Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Well, we keep being told that the talent pool is deeper than it's ever been right?
Lockout I - Moderated: "I don't think there's a punch-line scheduled, is there?"
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
- Status
Well, we keep being told that the talent pool is deeper than it's ever been right?
Freudian
Clearly deranged
- Jul 3, 2003
- 50,494
- 17,407
Losing operations aren't permanent. With your pulling the plug strategy we would have lost now healthy franchises such as Pittsburgh, Ottawa and Buffalo in addition to those that are going to hard times now. In ten years time the Islanders might be highly profitable in Brooklyn, for example.
Wanting to purge the league for no other reason than believing in allowing full effect of capitalism in a system that wasn't designed for it seems silly. Each to their own, I guess.
Timmys' posts not that hard to understand Cap'n. Here, I'll break it down for you;
1) "Contraction is the end-game for some fans in some markets", ie;
Fans in large wealthy markets like Toronto or New York who are frustrated that their franchise is bridled with a Cap system that prohibits them from buying a Cup in either a completely free & open market or one with perhaps a soft luxury cap.
2) "Its important to separate the should, could and wish elements when understanding some peoples perspectives; they know their not going to get what they want, but the impediments will continue to be hammered upon on a fairly regular basis", ie;
Simply demonstrate some empathy. Try to understand the frustrations of those who are fans of big market teams perspectives, who advocate for a smaller, leaner & far more exclusive as opposed to all inclusive one size fits all NHL. Understand their perspective is not malicious nor vengeful, that they appreciate its at this stage quite likely a Utopian ideal, yet repeatedly & consistently they are "hammered" by those who feel a set caste system of Caps & Revenue Sharing with a broad footprint is superior (to grow the game, broadcast elements etc etc etc) while accusing those who espouse such ideals as being elitist. Savvy?
Except for the 'buying a Cup' part. Your Leafs spent as much as my Wings, and well, we know how that worked, eh?
I guess it all boils down to what you believe it means to have a league.
Does it grow indefinitely, and just get divided into division after division after division; reach perfection at 30; or need to be more exclusive to truly the biggest markets that mostly can match each other on market potential.
I prefer the latter. Which do you support and why?
Citing exceptions rather than rules.
The rich teams were ridiculously more successful than the poor teams pre cap.
The NFL isn't a local operation, as many of the other leagues are, but very much national. The TV money that Toronto gets to count as its own? Not in the NFL. The gate receipts where some teams can charge 2-3 x as much as others? Shared in the NFL.
They actually function more as one centrally-driven operation that happens to have 32 outposts. They derive a larger amount of revenue from the national ventures (tv, merchandising, sponsorships, international markets) than any of the other leagues.
They also make it work over 16 Sundays (yes, I know they play some games on other days). Weekends. People can just watch football. It actually really is the perfect sport for recreational TV.
Now--- is it possible that the NFL is much more efficient (economics-wise) by allowing centralization of their media rights, instead of counting on what each local market can produce? If you added up what each individual team could get locally and added it up would it be more or less than their various national media deals? This gives them leverage since the product is highly sought after. Thus it may not be possible to actually reproduce the NFL model unless you're THAT popular. The footprint argument may in fact be true in the NFL as well.
The poor teams weren't really around very long pre-cap either, were they? (Except the Islanders.)
The poor Canadian teams struggled with a plummeting currency, in a league where they had to compete against USD pay scales.
Freudian
Clearly deranged
- Jul 3, 2003
- 50,494
- 17,407
I don't think there is all that much room to grow currently. There aren't enough markets, owners and players to support much more than we currently have.
I think the way the league currently works is the best it has ever worked. It allows for parity. It allows for teams to have a decent chance to hang on to the players they drafted. It allows for fans of all teams to think their team might have a shot at the Stanley Cup if they do a good enough job.
It still gives advantage to big market teams of course. They can spend to the cap, they spend much more on scouting and development than others and so on. That's fine. But I wouldn't want any team to be the Yankees of the league.
This whole discussion is a bit pointless since neither owners or players want less teams.
True in that sense, but sometimes the "What If" discussions allow some analysis and retrospection to see where the deviations started, to uncover the warts.
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates Of Arda
The thing is, the NFL introduced it's model BEFORE it became highly sought after nationally, at a time it was still primarily a Northeast/Rustbelt league (with a sole outpost on the west coast) and media rights that each team controlled locally. I propose that the reason they became so highly sought after and economically huge was BECAUSE of the business model they introduced before they became big. The success of the NFL is a result of the business model rather than the business model being the result of it's success.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
Huh?
The CAD is currently way above it's historical average, the current situation can be see just as "abnormal" as the one back in early 2000's when CAD was below historical average.
It's still tough to say if the chicken or egg came first. Rozelle was a visionary who recognized the importance of TV in sports' future. He may have recognized the burgeoning popularity of the sport. It worked very well on those small TV screens and the plays were easy to follow. It was broadcast on weekends when people didn't have to work or have other commitments. As it grew, so did the number of broadcasters and the value of those contracts, but it was all leveraged because you couldn't go around the league to the team. You had to be big to even put in a bid.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Yepp. Disconnects & dysfunction all along the line, from the top down in Toronto. There is enough talent to stock 32, 34 or 36 teams in what passes for the NHL these days. What there doesnt appear to be enough of however are seriously interested & munificent Owners out there, let alone Executive & Savvy Management types to pull it off with any sense of cohesion, elan.
... and besides. Paying a professional for the passion & the pleasure is so much cheaper than... well. You know.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Not simply Rozelle (who was, in fact, a visionary) but also visionary owners like Carol Rosenbloom, George Hales, Dan Reeves, and Art Modell. Without the support of the owners everything Rozelle wanted to do would have been stillborn. So are there any visionaries on the NHL's Board of Governors? And if there are are there enough of them to make the needed economic changes to ensure a successful league? To my mind the NHL needs visionaries right now if they wish to be a major league.
I need to get some sleep, so that may be part of it, but I was responding to Disgruntled about the pre-cap era. Most of that era (two CBAs ago) was during the great expansion period of the 1990s. That alone would lead to massive disparity between teams at every level, not just finances.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,693
- 269
Well, that's true but the statistics show great disparity even if you take out the so-called new teams.
BoHorvatFan
Registered User
Yeah and we also watch the games and realize that there are already teams with barely any NHL level talent on them. Think of how great the product would be with more good players spread among less teams, it would be outstanding.
I don't think NHL hockey is good enough tbh, I think the league's biggest problem is the quality of play over an entire season, sure we get good games here and there and playoffs are usually entertaining, but it is hard to watch a lot of the regular season games.
There has been some talk about how many votes it takes to approve a new CBA etc.
I was wondering, do we know for sure that these numbers that has been mentioned (Bettman's super majority clause etc) really applies here? I mean, there must be some kind of restrictions?
It just seems odd that like 25 owners could decide that like NYR and Toronto should pay say 500m each in revenue sharing. My point is, there must be some kind of restrictions on what can be decided by a majority vote even among the owners. Like there is no way anyone representing MSG legaly (in relation to their fidutiary duties) could enter into that kind of agreement where they undertake to do anything decided by a 3rd party, including giving money to other entities, without having some kind of veto or cap.
But I've never heard any detailed discussion on this.
I was wondering, do we know for sure that these numbers that has been mentioned (Bettman's super majority clause etc) really applies here? I mean, there must be some kind of restrictions?
It just seems odd that like 25 owners could decide that like NYR and Toronto should pay say 500m each in revenue sharing. My point is, there must be some kind of restrictions on what can be decided by a majority vote even among the owners. Like there is no way anyone representing MSG legaly (in relation to their fidutiary duties) could enter into that kind of agreement where they undertake to do anything decided by a 3rd party, including giving money to other entities, without having some kind of veto or cap.
But I've never heard any detailed discussion on this.
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
If I am not mistaken, those teams could appeal anything Bettman put forward but in the strictest of sense, yes they could be essentially "forced" into an agreement due to having allowed Bettman to retain a super majority, although when it comes to implementing new systems, like a CBA, I do not believe he has as much say.
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
Your statement assumes that historic averages matter when it pertains to either current or future results. Past performance is not at all indicative of future results, FYI.
The Canadian dollar was once at a significant discount to the $US because the Canadian economy (when viewed on a per capita basis) paled in comparison to the US at that time. When one now examines National Debt however, and the relative strength of the Canadian banking system versus the US, and that Canada runs a quite conservative annual book (balanced budgets quite soon) versus the US currently running absolutely massive and financed deficits, one can easily counter that past historic currency spread paradigms wont necessarily apply going forward.
Last edited:
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
- Jul 23, 2009
- 24,429
- 2
You essentially said the same thing: the economic environment is a dynamic one and pulling the plug on teams because of so would be a fool's errand.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
If there is one thing I will bet on it is that the US dollar (especially relative to the Canadian dollar) is not coming back anytime soon.
- Status
