NHL should come back with a 45 million salary cap offer

[shakes]

Which just happens to be covered by the TV contract. When the NHL has a similar TV contract, players can make a similar %.

Covered or not its still 65% of the revenues. Unless there is new math involved that still only leaves 35% to the owners.

 

[London Knights]

Some valid points, but as you said the average salary for a team this year was around $45 million, which was too high. Creating a salary cap there would only force some teams to cut a bunch of players, but as you said teams under that cap would have the money to sign those guys that got cut. Obviously the overall level of salaries would lower somewhat, but not enough.

But that is where the changes to arbitration and entry level salaries would actually mean something.

If you put the cap at 31 million, arbitration would become somewhat obsolete because you are looking at 14 forwards, 7 defensemen, and 2 goaltenders to pay. 23 players for 31 million dollars. That works out to 1.34 million per player. With salaries like that the max contract would have be somewhere around 4 million because Bettman proposed an increase in the minimum player salary. What is an arbitrator going to do if a max player gets 4 million. Nobody could argue they are on the level of a Forsberg, a Sakic, Sundin, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Brodeur and salaries would be stuck at a low level for the stars. The top level players would then have the option of going over to Russia and playing for similar contracts.

At 45 million a strict arbitration system would be able to lower the amount awarded through the system, and with lower entry level contracts teams would be able to keep their younger players until their UFA stage at least.

As for just cutting teams, it is so difficult to contract, see what happened in MLB when they tried to contract the Expos and Twins, that any is unlikely. Personally I am torn between wanted a few teams gone, and giving them a chance. It bothers me that Nashville can have such a low payroll and still lose money, but they had awesome fan attendance down the stretch, and it really isn't fair to cut a team before they have had a chance to build any story behind the franchise to make people want to come.

The same goes for Atlanta. Very disappointing to date, but they have two of the most gifted offensive players in the game, have possibly the best goaltender in the league (in 3 years) ready to start at the NHL, and some really solid defense prospects. The team starts to win, and perhaps you give the fringe fans more reason to come when the struggle later.

But teams like Pittsburgh and Washington I have had it with. I feel sorry for the true fans of these teams, but they are floating face down in the river right now. People leaving after the second intermission of a 2 goal game in the playoffs is inexcusable for a franchise. Having half filled arenas during the playoffs is too much to allow. I think Leonsis is one of the better owners of NHL franchises, and I wouldn't mind having him as the owner of another team but I would not lose sleep if Washington or Pittsburgh disappeared.

Going back to a possible 45 million dollar cap. Demanding teams meet the cap level is unfair. But I think it would be fair to say that a minimum of 30 would have to be spent with a hard cap at 40-45 million. It brings the amount spent by some teams up, but it also cuts the 6-7 teams that are spending 20-50 million more than the lowest teams.
It is too unreasonable to completely take away the monetary advantage of your most successful franchises, because like it or not, but if Toronto, Detroit, Philly, New York, etc. because just another franchise the NHL suffers a lot more. They are the ones that generate the most revenue and if you take away the option to spend some of that people may not come to these teams as often, and if they don't come, then you don't generate the revenue in the first place.

 

[thinkwild]

I want a system that enables all teams a fair shot at ufa's

I understand the sentiment and the frustration it bubbles up from. But I think a real good philosphical perspective can and has been made that in the balance of fan interests, this is not the best goal to shoot for. Better is the ability to develop an elite team in its prime at below free market value.

Buying UFAs as a method to success is illusory and non championship team building related. This perspective must be changed, not a system designed to fit it imo. There is no "perfect fairness". A properly designed market can overall render the money advantage not significant enough find overall unfair. The change that needs to be made is in this expectation of the fans.

If you want to experience the joy of greatness and success, you have to be willing to accept the agony and patience of building and waiting without complaining it proces the system is unfair. If you want the ability to have an elite team for 5 years, you must be willing to accept the consequence of a basement dweller for the same length of time. That is what is truly fair.

But teams like Pittsburgh and Washington I have had it with.

I dont see why you should. These teams suffered the natural conequence of having a team filled with UFAs that was no longer improving or winning big. I suppose Leonsis being rich can afford to keep spending on UFAs with his team that is now down to fighting for a playoff spot, but that NYR strategy is not a good hockey risk, let alone business risk. Washington is in a proper state of renewal now. And have a great chance to develop an excellent team by the time Ovechkin is in his prime many years from now. They dont need the right to buy UFAs now while they develop.

Pit and Wash are model franchises. The model when you fail after signing UFAs or keep your UFAs while getting worse results each year. These 2 franchises are poised to grow over the next 5 years and have the best ability to nab a franchise player. They may or may not succeed but there's no guarantees (unless its owners profits apparently) They have the start with new franchise players and many youngsters to sift through to develop a new team. Personally, i find this growth from nothing over several years an exciting prospect for hockey fans. If they didnt have a fear it may cause them to lose their team because the owner will lose money, (which Leonsis likely wont and Mario apparently isnt), fans would be excited at the prospect of starting from scratch. Every team cant improve every year. Failure and renewal from scratch is not a cause for contraction.

 

[SENSible1*]

Covered or not its still 65% of the revenues. Unless there is new math involved that still only leaves 35% to the owners.

If you take 35% of 100 dollars and I take 35% of 1 billion dollars are we both equally well off?

 

[hockeytown9321]

If you want to experience the joy of greatness and success, you have to be willing to accept the agony and patience of building and waiting without complaining it proces the system is unfair. If you want the ability to have an elite team for 5 years, you must be willing to accept the consequence of a basement dweller for the same length of time. That is what is truly fair.
\

Exactly. If a cap produces parity, every team has a 1 in 30 chance every year. I'd rather be able to increase those odds through good management at the risk of decreasing them.

 

[SENSible1*]

Exactly. If a cap produces parity, every team has a 1 in 30 chance every year. I'd rather be able to increase those odds through good management at the risk of decreasing them.

1) A cap won't produce parity.

2) Good management will be even more important under a cap.

3) Big market fans, like yourself, are fighting to keep their teams from ever having to go through the basement dwelling stage and from ever having to dismantle their teams based on player cost decisions. You want a system that applies to the majority of the league, but leaves your teams with a distinct advantage.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Let's start with the basics;

24 man roster (no idea if this is correct
5 men on injured reserve
15 in the AHL paid by NHL affiliate
8 signed juniors returned to their clubs

That's 52 per team. Yes, I am probably off by a few here and there. However, the point is contraction costs jobs.

Thanks for clarifying where you got the figure of 4 teams since that was the last round of expansion. Why not contract all 9 franchises that have been awarded from the nineties on. You feel entitled to ask me to "gimme" my math, so please, explain why you "feel" that 26 is such a magic numjber. What are the four markets, and why? Their fanbases would undoubtedly love to know where you're coming from.

Well the basics are off here and there, which I guess is why the numbers don't make sense. But, bottom line is that with the contraction of 4 teams the league would lose a number of player contracts, but most of these contracts will be 4th liners/AHL players who didn't have contracts up until a couple of years ago anyway.

"Why not contract all 9 franchises that have been awarded from the 90's on?" Again, 9 teams is way too much. A pro league needs atleast mid 20's as far as amount of teams. On the other hand, 2 teams wouldn't have much of an affect. At the same time, your probably looking at an even number to keep the conferences balanced, so in my mind it's either 4 or 6. I don't think there are 6 teams that deserve to be contracted, so my "magic" number is 4.

Anyway, my reasoning for 4 teams is that I think there are about 4 too many teams in small markets that aren't really excited about hockey and about 75-100 players who aren't what I would call NHL material. Contracting this amount of teams and taking these players out of the league and putting them back in the minors would be good for the talent level displayed by each team in the league, it would lead to a somewhat more exciting game and it would help the league economically, which is the main thing.

You have to remember, before the recent rounds of expansion, players that are now NHL 4th liners were minor leaguers. Just because the NHL added 4 teams doesn't mean that the NHL was able to create 100 more players with the talent to play at the NHL level. Expansion brought more subpar players into the league which hurt the level of play. I mean I watch as many games as I can each year, and I can't tell you how many times I see a team play with 2 guys on their 4th line who can't even handle a puck. Or they have a guy who can't do anything but go out take cheap shots at people and pick a fight. Dale Purinton is a guy who comes to mind, he's a guy who probably wouldn't be in the league if there were 4 fewer teams, and I would be fine with it.

Also, when the NHL added these 4 teams they didn't lower the minimum salary level. So, the 100 minor league players who where now allowed to call themselves NHLers got the same salaries as the current 4th line NHLers. The guys already in the league, rightfully so, demanded higher salaries because they were obviously better than the players brought into the league through expansion. This had a ripple affect and contributed to the inflation of salaries. Also, 4 more markets means 4 more teams demanding players, which drives up the market value for each player. Contraction would help in this respect as well.

Who are the 4 markets? Carolina, Florida, Anaheim and Nashville. Now, if one of these teams vastly improved their situation or were relocating to a city where they would be in a better situation than that is fine.

 

[Twine Seeking Missle]

A 45 mil cap will not work. Bettman started at 31 mil and has shown willingness to go up to 38 mil in the most previous offer. In that sence, Goodenow has done his job to squeeze more out of Bettman than first thought. Bettman might be willing to go as high as 39 or 40 mil but i see 40 mil being the absolute limit.

 

[shakes]

If you take 35% of 100 dollars and I take 35% of 1 billion dollars are we both equally well off?

So the owners are being greedy then? Face it, all this "heal the game" is crap spewed by the owners. All they care about is making a lot of money and thats it. At least if they said "heal my pocket book" I might at least have a little respect for them.

In situations like this, I think it is extremely fair that the product, ie: the players, get at least 60% of the revenues. People talk about how employees getting 70% of the money they made is crazy, but stop there. The players aren't employees per se but the product. They are the Big Mac, the BMW, the IBM computer and without them there is nothing to sell. Why shouldn't they get 60%

 

[NYIsles1*]

Also, when the NHL added these 4 teams they didn't lower the minimum salary level. So, the 100 minor league players who where now allowed to call themselves NHLers got the same salaries as the current 4th line NHLers. The guys already in the league, rightfully so, demanded higher salaries because they were obviously better than the players brought into the league through expansion. This had a ripple affect and contributed to the inflation of salaries. Also, 4 more markets means 4 more teams demanding players, which drives up the market value for each player. Contraction would help in this respect as well.

Who are the 4 markets? Carolina, Florida, Anaheim and Nashville. Now, if one of these teams vastly improved their situation or were relocating to a city where they would be in a better situation than that is fine.

Fair points that would have saved some revenue.

With all due respect why not simply contract teams spending and the losing the most that are burried in their own market and even with a roster full of stars cannot bring in fans or create interest despite driving the player market based only on rich ownership.

Tell me why the Rangers should not be the team to be contracted? In New York hockey (like Arena Football and MLS) is better served to be played outside the city limits because it cannot compete with the major teams in the region for $$$$$ or exposure.

The Blues in the modern Saavis Center lose 30-40 million and sellout the building with a 50 million payroll. The Rangers play before thouands of empty seats and the building has limited revenue streams for hockey any employ several star players.

Why not keep those four teams (several jobs) let them compete evenly for free agents and eliminate the team that cannot compete even with stars on the roster and a high payroll.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Fair points that would have saved some revenue.

With all due respect why not simply contract teams spending and the losing the most that are burried in their own market and even with a roster full of stars cannot bring in fans or create interest despite driving the player market based only on rich ownership.

Tell me why the Rangers should not be the team to be contracted? In New York hockey (like Arena Football and MLS) is better served to be played outside the city limits because it cannot compete with the major teams in the region for $$$$$ or exposure.

The Blues in the modern Saavis Center lose 30-40 million and sellout the building with a 50 million payroll. The Rangers play before thouands of empty seats and the building has limited revenue streams for hockey any employ several star players.

Why not keep those four teams (several jobs) let them compete evenly for free agents and eliminate the team that cannot compete even with stars on the roster and a high payroll.

Because tradition is something that is important to me and the team isn't in financial trouble whatsoever. The Rangers are not only an original 6 team, but they are a trademark of the NHL. They have been playing in Manhattan forever, so I just don't see your point about it not working.

The Rangers have limited revenue streams? What are you talking about? Being in Manhattan is probably the best place any business can be. There's more people and more money in NY, especially Manhattan, than in any other market. The Rangers make so much $$ on advertising and corporate boxes that it's ridiculous. Cablevision estimated that if they had made the playoffs there would be a $40 million dollar swing in revenue. There are thousands of empty seats? Yea after 6 years of losing sure there are, but those seats are still all sold. Look over the last 7 years, majority of games are sellouts. The team can sellout games even if not everyone shows up cause the team sucks, just another reason the team should be in NYC. But despite the losing the fan support is still there and when the team is good not only are the revenues off the charts but they get plenty of attention in the city.

I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to have a team in NYC. For the Rangers themselves, theres nowhere else they'd rather be playing their home games. And especially for the NHL, not only are the Rangers one of their trademark franchises but they are in NY where the team can make huge profits and the NHL can get exposure. Like I said before, if you don't have multiple teams in NY you are stupid. The revenue and exposure oppurtunites are enough to keep an NHL team in NYC no matter how bad they are, if the Rangers never make the playoffs again they'd still be playing in NYC.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Because tradition is something that is important to me and the team isn't in financial trouble whatsoever. The Rangers are not only an original 6 team, but they are a trademark of the NHL. They have been playing in Manhattan forever, so I just don't see your point about it not working. .

This is not about you or myself, were die-hards and unfortuntely not the majority in this. The majority does not even know a hockey lockout is going on here.

The New York American's were a Manhattan hockey tradition also at Msg, so were the Dodgers and Giants when they left town forever. So were the Cleveland Browns, who played in front of 80,000 fans and left town. The Giants and Jets left Queens and the Bronx and without a stadium renovation the Yankees would be in New Jersey today.

In the 80's the Knicks and Rangers were both leaving without signifcant tax breaks on the Garden, the Rangers to the Meadowlands and the Knicks to the Coliseum. Things change and they have dramaticlly gone that way in hockey in this sporting market since the eighties and early nineties.

The Rangers have limited revenue streams? What are you talking about? Being in Manhattan is probably the best place any business can be. There's more people and more money in NY, especially Manhattan, than in any other market. The Rangers make so much $$ on advertising and corporate boxes that it's ridiculous..

If they are making all this revenue on advertising how come Cablevision for a few years running (long before a work stoppage was on the radar) report no profit from hockey. They already pay the Isles and Devils double what the Rangers reportedly make from television revenue just for the television rights and those are the Forbes estimates. This does not even account for Rupert Murdoch forty percent share from Fox or the Mets and Yankees leaving Msg. All those advertisers are leaving with them because they are the regions major market teams and that's where the money is.

This says nothing about the damage Cablevision has done with people like Time Warner or the City or the Jets. The Wilpon's had their games taken off television and the Yankees were off Cablevision for a full year. No doubt Msg has solid advertisers lining up for the Knicks and maybe Msg demands they take the Ranger, Islander and Devils also because they own all the broadcast rights but hockey ratings do not lie nor does Time Warner's demand Metro be pulled from programming.

What corporate boxes are in the Garden? It's an old building that even with an early 90's renovation did not have enough skyboxes. If the Knicks only had 13,000 season tickets sold, the Rangers had far less.

Cablevision estimated that if they had made the playoffs there would be a $40 million dollar swing in revenue.

According to Cablevision's statement the Knicks generated four million from last year's two playoff games vs the Nets and that represent 49 percent of the profit, why would the Rangers make forty million? The Wings play in a building like Msg and their owns constantly claims they must make the finals just to break even.

There are thousands of empty seats? Yea after 6 years of losing sure there are, but those seats are still all sold.

All due respect if the Knicks have posted attendance of 17,000 for games last year and early this year, and only 12-13,000 season tickets sold both years the Rangers have far less. Newsday had the Knicks numbers just a few weeks ago.

Look over the last 7 years, majority of games are sellouts. The team can sellout games even if not everyone shows up cause the team sucks, just another reason the team should be in NYC.

Posted sellouts. Far from true sellouts with all the seats sold. The Isles do this also, no owner wants to admit his team is not drawing. Kind of the equivalent of taking Msg announcers word as to how a team is playing as honest. Marv Albert claimed that he was ordered to play down the competition and talk up the Knicks.

But despite the losing the fan support is still there and when the team is good not only are the revenues off the charts but they get plenty of attention in the city.

I guess if you can go back to 1994 as an example that's fine. But that landscape for hockey here is over because other sports now are enormous and NY fans (especially a singular demographic) never embraced the huge European influx of hockey talent that is very tough to market anywhere, much less a market that has all of baseball's name veteran talent and all the major media following every move year round.

I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to have a team in NYC.

For the same reasons hockey (a very small market sport here) failed with arena football at Msg and with soccer. Too much competition and little media exposure, now more than ever before.

Why market Fedor Tyutin and Rick DiPietro when you can market Randy Johnson and A-Rod or Pedro? Why Jagr or Yashin when you have both Matsui's. Why Montoya when there is El Duque or Mariano. It's just a complete mismatch in every possible way.

For the Rangers themselves, theres nowhere else they'd rather be playing their home games. [/QUOTE]
I have no idea. All I know is Charles Dolan tried to purchase the Islanders first before he bought the Garden. I guess they would have the 80 million dollar payroll (lose even more revenue than they do already) and play largely in the same obscurity today that they currently do. If Msg was the cash cow you claim it would not have had so many ownerships the last 30 years (Gulf and Western, Paramont, ITT...ect)

And especially for the NHL, not only are the Rangers one of their trademark franchises but they are in NY where the team can make huge profits and the NHL can get exposure.

How do they get exposure here? Tell me when is hockey THE major sporting event here during a calander year today? Espn wanted no part of maketing NY for hockey, Abc, Fox wanted no part of it and all that is left is NBC which promised nothing. Meanwhile a generation of great players were never marketed properly to showcase Hull, Roenick and Leetch and it failed miserably on every level. Baseball is
year-round, other sports scramble for the rest.

Like I said before, if you don't have multiple teams in NY you are stupid. The revenue and exposure oppurtunites are enough to keep an NHL team in NYC no matter how bad they are, if the Rangers never make the playoffs again they'd still be playing in NYC

That reads quite well but hockey became a two team market because the NHL wanted to expand here to conteract the WHL in the seventies. Hockey expanded into New Jersey when the Islanders proved they were successful and selling out games fourteen straight years. These days why have any when it's not a major sport.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

1) A cap won't produce parity.

2) Good management will be even more important under a cap.

3) Big market fans, like yourself, are fighting to keep their teams from ever having to go through the basement dwelling stage and from ever having to dismantle their teams based on player cost decisions. You want a system that applies to the majority of the league, but leaves your teams with a distinct advantage.

1. More parity than exists today.
2. This is true.
3. 100 percent Bull. The Red Wings were a cellar dweller for upwards of 30 years. The Hawks are a big market team and have sucked for a decade. The Rangers suck.

Fans of big market teams tend to pay more for tickets. Why? Big markets have the capacity to produce more fans, while supply stays the same. More demand and same supply means higher ticket prices.
I'd rather see that money go back into the product, rather than into the owners pocket.
Call me greedy. But if I'm going to be forced to pay an arm and a leg for nosebleed seats, I want my money going back into the team.
Illitch, unlike those greedy bastards in Chicago and Boston, puts money back into his team.

We need a system that allows teams the flexibity to spend if and when they are able.
A dollar for dollar luxury tax system at $40 Million, for example, would start to bring salaries down.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

In situations like this, I think it is extremely fair that the product, ie: the players, get at least 60% of the revenues. People talk about how employees getting 70% of the money they made is crazy, but stop there. The players aren't employees per se but the product. They are the Big Mac, the BMW, the IBM computer and without them there is nothing to sell. Why shouldn't they get 60%

Exactly.
This isn't the typical employee-employer relationship.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If they are making all this revenue on advertising how come Cablevision for a few years running (long before a work stoppage was on the radar) report no profit from hockey. They already pay the Isles and Devils double what the Rangers reportedly make from television revenue just for the television rights

Isnt this interesting. So, how does the NHL propose to fix this so that Cablevision cant hide revenue by short changing NYR's TV deal.

DR

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Those teams left because it was the owners choice to leave. The Giants and Dodgers saw untapped markets on the west coast. The Browns left because the owner decided to move the team, and since then Cleveland has gotten a new team. I don't get your point? Your saying the Rangers should move? Where should they move to? Some of the markets in the NHL can't even sustain a team, so where in the world are you going to move the Rangers that puts them in a better situation than they are in NYC?

Cablevision reported no profit from hockey for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The spend more trying to create a monoply than the amount of revenue they get. That is an ownership decision, I'm not saying it's the right decision, but that's the way they work it at this point. They pay the Devs and the Isles, they pay Murdoch, that doesn't mean that the Rangers don't have the ability to create enormous revenues for an NHL team. Any business in Manhattan as the ability to make enormous revenue.

"All due respect if the Knicks have posted attendance of 17,000 for games last year and early this year, and only 12-13,000 season tickets sold both years the Rangers have far less. Newsday had the Knicks numbers just a few weeks ago. Posted sellouts. Far from true sellouts with all the seats sold. The Isles do this also, no owner wants to admit his team is not drawing. Kind of the equivalent of taking Msg announcers word as to how a team is playing as honest. Marv Albert claimed that he was ordered to play down the competition and talk up the Knicks."

I don't know what to tell you on this. Look at the scheduele from last year. A horrible team, half the games were 18,200 and the other half were over 17,000. The empty seats you see on TV ARE sold, those first level, expensive tickets are most of the tickets that go to corps who sometimes aren't going to show up for a weeknight game. But almost all the tickets sold to the "fans" are sold, and almost all those fans are there. Look up at the 200's and 300's at any game, it's full 9 out of 10 nights. Just because you see open seats on TV doesn't mean that represents the whole arena.

"How do they get exposure here? Tell me when is hockey THE major sporting event here during a calander year today? Espn wanted no part of maketing NY for hockey, Abc, Fox wanted no part of it and all that is left is NBC which promised nothing. Meanwhile a generation of great players were never marketed properly to showcase Hull, Roenick and Leetch and it failed miserably on every level. Baseball is
year-round, other sports scramble for the rest."

The NHL gets exposure here because it's friggin NY. What do you mean how do they get exposure? There are so many people in NY and the metro area, the NHL gets more exposure in NY than anywhere else just simply because there are more people. Even if only 20% of NY follows the NHL to some extent, that's still more than most other markets simply because there are more people in NY. 20% of NY is more than 50% of most cities.

When is hockey THE major sporting even anywhere except Canada? It's a problem the NHL has to deal with, not just the Rangers problem. ESPN/ABC/FOX wanted no part of marketing NY? Are you kidding? Did you ever watch the ABC games on Saturdays in the spring? Didn't you realize that the Rangers were on ABC every damn weekend, playing the Wings or the Flyers or the Devs? Because there ARE so many people to market to here and ABC had to put big markets on TV in order to maximize there ratings.

It just seems to me like the problems you see in NYC are the problems that the NHL has in any city it's in. Not getting as much attention, not getting much revenue, not getting 18,000 in the stands for every game...these are all problems of the NHL as a whole, not just the Rangers. And I don't see how contracting the Rangers is going to help any of these problems being that if they succeed they are one of the markets that CAN get attention, CAN get all the fans in the building, CAN get revenue. It's no coincidence that the NHL was at it's peak in the mid 90's when the NY market had 2 teams at the top of the league. The business opportunity in NYC is huge, you can't argue that.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Those teams left because it was the owners choice to leave. The Giants and Dodgers saw untapped markets on the west coast. The Browns left because the owner decided to move the team, and since then Cleveland has gotten a new team. I don't get your point? Your saying the Rangers should move? Where should they move to? Some of the markets in the NHL can't even sustain a team, so where in the world are you going to move the Rangers that puts them in a better situation than they are in NYC?

My point is your writing about trademark and tradition, teams with greater traditions have moved or folded than the Rangers. Are the Rangers going to move? No. I
would suggest in a perfect world the Rangers, Islanders and Devils should combine and play outside the city limits as one new team as what all three are, a small market sport with limited media and demographics. Hockey is here what the ratings are and that's arena football and MLS.

Cablevision reported no profit from hockey for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The spend more trying to create a monoply than the amount of revenue they get. That is an ownership decision, I'm not saying it's the right decision, but that's the way they work it at this point. They pay the Devs and the Isles, they pay Murdoch, that doesn't mean that the Rangers don't have the ability to create enormous revenues for an NHL team. Any business in Manhattan as the ability to make enormous revenue.

If they had the ability they would be making that revenue already. This business in Manhattan cannot compete with the sports competition around them and they are limited to one fan demographic that are interested in ice hockey and go to games and this is with the Knicks in the same building and sponsored by the same owner.

I don't know what to tell you on this. Look at the scheduele from last year. A horrible team, half the games were 18,200 and the other half were over 17,000. The empty seats you see on TV ARE sold, those first level, expensive tickets are most of the tickets that go to corps who sometimes aren't going to show up for a weeknight game. But almost all the tickets sold to the "fans" are sold, and almost all those fans are there. Look up at the 200's and 300's at any game, it's full 9 out of 10 nights. Just because you see open seats on TV doesn't mean that represents the whole arena.

I had tickets back at Msg when the seats were red and twenty five dollars. I attend
about fifteen Ranger home games a year. It's not about what I see on television, never has been.

What the Dolan's claim as attendance and post for the papers and league as what is sold vs what is advertised as available for every game most weeknights is just not accurate. It's more like seven out of ten seats with large sections empty all thru the building, especially against a Western Conference team. Prices are simply too high and there is better sports competition. The league needs to move toward eliminating as many weeknight games as possible.

Sunday exhibition games draw 5,000 people as the posted attendance because football games were being played at the same time. They do not even bother televising road pre-season games while they used to go all the way to Anaheim and televise games. No money in it today.

The NHL gets exposure here because it's friggin NY. What do you mean how do they get exposure? There are so many people in NY and the metro area, the NHL gets more exposure in NY than anywhere else just simply because there are more people. Even if only 20% of NY follows the NHL to some extent, that's still more than most other markets simply because there are more people in NY. 20% of NY is more than 50% of most cities.

That's simply not correct. Newsday released the television numbers just a few weeks ago. All three teams combined reach roughly 100,000 homes based on ratings, that is nowhere near the twenty percent of the population you claim just for the Rangers. Here's the link to the thread from the article on 12/14:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=118540

And unlike the public outcry over missing the high-profile Yankees, fewer subscribers are screaming about the lack of Rangers, Islanders and Devils telecasts. That's because substantially fewer viewers tune in: Last season, Rangers telecasts on MSG produced an average 0.75 rating, or about 60,000 homes. On FSNY, Islanders telecasts generated a 0.31 rating and the Devils earned a 0.26. When all three teams are in action, about 100,000 homes are watching.

Eleven Million people live here. I would say those horrible ratings for hockey match hockey's true popularity problem. Not twenty percent, not even close. An eighty million dollar team on a high profile network, only 60,000 homes out of over eleven million people. It's worse than I even thought.

ESPN/ABC/FOX wanted no part of marketing NY? Are you kidding? Did you ever watch the ABC games on Saturdays in the spring? Didn't you realize that the Rangers were on ABC every damn weekend, playing the Wings or the Flyers or the Devs? Because there ARE so many people to market to here and ABC had to put big markets on TV in order to maximize there ratings.

You mean the ones they showed or the ones those networks cancelled when March came and the Rangers were out of contention? No doubt the people producing those games decided to maket a region and not talent and the sport went right down the drain with shortsighted decision making because between exhibition games for baseball and Saturday afteroons people are not home. They never brought the public the best players, just the same aging players. Remember the Cosmos? They had 80,000 people at Giants stadium to see those great star players, they never looked ahead to a next generation. When they retired they drew 5,000 people tried playing indoors and in a short time were gone forever.

Abc picked the Nets over the Knicks, basketball is still on Espn and Abc, while the people who run television stations for hockey said thanks, but no thanks. Espn no longer will show games during the season. Espn2 only, limited schedule.

It just seems to me like the problems you see in NYC are the problems that the NHL has in any city it's in. Not getting as much attention, not getting much revenue, not getting 18,000 in the stands for every game...these are all problems of the NHL as a whole, not just the Rangers.

I agree, only problem what that thinking is the Rangers have had all-star rosters the last seven years and added star players during seasons. This is as good as it gets during a six month regular season here in terms of star players and payroll and still the numbers do not lie. Other markets have not had that competitive opportunity for name players and may just do better than NYC because they do not have the overwhelming presence or competition here of the Yankees and Mets. I think some markets would do great.

And I don't see how contracting the Rangers is going to help any of these problems being that if they succeed they are one of the markets that CAN get attention, CAN get all the fans in the building, CAN get revenue. It's no coincidence that the NHL was at it's peak in the mid 90's when the NY market had 2 teams at the top of the league. The business opportunity in NYC is huge, you can't argue that.

The Rangers are not going to be contracted, no teams will be. I wrote what I think would be the best solutuion here but that is not feasible. Your argument is based on a time before Yankees-Red Sox-Mets and these rivalries plus enormous star talent and nationwide/worldwide media attraction. When the Rangers won in 1994 the Mets had baseball's highest payroll history at 39 million. There used to be an off-season for baseball, no more.

The business opportunities here for baseball are huge, for hockey it's limited because it's a small hockey market with limited media that even know what hockey is.

One other small point, this was all pre-work stoppage here. Aside from the die-hards the countdown is on to pitchers and catchers, not January 14th.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

1. I don't care if Dolan posts attendance numbers that are inflated. If every team does it, than you can't point out one team and say their attendance sucks. To tell you the truth, as bad as the Rangers have been their attendance has been fine. 14,000 in the building on weeknights, 16,000 in the building on weekends and a sell out against rivals? I'll take that after more than a half a decade of not even coming close to making the playoffs. If any other team in the US were as bad as the Rangers have been they would have needed to fold already. As the Rangers get better so will attendance, but for the time being the attendance is fine considering the team sucks, there are soo many alternatives in NY and a lot of the teams revenue comes from streams other than tickets anyway.

2. Don't give me TV ratings to explain a lack of exposure in NYC. It's ridiculous that you would even argue this. If I stood on the side of the street with no pants on, where would my ass get more exposure, NYC or Raleigh NC? Why do you think every major company has a store somewhere in NYC, why does every clothing company have a store on 5th ave or in midtown, even if a low percentage of people in NY actually shop there? EXPOSURE.

3. "teams with greater traditions have moved or folded than the Rangers" Who? Whe are talking about the NHL here. Last time I checked the other 5 teams with as much tradition as you could have, the other 5 of the original 6, have not moved or folded.

4. "If they had the ability they would be making that revenue already" Well they do, they just don't disclose it because Dolan's a greedy ******* and he wants to get as much out of this lockout as he can.

5. Yea ABC pulled Rangers games when they were out of contention, but they were scheduled in the first place because they are the biggest market. If they Rangers were halfway decent they would have played on ABC even more than they did.

6. "Abc picked the Nets over the Knicks, basketball is still on Espn and Abc" And thats the Rangers fault? ABC picked the Nets because they were the better team and had more star players.

Bottom line is you can argue all you want about how people in NY don't care about the Rangers, but fact is even the few that care here outnumber the amount that care in other markets. Arguing that NY is a small market is wrong, it is the biggest market in North America, but either way my point is that as small as you want to make NY seem, it is still bigger than almost all the other markets the NHL is in. By your reasoning, if you want to contract the Rangers that's fine, but you'd have to contract all the other small markets that deserve to go first. After that, your league would end up with 10-15 teams, mostly in Canada, and no teams in major US markets such as NY, Boston, LA or Chicago. Good luck.

 

[Donnie D]

Isnt this interesting. So, how does the NHL propose to fix this so that Cablevision cant hide revenue by short changing NYR's TV deal.

DR

The same way every other league with a cap does it. You define the items that are "revenues" for the purpose of the cap and the percentage that each will receive. That's the easy part. Getting the players association to agree to the concept is the tough part.

If I remember correctly, the NFL doesn't include luxury box revenue in the salary cap calculation. The owners keep it. This time around, the players association wants to include those revenues in the cap. It's called negotiation. Something the players association has been reluctant to do.

The cable TV issue may be the biggest joke so far from the players association (well other than the "24%" non starter pay cut). So what if a team sells its rights for a low figure to itself? One can easily obtain a fair market value for those rights. Again, these are all details that can be easily solved once the player association accepts the concept of a cap.

 

[SENSible1*]

The same way every other league with a cap does it. You define the items that are "revenues" for the purpose of the cap and the percentage that each will receive. That's the easy part. Getting the players association to agree to the concept is the tough part.

If I remember correctly, the NFL doesn't include luxury box revenue in the salary cap calculation. The owners keep it. This time around, the players association wants to include those revenues in the cap. It's called negotiation. Something the players association has been reluctant to do.

The cable TV issue may be the biggest joke so far from the players association (well other than the "24%" non starter pay cut). So what if a team sells its rights for a low figure to itself? One can easily obtain a fair market value for those rights. Again, these are all details that can be easily solved once the player association accepts the concept of a cap.

The "it can't be done" stance regarding negotiating a definition of revenue is a pathetic spin attempt designed to mask the PA's naked greed.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The "it can't be done" stance regarding negotiating a definition of revenue is a pathetic spin attempt designed to mask the PA's naked greed.

the "not reading what the poster is saying but answering with a cliche" stance regarding any challenge to mechanics of linkage by the pro linkage people is a pathetic spin attempt decisgned to mask the NHL's naked greed.

seriously, im not saying it cant be done, im asking how it is suggested it will be remedied.

again, how will the NHL assure the PA that teams owned by cable companies pay the proper market rate and not hide revenue like is happening currently with at least NYR.

Never mind that Jaeremy Jacobs owns the concessions rights for at least BUF, but I also believe a few other arena's. This isnt revenue generated by hockey ? How does it arrive into the books for revenue sharing if it is ?

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

the "not reading what the poster is saying but answering with a cliche" stance regarding any challenge to mechanics of linkage by the pro linkage people is a pathetic spin attempt decisgned to mask the NHL's naked greed.

seriously, im not saying it cant be done, im asking how it is suggested it will be remedied.

again, how will the NHL assure the PA that teams owned by cable companies pay the proper market rate and not hide revenue like is happening currently with at least NYR.

Never mind that Jaeremy Jacobs owns the concessions rights for at least BUF, but I also believe a few other arena's. This isnt revenue generated by hockey ? How does it arrive into the books for revenue sharing if it is ?

dr

You negotiate the terms. The definition of hockey revenue is by its nature artificial. In terms of the cable rates, it shouldn't be too difficult to negotiate a market rate.

Both sides know they are dealing with an artificial number and that the real battle is over how much money will be spent on player costs. The PA needs to decide upon a fair average salary and distribution of their chunk of the money. 60% of 2B is the same as 50% of 2.4B, so changing the definition will simply change the % the NHL is willing to give.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You negotiate the terms. The definition of hockey revenue is by its nature artificial. In terms of the cable rates, it shouldn't be too difficult to negotiate a market rate.

Both sides know they are dealing with an artificial number and that the real battle is over how much money will be spent on player costs. The PA needs to decide upon a fair average salary and distribution of their chunk of the money. 60% of 2B is the same as 50% of 2.4B, so changing the definition will simply change the % the NHL is willing to give.

sounds like a shell game. why bother wasting the time. why not just negotiate a # if thats all the owners intend to do.

wayne gretzky said it best: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=109823

"If we don't find a way to make everyone who is part of this sort of happy and get a deal done, we could be looking at a long, long time before hockey is played in the NHL ..." .

Bettman needs to stop the head games if he wants to acheive his goal and save a season.

The owners *wants* should not be higher on the list of priorities than awarding a Stanley Cup. Period.

DR

 

[SENSible1*]

sounds like a shell game. why bother wasting the time. why not just negotiate a # if thats all the owners intend to do.

Because the % allows the number to float with revenues.

Bettman needs to stop the head games if he wants to acheive his goal and save a season.

The owners *wants* should not be higher on the list of priorities than awarding a Stanley Cup. Period.
DR

Bettman has been quite clear that the owners priority is getting a deal containing cost certainty, cup or no cup. If the player's want to waste a season or two before it happens, that is entirely up to them.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Bettman has been quite clear that the owners priority is getting a deal containing cost certainty, cup or no cup.

true .... and the blood is on his hands.

like i said, the owners needs should not take priority over the playing of The Stanley Cup.

awarding the cup means more then whether some billionaire has his finances perfect.

dr