $25 million US annually, per team. OK, lets say hockey rights go to 7 million a year from last year's 4. That's a huge stretch-NBC has the rights for 4 years under a Brick deal (No Money Down!) if they want it. Even so, you're pointing to a marginal gain of $3 million. If there is one thing Benjamin has emphasized, it's how much teams stand to pull in in revenues if they put a winning product on the ice. Carolina had $20 million in ticket revenue last year with a terrible product. How much would they pull in with a good one? It wouldn't surprise me at all if they added $10-15 in ticket sales alone, and that would lead to a huge increase in ancillary revenues as well.

This theory makes no sense under the cold light of day.

 

[CarlRacki]

This theory is just plain nuts for several reasons.

1) The fact is and always has been that earlier unrestricted free agency has always worked to the players' benefit. This is why Curt Flood when to the U.S. Supreme court for it in baseball. It's why the NFL and NBA place limitations on it. It's why the NHL set the age at 31 a decade ago. To believe this conspiracy, one must assume the majority of small-market owners are subjugating their team's best interests, as well as their personal fiduciary interests, for the good of the Rangers, Maple Leafs, Red Wings and Flyers. Fat chance.
2) It flies in the face of arguments made by some of the same anti-cap people that small-market hardliners are ruling the roost in the current labor dispute while big spenders like Philly, New York and Toronto. Again, you're arguing that these owners are throwing out their own interests to help the rich guys. Nope.
3) The NHL's latest offer lowers the UFA ONE whole year. One would think if the goal was to get young stars to big markets sooner the change would be more drastic.
4) The only league with a hard cap is the NFL. Some of that league's biggest stars play in Green Bay (Favre), Minnesota (Moss, Culpepper), Indianapolis (Manning), Kansas City (Holmes) and San Diego (Tomlinson). So, while your theory says one thing, real-world experience with a hard cap says something very different.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Carolina had $20 million in ticket revenue last year with a terrible product. How much would they pull in with a good one? It wouldn't surprise me at all if they added $10-15 in ticket sales alone, and that would lead to a huge increase in ancillary revenues as well.

How come they didn't add half of that $10-15 million after they went to the finals?

 

[mudcrutch79]

How come they didn't add half of that $10-15 million after they went to the finals?

Who says that they didn't? Even if they didn't, that probably reflects more on the fact that they put a terrible product on the ice the next season. That playoff run should be a big hint that a winning team will pay off down there-they had the place jammed and crazy for playoff games. They have yet to put a consistently good product on the ice though-it's been nothing but crappy hockey from one season to the next, with a fluke run to the finals thrown in.

 

[hockeytown9321]

This theory is just plain nuts for several reasons.

1) The fact is and always has been that earlier unrestricted free agency has always worked to the players' benefit. This is why Curt Flood when to the U.S. Supreme court for it in baseball. It's why the NFL and NBA place limitations on it. It's why the NHL set the age at 31 a decade ago. To believe this conspiracy, one must assume the majority of small-market owners are subjugating their team's best interests, as well as their personal fiduciary interests, for the good of the Rangers, Maple Leafs, Red Wings and Flyers. Fat chance.
2) It flies in the face of arguments made by some of the same anti-cap people that small-market hardliners are ruling the roost in the current labor dispute while big spenders like Philly, New York and Toronto. Again, you're arguing that these owners are throwing out their own interests to help the rich guys. Nope.
3) The NHL's latest offer lowers the UFA ONE whole year. One would think if the goal was to get young stars to big markets sooner the change would be more drastic.
4) The only league with a hard cap is the NFL. Some of that league's biggest stars play in Green Bay (Favre), Minnesota (Moss, Culpepper), Indianapolis (Manning), Kansas City (Holmes) and San Diego (Tomlinson). So, while your theory says one thing, real-world experience with a hard cap says something very different.

First off, Curt Flood went to court to establish that players could become free agents at all. It wasn't an age issue.

Second, you always forget in your NFL analogies that there are no small market teams. As long as there are revenue disparities such as the NHL has now, the wealthy teams will alwyas be able to exploit any loophole or weakness in the CBA more than the poor teams. Its indisputable.

And I don't beleive the small market owners are putting the league's interests in front of their own. Everyone's interest is in making as much money as possible. They know TV is where the money is. They also get the added excuse of the salary cap when they can't improve their team. They know the lemmings will buy it.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Who says that they didn't? Even if they didn't, that probably reflects more on the fact that they put a terrible product on the ice the next season. That playoff run should be a big hint that a winning team will pay off down there-they had the place jammed and crazy for playoff games. They have yet to put a consistently good product on the ice though-it's been nothing but crappy hockey from one season to the next, with a fluke run to the finals thrown in.

Ahh, parity.

And Carolina's average attendance was up about 600 in 02-03 from 01-02.

 

[looooob]

.

. They also get the added excuse of the salary cap when they can't improve their team. They know the lemmings will buy it.

but is the salary cap excuse better than the current 'we can't afford to pay and play with the big boys' excuse they can use now?

 

[Morbo]

To believe this conspiracy, one must assume the majority of small-market owners are subjugating their team's best interests, as well as their personal fiduciary interests, for the good of the Rangers, Maple Leafs, Red Wings and Flyers. Fat chance.
2) It flies in the face of arguments made by some of the same anti-cap people that small-market hardliners are ruling the roost in the current labor dispute while big spenders like Philly, New York and Toronto. Again, you're arguing that these owners are throwing out their own interests to help the rich guys. Nope.

Interesting.

You DO of course think it's ok for the big teams to go against their financial and competitive interests to help Nashville, Florida, Carolina, and Anaheim though, right?

3) The NHL's latest offer lowers the UFA ONE whole year. One would think if the goal was to get young stars to big markets sooner the change would be more drastic.

It will be.

 

[mudcrutch79]

And I don't beleive the small market owners are putting the league's interests in front of their own. Everyone's interest is in making as much money as possible. They know TV is where the money is. They also get the added excuse of the salary cap when they can't improve their team. They know the lemmings will buy it.

Two questions. 1) How much will this mythical TV contract be worth per team? and 2) When will it be instituted?

 

[mudcrutch79]

Ahh, parity.

And Carolina's average attendance was up about 600 in 02-03 from 01-02.

They were the worst team in the league, and their attendance increased? How does that disprove my point?

 

[hockeytown9321]

but is the salary cap excuse better than the current 'we can't afford to pay and play with the big boys' excuse they can use now?

I don't think so. But its pretty obvious that the NHL can tell most of its fans what they want to hear and the fans buy it.

 

[hockeytown9321]

They were the worst team in the league, and their attendance increased? How does that disprove my point?

They went to the finals in 2002. Their attendance rose 600 the year after. I don't consider that very successful.

 

[CarlRacki]

Interesting.

You DO of course think it's ok for the big teams to go against their financial and competitive interests to help Nashville, Florida, Carolina, and Anaheim though, right?



It will be.

Is that what your Magic 8-Ball tells you?

A cap would not subjugate the big-market teams' interests to help smaller market teams. A cap, in fact, would force those teams to spend less while taking in roughly the same revenue. Same revenue - fewer expenditures = larger profit.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Two questions. 1) How much will this mythical TV contract be worth per team? and 2) When will it be instituted?

It'd be for much more than the 0.00 NBA deal. It would be instituted when network executives take notice of teams in the big markets dominating the league with marketable superstars in their prime.

 

[mudcrutch79]

They went to the finals in 2002. Their attendance rose 600 the year after. I don't consider that very successful.

They were the worst team in the league the year after, and they jacked up ticket prices. You're telling me that they put out a terrible product, increased prices, and sold more tickets, and you don't consider that successful?

 

[mudcrutch79]

It'd be for much more than the 0.00 NBA deal. It would be instituted when network executives take notice of teams in the big markets dominating the league with marketable superstars in their prime.

Wow. That's a substantive answer. Network execs might take notice, but if the country as a whole still doesn't give a rats ass-and they won't, it won't have any effect. The ratings that hockey draws right now are abysmal. You think that will change because all of the sudden the Kings are playing the Rangers in the finals. Part of the reason other sports do well with big markets is because those teams have fans across the country-the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, Packers, and Cowboys, to offer a few examples, have national fanbases. There aren't teams in hockey that do, and putting Iginla on the Rangers isn't going to change that.

I'm not sure what this 0.00 NBA deal is you're referring to-the NHL is the organization locked into the zero guaranteed revenue deal for the next four years.

 

[hockeytown9321]

They were the worst team in the league the year after, and they jacked up ticket prices. You're telling me that they put out a terrible product, increased prices, and sold more tickets, and you don't consider that successful?

By the way, answer my questions. If you want to put this nonsense forward, at least explain how you see it playing out.

Don't you think a lot of their increase would come in the form of season tickets or mini plans? Even Washington increased about 2000 the year after they went to the Finals.

Which questions didn't I answer?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Wow. That's a substantive answer. Network execs might take notice, but if the country as a whole still doesn't give a rats ass-and they won't, it won't have any effect. The ratings that hockey draws right now are abysmal. You think that will change because all of the sudden the Kings are playing the Rangers in the finals. Part of the reason other sports do well with big markets is because those teams have fans across the country-the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, Packers, and Cowboys, to offer a few examples, have national fanbases. There aren't teams in hockey that do, and putting Iginla on the Rangers isn't going to change that.

I'm not sure what this 0.00 NBA deal is you're referring to-the NHL is the organization locked into the zero guaranteed revenue deal for the next four years.

Sorry, typo on the NBA deal.

How come Sports Illustrated ran a cover story in 1994 that the NHL was over taking the NBA? Why does Detroit draw double the ratings of any other NHL team on national TV?

 

[txpd]

Of course anyone with an ounce of rationality would realize that this whole fight is for the big markets, and how they can have New York , Chicago and LA (and Toronto to a lesser extent) become among the dominating teams. I mean, lets face it, having the NHL's next dynasty in Ottawa is not good for the league, but great for Ottawa fans. THe league wants to make sure that we cannot dominate for the next 7 years which seems almost guaranteed. Their solution? Lower the UFA age so that our best players would be available at 27, or 28 to go to the bigger market teams. AT least at 27 the player is not declining as he is at 31.

So how does the lower UFA age, the thing the owners want most, help the small markets?

Its funny, most people for some reason thought that this was about the small markets, but its really about the big markets. How do we allow the big markets to become competitive within a year or two instead of 4 or 5 that is needed under this system? Forget the honest way to build and win, lets short circuit it so that the big markets can turn around within a ocuple years!

Yes, that is best for Ottawa and best for the small markets.

So, someone please tell me : How does a lower UFA age (the thing that the owners are after) help the small markets?

GOod luck everyone!

I haven't had time to read all the replies to this post, but I am surprised that you don't see how the lower free agent eligibility isn't going to hurt small market teams anymore than the current cba does.

first of all, many small market teams are forced to trade their best players when they reach arbitration age as it is. you have forgotten why boston let jason allison and bill guerin go? that was over restricted free agency, not UFA status. Same with Edmonton last year having to trade their best center. Remember this stuff?

Lets also remember that the only reason there would be a lowering of the free agent eligibility is if there is a salary cap. while its true that the lowering the free agent age may lead to the occasional top player being cherry picked of a small market team buy a major market team, its also true that prices will be held down by the narrowed market place the smaller payroll requirements will keep that kind of free agent movement from constant raiding like it is now to the occasional cherry pick.

in the end small market teams will more easily be able to keep their best players for longer.

 

[txomisc]

You know, more and more people are starting to realize exactly what the NHL's motives are. All it takes is a little independent thought.

Anyway, you're absolutley right, their fixation on a hard cap is to ensure the big market teams have access to superstar FA's in their prime. Its all for TV. The league couldn't give two ***** if Calgary or Edmonton or anybody else went OB or ever won another game. And you can bet the league will include loopholes in the hard cap that allow the rich teams to circumvent it. Its really too bad they've done such a great job convincing most fans the league is looking out for them. What a joke.

geez think about it. if they owners wanted all the best players on just the big markets they would lower the UFA and NOT have a salary cap. that way the big markets could afford EVERYONE.

 

[mudcrutch79]

Don't you think a lot of their increase would come in the form of season tickets or mini plans?

Does it matter? They sold more tickets with higher prices and the worst team in the NHL. Imagine if they'd iced a squad that was a legitimate contender-what would they have done then?

It's hard to go on their ticket numbers as well-I imagine there were a lot more freebies the year before. I know TB has been giving away tons of tickets prior to last year-I suspect that will no longer be the case.

The revenue you can make from a winning team far outweighs what you'll make from a fictitious TV deal.

 

[mudcrutch79]

How come Sports Illustrated ran a cover story in 1994 that the NHL was over taking the NBA? Why does Detroit draw double the ratings of any other NHL team on national TV?

Because SI is a BS publication when it comes to understanding the business of sport? It's pretty clear that it didn't happen, and the leagues are miles apart today. As for Detroit drawing double the rating of any other NHL team...because they don't suck, like every other big market US team? Not only that, but I'm pretty sure those ESPN/ABC games were regional telecasts; if you lived in the Midwest, you'd see Detroit, if you lived in the South, you'd see Dallas.

How much have the massive Detroit ratings got the NHL in a TV contract anyway? Oh yeah, nothing.

As for the NBA thing...come on, put a number on it. Tell us how much each team will take in.

 

[hockeytown9321]

geez think about it. if they owners wanted all the best players on just the big markets they would lower the UFA and NOT have a salary cap. that way the big markets could afford EVERYONE.

I'm pretty sure they can afford everyone witht he cap too. The cap is the carrot given to the low revenue teams. It ensures them a profit and still gives them an excuse as to why they can't improve their team.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I'm pretty sure they can afford everyone witht he cap too. The cap is the carrot given to the low revenue teams. It ensures them a profit and still gives them an excuse as to why they can't improve their team.

How can they afford everyone with a hard cap? That's illogical. It's one thing if it's a 60 million hard cap, but if the league gets the 39 million hard cap...I don't see how that works.

 

[hockeytown9321]

As for Detroit drawing double the rating of any other NHL team...because they don't suck, like every other big market US team?

bingo. So how does the NHL make it so the other big markets don't suck? They devise a system that lets other teams do the work of drafting and developing of superstars, then allows those players to become UFA's in their prime. NHL revenue disparities will ensure that whatever loopholes exist in the hard cap benefit the high revenue teams. And all teams are guaranteed a profit.

You should read Gil Stein's book. He talks about his reasons for expanding the league to Anaheim and Miami. It was to put hockey in big TV markets so that it was attractive to networks. Whats the next logical step?