London Knights 2018-19 Season Thread (Part 7)

[Otto]

Fastpace just a point on Hamilton. They have a popular CFL team in the Tiger Cats. This takes away from the lure of junior hockey or other local sports. If you look at Missy and the former Battalion team in that area. Demographics plays a role also. Some cities just have more disposable income than others. Just a point. Sorry I butted in.

But in the context of the posted article, why should a team like London, or Kitchener subsidize these teams?

 

[Fastpace]

Fastpace just a point on Hamilton. They have a popular CFL team in the Tiger Cats. This takes away from the lure of junior hockey or other local sports. If you look at Missy and the former Battalion team in that area. Demographics plays a role also. Some cities just have more disposable income than others. Just a point. Sorry I butted in.

It’s good point bobber thanks for the replied, don’t feel sorry to butt in it’s always interesting to read from other knowledgeable hockey fans around the league

 

[superdee]

This not a racist remark just pointing something out . I think people demographics play a very important role in how successful teams are. If you have ever stopped at a Tim's in Brampton or Mississauga and observed the Cultures of the people that are there you can see why teams are not successful as the demographics are more conducive to soccer,field hockey and cricket over ice hockey.

 

[rukh]

But in the context of the posted article, why should a team like London, or Kitchener subsidize these teams?

For the health of the league as a whole, is probably the best argument. The Yankees still need teams to play against, so they subsidize the Rays, for example. Revenue sharing is fairly common in professional sports. Interesting to me that it's being considered at the level of OHL, or at least mused about.

The real question is whether parity is actually a good thing or not. You can make a strong argument that sports leagues are better when there are dominant teams that everyone is trying to take down, or rivalries, rather than complete parity and all teams having records close to .500. The NFL vs MLB argument, essentially. Is it better to have a league where it's hard to predict playoff teams before the season, due to small sample size variance and enforced parity through rigid drafts and a hard salary cap, or is it better to have a league with strong contenders known at the outset every year that the other teams are trying to take down? I don't know if there is a right answer or not (probably not, it's probably just personal preference), but it's certainly interesting to think in the context of the OHL.

And of course, it's more likely that one would want parity if you are one of the "have-nots", since we all love our cheering for laundry...

 

[billoink]

Simply Robin Hood effect. Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

 

[Otto]

For the health of the league as a whole, is probably the best argument. The Yankees still need teams to play against, so they subsidize the Rays, for example. Revenue sharing is fairly common in professional sports. Interesting to me that it's being considered at the level of OHL, or at least mused about.

The real question is whether parity is actually a good thing or not. You can make a strong argument that sports leagues are better when there are dominant teams that everyone is trying to take down, or rivalries, rather than complete parity and all teams having records close to .500. The NFL vs MLB argument, essentially. Is it better to have a league where it's hard to predict playoff teams before the season, due to small sample size variance and enforced parity through rigid drafts and a hard salary cap, or is it better to have a league with strong contenders known at the outset every year that the other teams are trying to take down? I don't know if there is a right answer or not (probably not, it's probably just personal preference), but it's certainly interesting to think in the context of the OHL.

And of course, it's more likely that one would want parity if you are one of the "have-nots", since we all love our cheering for laundry...

I stopped reading when you brought up parity. 9 different finalists in the last 5 years. Parity is not an issue

 

[Purple Phart]

This revenue-sharing idea does have a very significant drawback, and that is this: The OHL is argueing in court that the players are "student athletes" and not employees. If a revenue-sharing system is implemented, that would place the league into a " business oriented " identity, and give some credence to the arguement that the league, and it's teams are businesses, and the players are in fact employees.
One will significantly impact the other, but lawyers and accountants will make those arguements, and the courts will decide.

 

[Fastpace]

For the health of the league as a whole, is probably the best argument. The Yankees still need teams to play against, so they subsidize the Rays, for example. Revenue sharing is fairly common in professional sports. Interesting to me that it's being considered at the level of OHL, or at least mused about.

The real question is whether parity is actually a good thing or not. You can make a strong argument that sports leagues are better when there are dominant teams that everyone is trying to take down, or rivalries, rather than complete parity and all teams having records close to .500. The NFL vs MLB argument, essentially. Is it better to have a league where it's hard to predict playoff teams before the season, due to small sample size variance and enforced parity through rigid drafts and a hard salary cap, or is it better to have a league with strong contenders known at the outset every year that the other teams are trying to take down? I don't know if there is a right answer or not (probably not, it's probably just personal preference), but it's certainly interesting to think in the context of the OHL.

And of course, it's more likely that one would want parity if you are one of the "have-nots", since we all love our cheering for laundry...

Unfortunately it’s not sharing the distribution of the profit from more successful teams that will improve the overall standards of the on ice products of this league. What we want here is encourage the less successful team not discourage the successful ones. It’s should be the sharing of formulas used by the more successful teams, this should in my opinion elevate the overall standard of the league as a whole.

What we want here is a better balance of on ice product amounts the teams, not necessarily balancing or sharing the money gained by others hard work, usually money will or should follow up the overall success of a team.

 

[rukh]

I stopped reading when you brought up parity. 9 different finalists in the last 5 years. Parity is not an issue

Cool. For the record, I don't think I ever insinuated that parity was an issue, more just musing about the topic in general. I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest here.

This is the second one of my posts in 2 days that has gotten a bit of a snarky response from a different person. I don't think I've been presenting them in a confrontational way. Am I wrong, and I am being confrontational? Not my intention.

 

[Fischhaber]

Unfortunately it’s not sharing the distribution of the profit from more successful teams that will improve the overall standards of the on ice products of this league. What we want here is encourage the less successful team not discourage the successful ones. It’s should be the sharing of formulas used by the more successful teams, this should in my opinion elevate the overall standard of the league as a whole.

What we want here is a better balance of on ice product amounts the teams, not necessarily balancing or sharing the money gained by others hard work, usually money will or should follow up the overall success of a team.

In some cases, the 'formula' IS money. Sometimes that is a direct payment and more recently it is disguised in an 'education package' that extends far beyond any educational needs.

I think there should be a set limit on schooling, lodging, and transportation, with teams sharing all of these costs. That would encourage players to pick teams with a good track record of development instead of the deepest pockets. That hasn't been the case in a long time.

 

[Otto]

In some cases, the 'formula' IS money. Sometimes that is a direct payment and more recently it is disguised in an 'education package' that extends far beyond any educational needs.

I think there should be a set limit on schooling, lodging, and transportation, with teams sharing all of these costs. That would encourage players to pick teams with a good track record of development instead of the deepest pockets. That hasn't been the case in a long time.

Pretty sure this is the case... unless you have some actual facts to back up your comment.

Mods.. this topic is beating a dead horse...

 

[Otto]

Cool. For the record, I don't think I ever insinuated that parity was an issue, more just musing about the topic in general. I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest here.

This is the second one of my posts in 2 days that has gotten a bit of a snarky response from a different person. I don't think I've been presenting them in a confrontational way. Am I wrong, and I am being confrontational? Not my intention.

You definitely insinuated parity is an issue

"The real question is whether parity is actually a good thing or not"
"And of course, it's more likely that one would want parity if you are one of the "have-nots", since we all love our cheering for laundry.."

 

[bobber]

This not a racist remark just pointing something out . I think people demographics play a very important role in how successful teams are. If you have ever stopped at a Tim's in Brampton or Mississauga and observed the Cultures of the people that are there you can see why teams are not successful as the demographics are more conducive to soccer,field hockey and cricket over ice hockey.

Superdee we went to a few games in Brampton to watch Rangers verses Battalion. You could move to any seat in the rink after buying a ticket except for the club seat area. Once early on we noticed only one person in a box up above. Demographics does play a role. Kitchener and London have larger populations but also many die hard hockey fans. Rangers aren't always that successful on the ice but they still almost fill the place.

 

[Otto]

Demographics is a red herring. Mississauga has a population of over 700k and half are caucasian.

Population Of Mississauga 2018

Mississaugas problem is that there is too much around to compete with and on top of that traffic is an on going issue

 

[Purple Phart]

One area where team revenues could be increased would be for the more successful teams marketing people mentor the smaller market teams as to how to go about getting more local sponsorships. Perhaps a league-sponsored marketing workshop would help ?

As an example, Peterborough at one time had Quaker Oats as a local industry. Why don't I see that company's advertising on their rink ads ? Surely, they have a PR/Advertising budget. Isn't there a canoe company located there who have a reputation for building high quality canoes ? There was also a company that rented houseboats for a Trent Waterway vacation. Why don't they have a prominent presence at that arena ? Kawartha Dairies ? That's just off the top of my head, but there are untapped revenue sources in most communities. Maybe those folks have never been approached, and maybe the marketing people don't know how much to ask for, or how to package a tiered approach that has some appeal, and can fit into a company's budget. Better to get half a loaf, than none at all.

 

[bobber]

But in the context of the posted article, why should a team like London, or Kitchener subsidize these teams?

Otto I don't agree with Kitchener or London having to subsidize other franchises. Not really sure how that could be monitored when most are privately owned and profit driven. The Hunters built London into what is one of the most successful franchises in the CHL. To me it's like they would be punished for their accomplments. Kitchener mostly fills the building regularly even when they are at the bottom of the pile. Just die hard hockey fans in the area.

 

[Otto]

One area where team revenues could be increased would be for the more successful teams marketing people mentor the smaller market teams as to how to go about getting more local sponsorships. Perhaps a league-sponsored marketing workshop would help ?

As an example, Peterborough at one time had Quaker Oats as a local industry. Why don't I see that company's advertising on their rink ads ? Surely, they have a PR/Advertising budget. Isn't there a canoe company located there who have a reputation for building high quality canoes ? There was also a company that rented houseboats for a Trent Waterway vacation. Why don't they have a prominent presence at that arena ? Kawartha Dairies ? That's just off the top of my head, but there are untapped revenue sources in most communities. Maybe those folks have never been approached, and maybe the marketing people don't know how much to ask for, or how to package a tiered approach that has some appeal, and can fit into a company's budget. Better to get half a loaf, than none at all.

Now this is an excellent suggestion!

 

[Fastpace]

In some cases, the 'formula' IS money. Sometimes that is a direct payment and more recently it is disguised in an 'education package' that extends far beyond any educational needs.

I think there should be a set limit on schooling, lodging, and transportation, with teams sharing all of these costs. That would encourage players to pick teams with a good track record of development instead of the deepest pockets. That hasn't been the case in a long time.

It may be so now after success has been found over a number of years, it wasn’t always so. The Knights used to be not all that long ago a struggling team like all other teams in this league but now have found a way to rise above with their sheer determination and hard work. We are now starting to see complaints from other teams claiming unfairness, rather to search and find the winning formula that will rise them above the unfortunates, claiming city sizes as the sole reason.

 

[Fischhaber]

It may be so now after success has been found over a number of years, it wasn’t always so. The Knights used to be not all that long ago a struggling team like all other teams in this league but now have found a way to rise above with their sheer determination and hard work. We are now starting to see complaints from other teams claiming unfairness, rather to search and find the winning formula that will rise them above the unfortunates, claiming city sizes as the sole reason.

I wasn't meaning to single out the Knights if that wasn't clear. I definitely agree with your points about hard work, but I think that more standardized education packages would also help teams that really are limited by population.

Teams like Hamilton, Mississauga, Guelph, Windsor, etc. They have the means to be a huge draw if they play their cards right.

Just for example though, London has roughly 640,000 people within a 50km radius of the arena and draws 1.4% of those people.

For Owen Sound that would be 8%. For North Bay it would be 10.7%. The number for Sault Ste. Marie would be comparable to North Bay, but I can't do it easily with the border.

Those are already perhaps the 3 most hockey crazed cities in the league. They are the #1 entertainment, everyone has an opinion. Asking these places to triple their revenue or build a 9000 seat arena is just not realistic at all. To keep up with the higher revenue teams then there has to be more consistency in the quality of the education packages. I don't think that means revenue sharing, but there are other solutions. Raising the quality across the board and putting a cap on some elements like transportation and private tutoring would be a start.

 

[Fastpace]

I wasn't meaning to single out the Knights if that wasn't clear. I definitely agree with your points about hard work, but I think that more standardized education packages would also help teams that really are limited by population.

Teams like Hamilton, Mississauga, Guelph, Windsor, etc. They have the means to be a huge draw if they play their cards right.

Just for example though, London has roughly 640,000 people within a 50km radius of the arena and draws 1.4% of those people.

For Owen Sound that would be 8%. For North Bay it would be 10.7%. The number for Sault Ste. Marie would be comparable to North Bay, but I can't do it easily with the border.

Those are already perhaps the 3 most hockey crazed cities in the league. They are the #1 entertainment, everyone has an opinion. Asking these places to triple their revenue or build a 9000 seat arena is just not realistic at all. To keep up with the higher revenue teams then there has to be more consistency in the quality of the education packages. I don't think that means revenue sharing, but there are other solutions. Raising the quality across the board and putting a cap on some elements like transportation and private tutoring would be a start.

If you were not just singling out London as you say, I would suggest you remove the 9000 seat rink you are using as your example.

I'll bet all these smaller markets argued the league their cities were more than adequate to accept each of their franchises and were good enough to rival any other city in this league. If it's no longer the case perhaps they should consider selling so not to drag down other franchises and let the league find more suitable places that will accept OHL franchises and the challenges that will rival them to any other teams of this league

 

[Gloverone2020]

WHO CARES.. START A NEW FORUM ON THIS. PAGE AND A HALF ON WHO CARES ABOUT AN ARTICLE FROM HOW LONG AGO??

 

[Otto]

WHO CARES.. START A NEW FORUM ON THIS. PAGE AND A HALF ON WHO CARES ABOUT AN ARTICLE FROM HOW LONG AGO??

ZUBOR CARES! #PlymouthWhalers

FYI.. the article was from 4 days ago...

My thoughts are that the topic should be put to rest also... not even another thread started... because it's been gone over time and time again. Nothing good comes out of it.

 

[nelli27]

ZUBOR CARES! #PlymouthWhalers

FYI.. the article was from 4 days ago...

My thoughts are that the topic should be put to rest also... not even another thread started... because it's been gone over time and time again. Nothing good comes out of it.

Ok, let me interject to say that we end this particular discussion on the Knights board, and if posters would like to continue on the topic, someone can start a new thread.
-MOD

 

[TheCoach]

Big long road trip for the boys. What a great time to bond and grow team chemistry

 

[PhlyerPhanatic31]

ya ya Nelli................Antonio Stranges is an Elite Skater.
The style of skating is known as 'Open Hip Skating' aka as 'The Crosby Style.'
Sidney Crosby made this style famous where he becomes very elusive with the puck.

The "outward outward" was always referred to as a "Tomahawk" or "Mohawk" stride when I coached, guess that's not politically correct anymore