BKIslandersFan
F*** off
What he was describing is MLS business model.No, the NHL owners actually own their teams. The NHL is a joint cooperative venture of owners.
What he was describing is MLS business model.No, the NHL owners actually own their teams. The NHL is a joint cooperative venture of owners.
I would love that kind of league, where you face the same opponent 16 times at regular season.
6 team league.
5 opponents x 16 times = 80 games.
Then add the playoff series against same teams...
Why though? It doesn’t belong to them.Nhl would keep the stanley cup
Honestly, a lot of these posts are simply based on bad premises.
Why though? It doesn’t belong to them.
Were talking about the richest teams in the league. They all own their own arena, and their fanbase are definitively way too loyal for that. The big issue is trademark. Since the spat between the league and the Rangers over who allowed to run the official teams website, it been established that the league own all the relevant trademarks. At least in the US... Good luck fighting the Habs or the Leafs over it in Canada. The cup is the other sticking point it actually does not belong to the NHL. There was serious talk during the last lockout that maybe the HHOF should be legally forced to seek another tournament for the Stanley Cup.
Exactly.
The reason it works in soccer is because each of those rich teams is in a domestic league AND a super league.....
Honestly, a lot of these posts are simply based on bad premises.
Exactly.
The reason it works in soccer is because each of those rich teams is in a domestic league AND a super league.
Exactly.
The reason it works in soccer is because each of those rich teams is in a domestic league AND a super league. OP is suggesting just having the super league without the domestic leagues. Doesn't work that way. It's impressive when the top teams from dozens of leagues involving hundreds of teams and tens of thousands of players...play against each other because the achievement is of beating out all those other teams, even with a budget advantage, is very impressive. Winning against a handful of other teams is not impressive. That's called the CFL. And would anyone ever say that a Grey Cup is harder to win than a Stanley Cup? No. No one would ever say that. Because it's simply not true.
And also, where is the super league that only has 6 teams in it. Champions league, League Cups, Europa Cup (or whatever it's called now), etc. etc. all involve far more than 6 teams.
Honestly, a lot of these posts are simply based on bad premises.
"Real Madrid and Barcelona are able to consistently be champions in soccer as big markets so Toronto should be able to consistently win in hockey because it is also a big market."
It simply doesn't work like that. Real Madrid and Barcelona are very specific cases that involve a lot of other variables that have nothing to do with market size. It's not like Madrid and Barcelona are the only big/rich markets in Europe now are they?
What about Paris, Berlin, London, Rome, Munich, etc. all similar in size to the Spanish cities and all have big clubs that try to compete in European tournaments, and how many Champions leagues have those cities won in the past few decades? Maybe one or two?
Are we really comparing the likes of Real Madrid (4 time UCL winner this decade) to the Toronto Maple Leafs (haven't won a thing in 50 years)?
it does
While Lord Stanley donated the cup to what we now call the NHL. During the lost season the discussion was about naming a CHL team as stanley cup winners as the cup was donated and meant for Amateur sports. Also of course Canada put in a claim on the thing. The NHL and and the descendants of Lord Stanely came to agreement that the trophy belongs to the NHL and it is theirs to award.
If the NHL every goes **** up then we have the debate about who should get ownership of the cup
It's actually a huge gray area. The NHL doesn't have the legal right within Canada to have a single trademark of the Cup nor claim it is there's to distribute. The cup was given to the Canadian people and there was a trust set up of two Canadians to award the Cup. The NHL reached an agreement with the trustees to award the Cup to their playoff champion but they have zero ownership rights over it. A challenge was mounted in 2006 by amateur teams to make the trustee's award the Cup to an amateur team and they won it. Meaning if the NHL ever ceases operates for an entire year the trustee's must, under Lord Stanley's wishes award the Cup to an amateur team based in Canada. The Canadian people own the Cup, the trust was appointment to make sure the Cup never be awarded to a league that has zero Canadian teams in it. If there was ever no Canadian teams in the NHL, there could easily be a challenge to bringing the cup back to us. We own it, not the NHL, we just let them use it.
Right now the current trustee's are NHL loyalists and have stated they will never give the cup to a non-NHL team but there could very easily be a legal battle mounted. It's just no one wants to waste money on it right now but if the NHL ever ceases operations you can guarantee the Supreme Court will never let the Cup leave Canada.
It is no longer a grey area.. it was sorted out during the lost year. The NHL now has 100% to the cup..
During the lost year their was a movement to have either the Allan cup or Memorial cup winner given the cup and that is when ownership of the cup was sorted.
If the nhl ever collapses the cup will default back to property of the Governor General.
I disagree with this notion, for reasons already cited in this thread and numerous others that I frankly don't have the time and energy to go through after having seen this question or something similar asked and debated [and my $.02 contributed to] at least a dozen times previously.no, but in reality, if the 8 richest teams in the league left, the league would be screwed
The lawsuit was sorted in 2006, well after all hockey seasons had ended. In that suit the trustee's were told that they must award the Cup if another lost year happens. Both trustee's came out and said they would refuse, on behalf of the NHL (because they are NHL loyalists), to give the Cup to anyone but an NHL team.
The GG has no claim to the cup and never did. It belongs to the Dominion of Canada and was expressively written to be given to the Dominion of Canada by Lord Stanley. Therefore as long as this remains a democratic nation it belongs to the people of Canada. If anyone ever wanted to fund a challenge to the trustee's they could very easily win it at the Supreme Court. Especially if the Cup was ever to be awarded in a league with no Canadian teams. The cup is ours whether the NHL likes it or not and if anyone ever wanted to enter a legal battle with the NHL they could prove it. Right now no one has any reason to ever do so but the NHL has zero claim to our trophy. We just allow them to do what they are doing because we don't really care enough to challenge it.
The Cup is ours, no matter who claims they own it, and I guarantee our courts would back that claim if anyone was willing to fund that challenge.
A big club winning a domestic league in European soccer is akin to a team winning a division in North American sports. Especially because realistically only about 4 teams in each league (6 in England) can compete year and year....
From time to time there are rumors here in Europe, that the richest soccer teams from ... .....Still they are in Champions league. But it is true, if they will go their own route, it will be have an enormous popularity between fans and sponsors.
... And we want our own league.
I disagree with this notion, for reasons already cited in this thread and numerous others that I frankly don't have the time and energy to go through after having seen this question or something similar asked and debated [and my $.02 contributed to] at least a dozen times previously.
Going back to the past: make this "what if all the Canada teams bailed on the NHL" [which was debated some years prior] and find all the comments - including opinions from Canadian pundits - on why such a league would inevitably be doomed to fail.
Surely theres some sources backing this up? Would be nice to see the exact wording used by the relevant parties.
I was attempting to draw an analogy to a past discussion.I didn't mean the Canadian teams, which to be honest, 4 of the 7 teams have had money issues in the past and were once relocation candidates. (Vancouver hasn't had all sunny days either).
The high-revenue teams growing revenues faster than low-revenue teams causes the salary cap to rise faster, which puts more pressure on low-revenue teams in their attempt to be profitable. The salary cap system doesn't guarantee profits; it does give low-revenue teams a better shot at it..Some teams still operate at a loss due to revenue sharing though.