PA's turn to make an offer the NHL cannot refuse..

[WC Handy*]

To make a long story short, because competence is far more important than money...

Good job changing the subject.

Even if that were true, there's no denying that Nashville's growth is effected by excessive spending by other teams.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Your ability to make money in Wal-Mart chains (or worse, just marry into the family) or pizza franchises or massive multinational media empires should not translate to an uneven playing field in hockey.

Let's not forget though that a lot of these businesses started from the ground up, much like the hockey teams. If the Wal-Marts and the pizza chains and the multinational media empires are what is keeping the hockey teams afloat, then yeah, there's a problem.

However, when the hockey team itself is generating revenue and nothing from the multinational corporations are being used to fund the team, then there should be no reason why the teams should be punished by being told what they can or can't spend.

While there is a cap coming, the problem is that the cap punishes good owners who reinvest the money back into the teams. For every Mike Illitch, there is a Bill Wirtz. For every Ed Snider, there is a Jeremy Jacobs. For every Eugene Melnyk, there is a Craig Leipold. When does it end?

That's all what I ask. And what happens when a cap comes in and say there are still teams that are losing money? What does the NHL do then? Lower the cap even more? I mean c'mon, when will the NHL take responsibility that some of their expansions have failed and failed miserably. We all hear about the NHL saying "yes, we created this mess", but you never hear how they plan on fixing the revenue discrepancies. Instead, it's about "well, cap salaries". Great, but if you still have teams losing money after salaries are capped, do you not think that maybe, just maybe that salaries have nothing to do with losing money as much as maybe the market isn't a hockey market?

 

[I in the Eye]

Jesus Christ... Don't you guys work...

I've got to go... I'll be back, some time...

To summarize my stance...

The critical success factors are competence, available resources (which includes money), support network, and luck... Competence being the most important... To cap only $, and to consider $ the only thing that's "unfair", is IMO, unfair... Also, to simply cap $ isn't going to create parity...

I'm an owner supporter... I'd like to see a cap because I think that salaries are screwing up the league economics...

Some of you guys need an attitude adjustment... Talking to hardcore owner supporters about this is like talking to Christians about abortion...

 

[I in the Eye]

You can keep putting on this act all you want. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone else who has read this thread knows that I already answered your question.

I'm not trying to fool anyone... nor am I acting... IMO, you didn't answer my question, and I'm the one who asked it (I don't care if other people think you did or didn't)... I'm trying to figure out your pov... To see if it has real substance... From what I can gather, you're all about the fluff...

I'm willing to accept the possibility that I asked the wrong question... but I'm also willing to accept the possibility that you just didn't understand what I'm looking for...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

All teams have equal opportunity to make good hockey decisions.

All teams do not have equal opportunity to generate revenue.

Limiting the effect of revenue disparity helps provide teams with better equality of opportunity.

And that's the major problem with the competition aspect of this lockout. All teams do not have equal opportunity to generate revenue. But, this is exactly why I opposed the owners.

Does putting a cap at $40M generate Nashville any more revenue? (maybe in a good year, an extra million or two because they are slightly more competative, but it's minimal)

The problem is with the market, the only way Nasvhille is going to generate revenue close to the other teams is if the other teams share revenues. The most effective way to limit revenue disparity is revenue sharing, that's pretty obvious.

It seems the biggest problem with the league is revenue disparities and what that does to competition. It also seems that the only 2 ways to solve those problems are to share revenues and cut owners off from outside money. If NYR is restricted to spending their hockey revenues only AND they share revenues, it seems the two biggest problems of the league are solved right there.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Good management can lead to more revenues - only up to a point. There is no way, no matter how good the management, a team in Nashville can match the revenues of a team in New York or Toronto or Detroit - it's purely a matter of simple demographics.

So then player salaries don't really have any affect on the revenue disparity the league faces. The problem your talking about is the market of Nashville, not the salaries that are paid throughout the league. The only way to solve it is for NY and Toronto to share revenues with Nashville.

 

[Weary]

The structure of NASCAR (teams not affiliated with markets, technically an individual sport) allow it to not be negatively effected by the fact that certain teams can spend a lot more than others.

So is it your contention that the NHL could solve its problems by disassociating franchises and their respective cities? Each team could play in each city four or five times a year. That way fans could see all the teams and any regional biases would be eliminated.

 

[WC Handy*]

So is it your contention that the NHL could solve its problems by disassociating franchises and their respective cities? Each team could play in each city four or five times a year. That way fans could see all the teams and any regional biases would be eliminated.

No, that is not my contention at all and I'd appreciate it if in the future you refrained from attributed Pejorative Slured ideas of your own to me. Thanks.

 

[WC Handy*]

I'm not trying to fool anyone... nor am I acting... IMO, you didn't answer my question, and I'm the one who asked it (I don't care if other people think you did or didn't)... I'm trying to figure out your pov... To see if it has real substance... From what I can gather, you're all about the fluff...

I'm willing to accept the possibility that I asked the wrong question... but I'm also willing to accept the possibility that you just didn't understand what I'm looking for...

So because I don't agree with your claim that money is not an UNFAIR advantage then I'm all about the fluff?

Let me tell you what I'm about:

COMMON SENSE.

Which, coincidentally, you severely lack.

 

[Weary]

No, that is not my contention at all and I'd appreciate it if in the future you refrained from attributed Pejorative Slured ideas of your own to me. Thanks.

So "teams not affiliated with markets" is not one of the differences that makes NASCAR popular despite their large differences in spending?

 

[I in the Eye]

So because I don't agree with your claim that money is not an UNFAIR advantage then I'm all about the fluff?

Let me tell you what I'm about:

COMMON SENSE.

Which, coincidentally, you severely lack.

You see, you don't even get this...

The fact that you don't agree with my claim that money is not an UNFAIR advantage doesn't make you all about the fluff... The fact that you are basing your POV just on fluff (nothing of substance - only your logical arguments), and trying to pass it on as more makes you all about the fluff... What actually are you basing your opinion on, your common sense? If so, I suggest you stop being so arrogant...

There's lots of people on here who I don't agree with, but who I consider great posters who have a lot of great points to make, and who provides some great education... You're not one of them...

 

[WC Handy*]

You see, you don't even get this...

The fact that you don't agree with my claim that money is not an UNFAIR advantage doesn't make you all about the fluff... The fact that you are basing your POV just on fluff (nothing of substance - only your logical arguments), and trying to pass it on as more makes you all about the fluff... What actually are you basing your opinion on, your common sense? If so, I suggest you stop being so arrogant...

There's lots of people on here who I don't agree with, but who I consider great posters who have a lot of great points to make, and who provides some great education... You're not one of them...

I'm the arrogant one?

Let us recap this 'conversation'

I claim that money provides an unfair advantage. I show you how it differs from a 'competency advantage'. I explain to you why it's unfair to smaller markets and how it is detrimental to those teams growth and competitiveness.

You claim that it's not an unfair advantage, but admit it is an advantage. But unlike me, you provide NOTHING to support your argument. Your entire stance has been that since I can't explain myself well enough to you (as if you actually matter) then my stance must be fluff. Again, and I'm the arrogant one?

You're right about one thing... my point of view is based on LOGICAL ARGUEMENTS. Yet you somehow believe that your stance which is based on nothing other than you opinion is somehow superior?

One other thing you're right about... there are a lot of great posters on this board. That said, this thread has left me wondering which is more stupid: Capping competency or NHL teams without home markets.

 

[WC Handy*]

So "teams not affiliated with markets" is not one of the differences that makes NASCAR popular despite their large differences in spending?

Maybe if I make it bold you'll comprehend it better.

The structure of NASCAR (teams not affiliated with markets, technically an individual sport) allow it to not be negatively effected by the fact that certain teams can spend a lot more than others.

 

[Weary]

Maybe if I make it bold you'll comprehend it better.

The structure of NASCAR (teams not affiliated with markets, technically an individual sport) allow it to not be negatively effected by the fact that certain teams can spend a lot more than others.

So I'll ask it a different way. If the league were to disassociate teams with their respective markets, would it allow the NHL to be succesful without equalizing payrolls?

I think you're argument about NASCAR technically being an individual sport is skewed. NASCAR has teams. Those teams work together. Those teams have common financial base. Drivers may be individuals in their cars, but their results are greatly determined by their teams.

 

[WC Handy*]

So I'll ask it a different way. If the league were to disassociate teams with their respective markets, would it allow the NHL to be succesful without equalizing payrolls?

One of the main reasons why NASCAR does so well is because their supply is low. If the NHL were to adopt their structure there would be too many games played in each market. The result would be roughly the same number of games played in each market with many games played without their favorite team. Every NASCAR race has everyone's favorite driver.

I think you're argument about NASCAR technically being an individual sport is skewed. NASCAR has teams. Those teams work together. Those teams have common financial base. Drivers may be individuals in their cars, but their results are greatly determined by their teams.

As far as the fans are concerned, it's an individual sport. When you go to a race you see 8's and 24's and 17's. You don't see DEI, Hendrick Racing, and Rouch Racing.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by WC Handy
Maybe if I make it bold you'll comprehend it better.

The structure of NASCAR (teams not affiliated with markets, technically an individual sport) allow it to not be negatively effected by the fact that certain teams can spend a lot more than others.

So I'll ask it a different way. If the league were to disassociate teams with their respective markets, would it allow the NHL to be succesful without equalizing payrolls?

I think you're argument about NASCAR technically being an individual sport is skewed. NASCAR has teams. Those teams work together. Those teams have common financial base. Drivers may be individuals in their cars, but their results are greatly determined by their teams.

Well, if suddenly all 30 NHL teams became barnstorming teams, without any home areana, playing each other on some schedule and rotation though all 30 arenas so that every team played in Toronto (and New York and Detroit and etc) the same number of times and divided revenues (gate and TV) either evenly or some percentage for winning/losing then yes - it would allow the NHL to be succesful without equalizing payrolls. Good (winning) teams with good management would be bigger draws and earn higher revenues, but that would be purely based on results and appeal (marketing) and no team would start with an "unfair" demographic advantage / disadvantage.

The main reason why NASCAR is an indivdual sport (like golf and tennis) rather than a team sport is that it is not a competition between two teams - rather each race is a competition between 20-30+ drivers. Every fan can have an interest in every race - every weekend, "their" driver is racing. This makes each race a national event which draws fans and TV ratings from a national audience.

How popular would NASCAR be if instead it had 15 match races between 2 drivers at 15 different home tracks each week?

 

[Weary]

The main reason why NASCAR is an indivdual sport (like golf and tennis) rather than a team sport is that it is not a competition between two teams - rather each race is a competition between 20-30+ drivers. Every fan can have an interest in every race - every weekend, "their" driver is racing. This makes each race a national event which draws fans and TV ratings from a national audience.

NASCAR is far worse in the spending disparity than the NHL is. There are teams that spend far more money on their second and third cars than other teams can spend on primary rides. Can you imagine if the Rangers not only allowed to spend whatever they pleased, but also purchase the Islanders and do the same. Then down the playoff stretch one team could intentionally lose so the other team made the playoffs or got a favorable seeding. That's what NASCAR is like. I think a cap on spending would be much more important in that kind of setup.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
The main reason why NASCAR is an indivdual sport (like golf and tennis) rather than a team sport is that it is not a competition between two teams - rather each race is a competition between 20-30+ drivers. Every fan can have an interest in every race - every weekend, "their" driver is racing. This makes each race a national event which draws fans and TV ratings from a national audience.

NASCAR is far worse in the spending disparity than the NHL is. There are teams that spend far more money on their second and third cars than other teams can spend on primary rides. Can you imagine if the Rangers not only allowed to spend whatever they pleased, but also purchase the Islanders and do the same. Then down the playoff stretch one team could intentionally lose so the other team made the playoffs or got a favorable seeding. That's what NASCAR is like. I think a cap on spending would be much more important in that kind of setup.

Do you really not grok the fundamental differences between NASCAR and the NHL or are you just being obstinate.

NASCAR is sold and marketed as the sport, not as individual drivers/teams. NASCARs TV deal is for the entire sport. Attendence is driven by the whole aggregate of drivers, not any particular one. Sure, some drivers can be used to help market the sport, but the Sport is bigger than any of them. If NASCAR "contracted" by a half a dozen drivers, it wouldn't make a difference, as long as there were others who would move up and qualify. It doesn't matter if their is a huge differential between driver #1 and driver #30. As long as there are a handful of successful "name" drivers so each weeks race has some drama, does it really matter whether drivers #15-30 are really competitive.

 

[Weary]

Do you really not grok the fundamental differences between NASCAR and the NHL or are you just being obstinate.

It's not obstinance. I'm not seeing any fundamental differences that are material.

It doesn't matter if their is a huge differential between driver #1 and driver #30. As long as there are a handful of successful "name" drivers so each weeks race has some drama, does it really matter whether drivers #15-30 are really competitive.

This is really the core I don't understand. How can that be a succesful formula for NASCAR and not for the NHL? How do fans of NASCAR's have-not drivers differ from fans of the NHL's have-not teams? Why can NASCAR allow its low revenue teams to scrape by for years in hopes finally putting the puzzle together and being able to compete with the big boys? Why does the NHL need 30 teams that can all have a shot at the championship, but NASCAR doesn't need that many competitive drivers?

 

[WC Handy*]

This is really the core I don't understand. How can that be a succesful formula for NASCAR and not for the NHL? How do fans of NASCAR's have-not drivers differ from fans of the NHL's have-not teams? Why can NASCAR allow its low revenue teams to scrape by for years in hopes finally putting the puzzle together and being able to compete with the big boys? Why does the NHL need 30 teams that can all have a shot at the championship, but NASCAR doesn't need that many competitive drivers?

I can't believe that anyone has to explain this and I'd really like to believe you're smarter than you're leading everyone to believe right now.

 

[kdb209]

It's not obstinance. I'm not seeing any fundamental differences that are material.

This is really the core I don't understand. How can that be a succesful formula for NASCAR and not for the NHL? How do fans of NASCAR's have-not drivers differ from fans of the NHL's have-not teams? Why can NASCAR allow its low revenue teams to scrape by for years in hopes finally putting the puzzle together and being able to compete with the big boys? Why does the NHL need 30 teams that can all have a shot at the championship, but NASCAR doesn't need that many competitive drivers?

At this point, I would really prefer to think that you were being obstinate, rather than so clueless.

All of NASCARs revenues are to NASCAR, not the individual teams/drivers - gate revenues and TV deal. Yes individual teams/drivers get revenues - purses for winning and (more importantly) individual endorsement and advertising deals on their 200 MPH billboards. It doesn't really matter to NASCAR (the sport or the business organization) if it's low revenue teams/drivers are successful - they aren't the ones feuling NASCARs explosive growth. If the bottom 10% of teams/drivers just disappeared, NASCAR wouldn't miss a beat. There would just be new teams and drivers to take their place. There are no exlusive NASCAR franchises - anyone with a car, a driver, and lots of $$$s can try to qualify. As for the fans of the lower tier drivers, there is a low barrier to switching allegences, they can easily root for (and see) more than one driver at a time, and every race is an event so they can enjoy the few individual times their guy does good - consistent winning is less critical. Fan support is for the individual driver. If a driver changes teams, or retires, fan's take it in stride - there is little continuity or tradition.

Compare that to the NHL, where the vast bulk of revenues are to the teams not the league. Revenues are tied to games in fixed locations where revenues are tied to the performance of one particular team. There are a fixed number of awarded franchises and it is a major endevour for the league to add, relocate, or remove teams. For a fan, there is a high barrier to switching allegences or rooting for multiple teams (in any manner that has an impact on team or league revenues). Fan support is for the team (rather than the individual player) - fans root for the emblem on the front, not the name on the back.

Now you could argue that the league should just contract the low revenue teams, but that's a different argument. The NHL has certain obligations (ethical, fiduciary, and the long term health of the league issues) to those teams. NASCAR has no obligations to it's teams/drivers - as long as there are enough to compete week to week, drivers can come and go as they please.