What if the richest step out from NHL to create their own league?

NorthCoast

Registered User
May 1, 2017
1,250
1,167
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... :facepalm:

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?
 

Dirty Old Man

Anti-chatter Engine
Sponsor
Jan 29, 2008
7,889
5,915
Ostrich City
Honestly, a lot of these posts are simply based on bad premises.

Yes, this. Where to begin...I mean, I will begrudgingly accept that this whole thread is okay for a speculative topic for August, but the chances of it happening are near as makes no difference nil. And it was worded in a way that seemed to be designed to stir people up ("what if 'rich team' get tired of 'sending money' to 'poor teams' and take their puck bag and go home?")
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mud the ACAS

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,857
13,840
Somewhere on Uranus
Why though? It doesn’t belong to them.


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 tits up then we have the debate about who should get ownership of the cup
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
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.

There is no sticking point for the Cup because the NHL retains the copyrights on the Cup itself. The name, playoffs, likeness, etc. Plus, the original Stanley Cup is retired. It’s in the HHOF. The existing one is not the original & I’ll bet it’s owned by the league.
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,516
2,813
NW Burbs
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)?
 

Zenos

Registered User
Oct 4, 2009
2,171
2,380
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.

While I won't disagree that the whole premise is pretty bad, I think you're misunderstanding the concept of the super league being discussed here. It's not the same as Champions League (or Europa League, etc).

Rather, there was a report from German newspaper Spiegel last year which claimed (through leaked documents) that Real Madrid had joined forces with AC Milan, Arsenal, Barcelona, Bavaria Munich, Juventus Turin and Manchester United to form a group of seven sides who went behind the back of Uefa, European football's governing body, to discuss forming a European Super League. As part of their plans, the clubs allegedly discussed leaving the national leagues and their football associations behind entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoek and alko

lomiller1

Registered User
Jan 13, 2015
6,409
2,966
Exactly.

The reason it works in soccer is because each of those rich teams is in a domestic league AND a super league.

Does the Soccer model really work to begin with? 4 of the 5 highest revenue sports leagues in the world are North American. The only Soccer League to make it into the top 5 is the Premier League, generally considered the best Soccer league in the world and backed by global marketing and TV rights and it still just barely edges out the niche NHL for the #4 spot. (#1 = NFL, #2 – MLB, #3 = NBA, #5 = NHL
 

jkrdevil

UnRegistered User
Apr 24, 2006
42,636
12,483
Miami
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?

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. It serves a similar purpose it is a regional qualification for the continental wide playoff (playoffs in NA sport / champions league in soccer).

As for structural advantages, Real Madrid and Barca do have a big one over other clubs in other countries, which is the Spanish league lacks the even minor bit of revenue sharing that the Premier League or Bundesliga has. The teams individually gets to sell their own media rights domestically in Spain unlike the other leagues. Add in La Liga has a big international following in Spanish speaking countries (like the EPL does in the English speaking world) and you get a major advantage from being in the 2 biggest markets in Spain.
 

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
A silly thread, but just thinking of all the legal ramifications that you'd have to go through to achieve this and considering that the WHL was something that happens in the past kind of makes me wonder if owners/franchises have non-compete laws with the NHL.
 

justafan22

Registered User
Jun 22, 2014
11,629
6,249
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)?

no, but in reality, if the 8 richest teams in the league left, the league would be screwed
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
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.
 

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
99,857
13,840
Somewhere on Uranus
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.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
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.

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.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
no, but in reality, if the 8 richest teams in the league left, the league would be screwed
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.
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,708
1,848
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.

Surely theres some sources backing this up? Would be nice to see the exact wording used by the relevant parties.
 

Zenos

Registered User
Oct 4, 2009
2,171
2,380
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....

I can't really speak to the other domestic championships, but at least in Germany, that's just not true. Even with Bayern sitting in the driver's seat for the last decade, winning the Bundesliga and the DFB Pokal are still huge - certainly not akin to simply winning a division.
 

Butch 19

Go cart Mozart
May 12, 2006
16,526
2,831
Geographical Oddity
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.

If it means all the soccer posts stop in hockey forums, I'm all for it.
 

justafan22

Registered User
Jun 22, 2014
11,629
6,249
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.

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).

Some teams still operate at a loss due to revenue sharing though.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,859
8,113
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).
I was attempting to draw an analogy to a past discussion.

Some teams still operate at a loss due to revenue sharing though.
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..
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->