Sotnos
Registered User
Thank you, I didn't feel like explaining all that again. We need an FAQ or something, would save us all some time.missK said:
- Status
tampa bay has been in the bottom half of league attendance 4 of the last 5 years, and i'm sure it would be more if i could find the data. the bottom line is that teams in bad markets will only draw if there is a legit chance at winning a cup- see tampa last year.
The Messenger said:
The Messenger........
You bring up a great point.......as far as Im concerned there are too many teams in todays NHL...........20 is a fair number of teams for the League...........30 is ten too many............Columbus is not a bad hockey market I guess but I would rather put a team in Albany New York before I put one in Columbus........heh heh heh........or even Kentucky......
Cheers!
monkey_00
That sounds nice but Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Philadelphia, Rangers reportedly lose money. Spending more to lose more is not a formula for anything. Your a rich team when you spend and make a profit. (Vancouver, Toronto, Minnesota) Most of these teams go to the playoffs in new buildings and cannot make a significant profit, that's just rich corporations that happen to own teams.jericholic19 said:
As to the attendance I hope some are aware many teams pad attendance and automtically list seats as sold that are not sold. The Rangers whatever they post as attendance do not sellout Msg most games as this link lists, anyone who goes to games at Msg will tell you that. The Isles also list games as sellouts where the open sections (where tickets were clearly not sold) are visible like the garden.
kerrly said:
so what's your suggestion- make all of the bad markets serious contenders every year? make sure philly, detroit, colorado, new york, toronto, and montreal bad because they'll sell tickets anyways? nope. sorry, but there are markets right now that just aren't hockey markets.
bhawk24bob said:
Edmonton and Calgary fill their buildings while Chicago doesn't, but you don't think they need to be in the NHL. Calgary even regulary filled their building despite not tasting the playoffs in the 7 years previous to the last one. But apparently Chicago is a good market, but won't fill their building because of the lack of team success.
The argument is that if all markets have the exact same chance to be competitve every year, the teams fans will respond especially in areas where teams struggle to fill their buildings. Thus building a stronger league. Teams like Toronto and the big markets will never lose fan support.
Why do you think that the high revenue teams you mentioned should share their hard earned profits with low revenue teams? Those teams sell out every night, they do an amazing job marketing their product, great public relations, advertising. They spend the money because they know they will get it back and then some Why should(insert team) who draw 12-14 thousand fans, does a piss poor job marketing,won't put a quality product on the ice deserve the profits of clubs who do. You are right in stating the wealthier clubs started the escalation, if say Carolina spent 55 mil on salaries and had an excellent team that contended year after year don't you think they would sell out, other business's would want to pay them for advetrising and so on therefore they would make that money back? sorry Carolina fans not picking on youjericholic19 said:
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
jb said:
It works in the NFL doesn't it? Bettman wants a NFL modeled cap, well why is the NFL successful? Why can teams like Green Bay and Jacksonville compete with New York and Dallas? Because they are close to an equal footing in terms of revenue. The NFL realizes it's only as strong as their weakest link. The NHL says they want to be partners with the players, try being partners with themselves first.
yeah yeah i know they have a huge national TV deal. But the NHL has 30 local TV and radio deal. Their some revenue to share. Why cant the NHL share ticket sales on a 60/40 split like the NFL? This cap is about cost certainty for the small markets and profit certainty for the large markets. Thats how Bettman was able to provide a united front.
you said the one and only answer HUge Tv deal. Do you honestly think that is fair to share ticket sales. If your business sold more pizza's than the guy in another city and he might go out of business because he is in a small maeket would you share your sales to keep him afloat?JWI19 said:
monkey_00 said:
Sorry but I rather not see my team play the same team 10 times a year. Plus only having 20 teams will push the NHL further down the list of obscurity.
jb said:
The NHL can't be compared to real businesses, it that was so we would only have 4-6 teams because they would of bought out everyone else.
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
jb said:
The NFL does it, so why cant the NHL? As for your example do those pizza places claim to be partners? I didn't think so, in the NHL Detroit is no more important than say a team like Nashville. We in Detroit may like to think otherwise but thats not the case.
Once again huge huge tv deal. Detroit is much more important to the NHL than Nashville. If Nashville folded no one would blink and would not be national news. Detroit on the other hand....JWI19 said:
jb said:
Nashville is a new team, give them a chance. If the Predators were as dominant as the Wings in the 90s the loss of the team would mean just as much.
jb said:
Actually, Carolina is one of the teams responsible for the salary escalation. Remember the Fedorov offer sheet (done out of spite, btw)?
cbjrocks
Registered User
jacketracket said:
Fellow CBJ posters rule! You schooled them on stats. Great argument.
BTW...if my team played the CBJ, I go, because chances are I'd see a win.
Big market fans underestimate us. Give us 5 years and we'll be winning cups and they'll be asking us for hockey analysis.cbjrocks100700 said:
me2
Go ahead foot
syc said:
1. That was in reference to their drawing power on the road. It should be good.
2. Explain how we saw the real Avs fans or Dallas fans in the road attendances? You win a cup or have quality players and people will come to watch.
Tampa will draw well next season, when ever it is. Chicago suck, they aren't interesting and you can't get a much more established club. When they return to quality they will draw well again. The same will go for most of the established clubs during extended periods of weak play.
Mess
Global Moderator
Revenue sharing is all about taking money from rich teams to give to poor teams ..futurcorerock said:
If revenue is down from those same teams coming to town then Revenue sharing needs to come from other sources ..
The goal to give money to the small-market teams to let them build up talent via UFA in order to draw and increase league wide revenue (road games) ..So that owners of these small market road games allow the home team Owners to make more money at home .. basically a road team is generating its revenue sharing money. Think of it as receiving gate receipts for road games ..
If these teams could do it alone on their own markets for home games and fan support .. What is the purpose of Revenue Sharing ??.. You are saying we are fine don't need the money ..but that is not what the league is saying .
Other owners if given the choice would want as little as possible games against these teams that do not draw fans and prefer the ones that do .. but you are contradicting that saying we don't care how my team effects profit of 29 other teams as long as we get home fans ..
And further look at it from the Fan of the Big Market team .. What Columbus does at home does not effect them .. but they have to pay 5 times the price of addmission for ticket or season tickets then fans do of small markets .. If they have to pay the money they are concerned about the entertainment value that they are paying for at home.. So your road attendance is not important is not fair..
While Columbus at least is stopping the bleeding at home some team like Carolina are poor home and away .. and that is even worse ..
Last edited:
jericholic19 said:
It has nothing to do with talent level and everything to do with how the game is played and called today.
Nobody touches anybody without the puck in those 80's games. And if they do, the ref is calling a penalty more often than not. It's mind boggling how much different the game is called, but that's far from the only difference.
The defenders back up more and don't attack like they do today; as a result not every man is glued to another man on the ice. Another dramatic difference is the tempo because the forwards took longer shifts. It was much more noticeable when some guy decided to burn a little extra energy and turn it up a notch.
To demonstrate, turn on a modern NHL game from the last 8 or 9 years and watch a 70's or 80's game at the same time. Flip between them and pay attention to the pace of the game. I've done it, and it's enormously enlightening...
McDonald19
Registered User
McDonald19
Registered User
futurcorerock said:
The group that is buying the Ducks from Disney is the management group of the Pond. Hmm yeah we just bought a team that plays in the nice arena we run and have millions put into but yeah lets move the team to another city. :lol
That's not set in stone. There's an ownership group in LA that also wants to move that team to the new arena in Kansas City.McDonald19 said:
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Whimsical Stakes (Gr. 3) - WOODBINE RACE 8Wagers: 3Staked: $208.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Ruffian Stakes (Gr. 2) - BELMONT AT THE BIG A - RACE 10Wagers: 4Staked: $450.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
-