• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

luvmnger

should there be another team in the NHL?

Rate this topic

74 posts in this topic

All you people in favor of contraction don't seem to grasp what the cost of contraction would be. Prohibitive. The only way it wouldn't be is if a team is liquidated through bankruptcy, and while that sounds attractive to those of us who can speak from the ivory tower of having a team comfortably in place, I'm not sure the cost to the league in terms of image is worth it.

TV exec: "Why should we pay your league millions of dollars to broadcast it when your teams are folding? What assurance can you give us that more teams won't fold and the value of your product won't continue to nosedive?"

League: "Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."

Keep the teams they have, don't even think about expanding until they are able to keep what the league already has and make them at least marginally successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it Is simple no more teams, maybe get rid of 1 or 2 and move a few back where they came from Quebec, Hartford and Winnipeg :clap:

Bang on Devil - and perhaps the Wild back to the North Stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang on Devil - and perhaps the Wild back to the North Stars.

Really depends on what the league is trying to do.

If everyone is content and wants to keep the league and the fan base how it is and maybe make some more money, by all means go to Winnepeg, Quebec and Hartford. Continue to be the 4th tier league and possibly be passed by the World Poker Tour and MMA in fanbase and profitability.

You will always have a solid fanbase in Canada that much is sure. It will not grow the sport and may actually contract the fanbase. It seems that as the native Canadians are declining in number and immigrants are becoming more common the traditional Canadian sport is actually becoming less popular. hockey on the decline in Canada.

So that leaves the ol' USA... and where are the people going in the US? Wait.. they are leaving the "Traditional Hockey Markets" ie Cold States and moving to the "Sun Belt" where everyone wants to contract. Oh and by the way... more players are being drafted out of California, Nevada and even Arizona than Oregon and Washington. So much for the "strong developmental programs there". I don't understand why people seem to think that Hockey can only exist where it is cold. You seem to view it as a reward for having to live in an icy hell for 5 months. If that is true then we are really on our way back to an original 6 senario.

Also another hint... Joe American fan living in the markets where the NHL needs to be to grow and be healthy doesn't want a rivalry with Winnepeg or Quebec. That is like having a rivalry between Toronto and Bakersfield. One it a giant metro area and the other a backwater. How do you even get behind that? Even if they do go back to the smaller Canadian cities does anyone see that as a good thing? What good will it do the league in the long term to have a team in a city like Winnepeg? It has 700k people and is growing at a rate of like 2% that means in 25 years at that rate it will be the size of one of Phoenix's suburbs. It may be profitable in the short term but anything that makes them a good choice now truly shows the the NHL is in trouble.

What needs to happen is the NHL needs to continue to grow the game by going to the areas where there are a lot of people and selling the sport. It is an awesome sport and people will become fans if they see it for what it is. If the NHL goes backwards to smaller markets it will take that much longer to reach the top tier again.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More teams? .....s*** drop 2 teams ( The Jackets or preds in the west and Atlanta in the East ) Then move the Panthers to Quebec city and Pho. back to Winnepeg . The Nhl is in no shape to be taking risks like putting more teams in Tx or Mo We would all love it if Hockey could be on par with football or Baseball in the States but face it we just don't seem to give it a shot here . I wan't the cap to go up and with Canada making up like 35% of the take in the Nhl with only 6 teams thats where the money is. Maybe later on down the road we can expand here in the US but not right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you people in favor of contraction don't seem to grasp what the cost of contraction would be. Prohibitive. The only way it wouldn't be is if a team is liquidated through bankruptcy, and while that sounds attractive to those of us who can speak from the ivory tower of having a team comfortably in place, I'm not sure the cost to the league in terms of image is worth it.

TV exec: "Why should we pay your league millions of dollars to broadcast it when your teams are folding? What assurance can you give us that more teams won't fold and the value of your product won't continue to nosedive?"

League: "Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."

The size of the League has nothing to do with the games broadcast nationally, especially when it comes to NBC; they still think the schedule begins on New Year's Day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size of the League has nothing to do with the games broadcast nationally, especially when it comes to NBC; they still think the schedule begins on New Year's Day.

Or when Pittsburgh is playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to expand the sport, take it where the fan base has been stable for some years. In the AHL, what teams are supported well enough to have a NHL side instead? Attendance alone last year only Hershey Bears,Manitoba Moose,Chicago Wolves and our own Griffins topped above the 7000 mark. The idea of Manitoba/Winnipeg being back in is good, but could they increase their ave of just over 8000 by nearly double to what they would need to have any chance of surviving in the NHL. Chicago Wolves ave just under 8000, but is that Hawks fans going to Wolves home games when they are playing away? The two are too close i feel to finacially support 2 NHL teams, would be rivarly thou. Hersey thou could be viable.Highly successful AHL team, ave over 9500 fans and not too close to neighbouring NHL sides, may be there are too many NHL teams in that part of the NHL map to warrant putting another one in there.

Looking at another ex NHL area Quebec, supports its jnr team the Remparts to the tune of over 12000 a game. Would these same fans pay extra to watch a NHL team and would it impact the support that the jnr team currently gets? Its a tricky situation and the other aspect is all of these options would add to the East side of the NHL map.

The logical options would be Winnipeg, Quebec, and maybe a team on the east coast in Seattle/Portland. The NHL would then have 33 teams which would cause an uneven amount for current 4 leagues, so my solution would be to have 3 Conf of 11 teams. They would be put into the following conf.

WEST CONF:

Edmonton, Calgary,Vancouver,Seattle/Portland,San Jose,Anaheim,LA,Phoenix,Colorado,Winnipeg and Dallas.

CENT CONF:

Montreal,Quebec,Ottawa,Buffalo,Toronto,Pittsburgh,Columbus,Detroit,Chicago,Minnesota and St Louis.

EAST CONF:

Tampa,Florida,Carolina,Atlanta,Washington,Philadelphia,Nashville,Boston,NYR,NYI and New Jersey.

Each team to play each other twice at home and away in the same conf. Then once at home and away against each of the other 2 conf's. Making a total of 84 regular season games. The playoffs would be the top 4 of each conf qualify, and then the next best 4 overall point total's would make up the 16 qualifying teams. My idea would be the top overall team, ie president trophy winner plays the 16th placed team

then the 2nd place plays the 15th place team and so on. This proceedure would carry thru until the cup final series. I just think that this would give us in the main, the best 2 sides competeing for the stanley cup each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More teams? .....s*** drop 2 teams ( The Jackets or preds in the west and Atlanta in the East ) Then move the Panthers to Quebec city and Pho. back to Winnepeg . The Nhl is in no shape to be taking risks like putting more teams in Tx or Mo We would all love it if Hockey could be on par with football or Baseball in the States but face it we just don't seem to give it a shot here . I wan't the cap to go up and with Canada making up like 35% of the take in the Nhl with only 6 teams thats where the money is. Maybe later on down the road we can expand here in the US but not right now.

The average NHL Ticket in 2009-10 was US$51.27. Only Ten teams made more than that, and you want to know the average Canadian ticket price? US$70.09. Want to know how strongly Canadian ticket prices controlled the market?

1) US$114.10 Toronto Maple Leafs

2) US$ 72.80 Montreal Canadiens

-- US$ 70.09 Canadian Dollar Average

3) US$ 62.05 Vancouver Canucks

4) US$ 61.28 Minnesota Wild

5) US$ 60.25 Philadelphia Flyers

6) US$ 59.73 Calgary Flames

7) US$ 59.71 Edmonton Oilers

8) US$ 58.57 New York Rangers

9) US$ 54.94 Boston Bruins

10) US$ 52.77 Ottawa Senators

11) US$ 51.46 New York Islanders

--NHL Ticket Average

As you can see, simply from the average ticket the Canadian teams have a much higher average price, especially in larger markets that can maintain high attendance figures. Complain all you want about about markets in the south with lower attendance, remember that their low revenue numbers come more primarily from the ticket prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain all you want about about markets in the south with lower attendance, remember that their low revenue numbers come more primarily from the ticket prices.[/font]

And if the ticket prices were higher, the attendance would be even lower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the ticket prices were higher, the attendance would be even lower

Logically yes, but almost (if not all) of the Canadian teams sell out every single game without fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The problem is the salary cap. That is why there are lots of mid-level players unsigned. Teams can't sign them, they are forced to sign prospects to cheap contracts.

Take away the salary cap and these mid-level veterens would land on teams and there would be less prospects in the NHL.

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is this sure ticket prices in Canada are off the charts yet they sell out every game . Getting tickets for a Leafs game is no easy thing to do even at that $114.10 price tag. Making my point even more clear that there is no money to be made in most those NASCAR belt states and a killing to be made where hockey is a religion . More money made by Canadian teams = more cap space .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many teams are locked into too many "marginal top-line" players to take some of these guys on. Some guys are getting four year contracts that don't deserve four year contracts, simply because GMs are afraid to take the risk that they might lose them as RFAs just as they hit their prime. The Flipper, Olesz and Matt Greene contracts are good examples of this idea.

I like the idea to change the rosters to 24 players, but I think you should really only have three players, maximum, signed for a minimum four years.

For now, don't we think that if some of these UFAs really wanted to be in the KHL, they'd be there already? It's a month and a half after the free agent window opened. I think someone with a lot of cap room like LA or Atlanta is going to get a good deal on these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I can feel ya on that one tho southern.....I just moved to Kentucky and would love to have a team close by so I could see the Wings kick their ass live .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ascii_50_hitlers.gif

The NHL needs another team like the world needs 50 hitlers.

:rotflmao:

I simply cannot fathom how some here think it would be a great idea to add more teams to a league which already has a handful of franchises in the red.

For me it's simply re-location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I was kiding about a team here ....I say axe 2 teams then move 2 teams and then talk about adding some teams maybe a few years down the road ....After Betman has been sacked drawn and quatered !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size of the League has nothing to do with the games broadcast nationally, especially when it comes to NBC; they still think the schedule begins on New Year's Day.

It has everything to do with the games broadcast nationally. TV execs aren't going to pony up the cash for a league that has all the appearances of failing, as it would if teams are allowed to fold. And the more markets the broadcast can appeal to, the more money they'll pay for it. Granted, the flipside is that fewer teams means fewer mouths to feed when it comes to splitting the cash. But if there's no team in Phoenix, there aren't any hockey fans in Phoenix, and thus a huge media market goes by the wayside when it comes to marketing the Crosbys and Ovechkins of the world. The smartypants answer is that there aren't any hockey fans in Phoenix anyway, but that's not how the people who write the checks think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The problem is the salary cap. That is why there are lots of mid-level players unsigned. Teams can't sign them, they are forced to sign prospects to cheap contracts.

Take away the salary cap and these mid-level veterens would land on teams and there would be less prospects in the NHL.

Bingo. You have bigger contracts in the NHL with some cap modifications, and you know what happens? Better teams in Canada more often, and more of them.

Southern teams like Phoenix would be set up for success as well because they would be in the mold of such teams as follows: "Buy yourself a strong young core with a good financial backing and you'll get your paid back several times over." And things like that would have happened with a cap that would allow one more player, smaller individual caps on salaries with cap modifiers for drafted players, etc. For example, players might have a salary, and therefore cap hit, maximum of $5m. This would capped Datsyuk and Zetterberg, and put significant different different roster plans on the team? But perhaps players a team has drafted take a 10% or 20% lower cap hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I can feel ya on that one tho southern.....I just moved to Kentucky and would love to have a team close by so I could see the Wings kick their ass live .

You've got St. Louis, Nashville, and Columbus within a few hours of driving. Living in Louisville (and now moving to Columbus), I tried to catch the Wings a few times each year. Between the three locations, you'll have the opportunity to see the Wings live 9 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expand?!?! Oh hell no, this league is watered down with marginal garbage players as it is. If anything they could contract 2 to 3 teams.

Also I lived in Las Vegas for 15 years and no way would they support a team out there. The city is too fickle and if they had a bad season no one would go. It would be another in the long line of teams that would be put in cities that don't need a hockey team!

Reason the decent players are out of work is the top players make too much money and the mid range guys won't take pay cuts for teams to get under the cap. They need to work that out and get rid of the minimum wage bums (minimum wage in NHL terms)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expand?!?! Oh hell no, this league is watered down with marginal garbage players as it is. If anything they could contract 2 to 3 teams.

Also I lived in Las Vegas for 15 years and no way would they support a team out there. The city is too fickle and if they had a bad season no one would go. It would be another in the long line of teams that would be put in cities that don't need a hockey team!

Reason the decent players are out of work is the top players make too much money and the mid range guys won't take pay cuts for teams to get under the cap. They need to work that out and get rid of the minimum wage bums (minimum wage in NHL terms)

There's probably a handful of reasons why other leagues don't have a franchise in Lost Wages...So why should the NHL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nashville yes I plan on going there for atleast one game but I hate Ohio and Stl is a big no no for me ( legal trouble there a few years back lol )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now