<< <i>I can't see how the few fans that came back after the last lockout would come back again... >>
Attendance overall has risen 5.5% (+900 attendees per game since 2003-04) , and rose in 23 of the markets immediately after the 2004-05 lockout. The NHL's regular-season average increased from 16,534 in 2003-04 to 16,954 in 2005-06, and was 17,454 last season. The only decreases from 2003-04 to 2005-06 were in Columbus (17,369 to 16,796), Dallas (18,355 to 17,829), Edmonton (17,678 to 16,833), New Jersey (15,060 to 14,230), New York Islanders (13,456 to 12,609), St. Louis (18,560 to 14,213) and Washington (14,720 to 13,905). Revenues have also increased 57% since 2004.
That said, players are set until October 15th when they receive their escrow checks (12%) so they're cool until around Christmas. Personally I expect the league to skate in anger around Thanksgiving (Nov 24th or 25th) which will ensure the much needed build up to the Winter Classic and HBO 24/7. Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic.
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
This would be fantastic. An 82 game regular season (and an additional 20+ games for teams that make a deep run in the playoffs) is a screaming joke. One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this.
Edit to add: I'd also be delighted to see something as utterly un-American as a 'salary cap' eliminated once and for all, but I dare not dream so big.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs.
<< <i>What the players need to understand is that many of the clubs will lose less money if no games are played this season. >>
Why is it on the players to figure out a solution to the owners losing money? Revenues are up well over 50% since the last lockout. The players caved in big-time last time, the owners got everything they wanted, and they STILL want a lockout? The owners got a nice TV contract, increased attendance, increased TV exposure, 57% more revenues - and yet they still are trying to claim they're all losing money. Meanwhile, in the day or two before the official deadline, they were still signing players to overpriced contracts! C'mon, quit trying to lay the onus on the players who have done nothing wrong here.
<< <i>While it's easy enough to blame owners as the greedy wealthy capitalists, let's not forget that they are the one's making the HUGE investment in the first place to allow for the players to have a forum for making millions of dollars a year. The owners, in any sport, could take their hundreds of millions or billions and invest it in an infinite number of avenues. Often times, a sporting franchise is not the most financially lucrative option. But for the average player in any big sport, their alternative to making millions a year is to make maybe $50K a year (if they're lucky) doing something they're probably going to hate doing. I'm not sure of the specific numbers involved, but I can't get too upset with owners wanting to earn a return on such a significant investment.
People often trivialize the matter and say that they should just refrain from giving out big contracts but I don't think the matter is so simple. If you don't compete for players, than you risk losing (or not having star power) and thus not attracting ticket sales, which could hurt your bottom line. But pay them too much, and that leads down the same path. It's a very fine line that ownership has to walk. With the players, it's a question of do I make $3 million a year or $3.5 million. They're going to be millionaires either way. It's just a question of degree. >>
So what you're saying is that owners should be able to reap significant returns without assuming virtually any risk. Is that correct? Before you answer, consider:
1) There is virtually nothing 'risky' about owning a pro sports franchise. Revenue does not fluctuate wildly from year to year. 2) You have argued here that owners should not be faulted for wanting a 'significant' return on such an investment.
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs. >>
We disagree. I think that if every NHL game was played with the kind of intensity you see in the later rounds of the SC playoffs, or in the Olympics, that the sport would be much more popular. A shorter season would move the league in that direction.
<< <i>While it's easy enough to blame owners as the greedy wealthy capitalists, let's not forget that they are the one's making the HUGE investment in the first place to allow for the players to have a forum for making millions of dollars a year. The owners, in any sport, could take their hundreds of millions or billions and invest it in an infinite number of avenues. Often times, a sporting franchise is not the most financially lucrative option. But for the average player in any big sport, their alternative to making millions a year is to make maybe $50K a year (if they're lucky) doing something they're probably going to hate doing. I'm not sure of the specific numbers involved, but I can't get too upset with owners wanting to earn a return on such a significant investment.
People often trivialize the matter and say that they should just refrain from giving out big contracts but I don't think the matter is so simple. If you don't compete for players, than you risk losing (or not having star power) and thus not attracting ticket sales, which could hurt your bottom line. But pay them too much, and that leads down the same path. It's a very fine line that ownership has to walk. With the players, it's a question of do I make $3 million a year or $3.5 million. They're going to be millionaires either way. It's just a question of degree. >>
So what you're saying is that owners should be able to reap significant returns without assuming virtually any risk. Is that correct? Before you answer, consider:
1) There is virtually nothing 'risky' about owning a pro sports franchise. Revenue does not fluctuate wildly from year to year. 2) You have argued here that owners should not be faulted for wanting a 'significant' return on such an investment. >>
I did not say that owners should "reap significant returns". That's you projecting onto the words. I said they should expect a return on their "significant investment".
Nor did I say that it was "risky" owning a pro sports franchise. Revenue is only one part of the profit/loss equation. >>
You're right- I misquoted you. My apologies for that.
Edit to add: As for the profitabiliy question, here's an interesting read on that: Gladwell article
The NHL is run by a bunch of Canadians who are about as smart as Jim Basilone from Research In Motion, Canada's big smartphone maker that has seen it's stock go south.
Heck, they couldn't support franchises in Winnipeg and Quebec. They have more strikes then any other professional sports league, and everyone cries over money up there.
They don't have the smartest guys running this league. I know Bettman is American, and so is Fehr, but the majority of the agents and players who are having a big say in this are Canadian, from Bobby Orr to Sidney Crosby, and they're always crying about more money.
Basically, the heck with hockey. Let the sport die a slow death, and let all the players go play in Russia or Sweden. Even 99 couldn't get these guys to figure things out.
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs. >>
We disagree. I think that if every NHL game was played with the kind of intensity you see in the later rounds of the SC playoffs, or in the Olympics, that the sport would be much more popular. A shorter season would move the league in that direction. >>
well a shorter season would be good for all non-football sports. That said, if what I proposed previously isn't a larger factor (it is) ie the general lack of a hockey culture in every US market that isn't Chicago, MI, WI, MN, upstate NY, or New England, and that Americans, like every other country in the world, tend to favor their own sports, why isn't baseball or football or basketball more popular in Canada?...since we're using hockey after all. LaCrosse is Canada's other national sport. No one here cares about LaCrosse either...unless you attend Johns Hopkins U or something. Canada has one baseball team. They don't draw flies (21st) or ratings either despite virtually nothing else sporting wise occuring in the country during over half of the baseball season...aside from lacrosse and one week of tennis. It wasn't the 1994 strike that wiped out the Expos. They were already in financial trouble and drew 1.2M when fielding their best team. There is no baseball or basketball or football culture there. If there was, Canada would probably have produced more than 3 baseball players or 1 basketball player of consequence. Every single American born player who could conceivably be considered a great player comes from one of the aforementioned traditional American hockey markets. It's not a Canada/US thing, I'm just using these examples as I feel they're pretty much identical. There are certainly American markets that do not support our own sports teams. Besides, I actually don't think playoff hockey is really that superior. Sure the atmosphere, build, intensity, sense of urgency is greater, but it's also often an inferior on-ice product. Skill is often ref'd out of games. Fewer penalties, more sludge defense and trapping. The games are officiated wildly different than the regular season where dopes like Johnny Boychuk can cross check the Mason Raymonds of the world so viciously to the point of breaking multiple vertebrae in one's back sans penalty. Just think of the two occasions over the last few years involving your boy Zetterleto. You had Malkin pull him out of a scrum in the finals and beat him down. Should have been an automatic one game suspension. He played Game 7. Then Weber this year going WWF on him bashing his heavily bearded melon off of the glass. Sure it's nice to see guys like Penner, Rick Nash or Joe Thornton actually use their size for once, but still, who wants to see Trevor Lewis and Bryce Salvador as top 20 (playoff) scorers?
edit to add: pre-2004 lockout teams (combined) averaged 5.85 PP per playoff game. 2011-12 - 1.99.
<< <i>What the players need to understand is that many of the clubs will lose less money if no games are played this season. >>
Why is it on the players to figure out a solution to the owners losing money? Revenues are up well over 50% since the last lockout. The players caved in big-time last time, the owners got everything they wanted, and they STILL want a lockout? The owners got a nice TV contract, increased attendance, increased TV exposure, 57% more revenues - and yet they still are trying to claim they're all losing money. Meanwhile, in the day or two before the official deadline, they were still signing players to overpriced contracts! C'mon, quit trying to lay the onus on the players who have done nothing wrong here.
Tabe >>
It really wouldn't matter anyway as it's virtually impossible to tell which franchises who claim they're losing money are in fact not turning a profit. The Blackhawks ownership has claimed they've incurred losses since the cup year. This despite selling out every game in the largest barn in the league where ticket sales account for well over 50% of a given team's total revenue as well as accruing playoff money every year. They accomplish this by transferring whatever profits they're now turning to the debt they incurred from the early 2000s when the Hawks were drawing 11K per night back when Daniel Cleary, Mark Bell, and Tyler Arnison accounted for roughly 95% of all alcohol sales to Chicago area residents. I think it's pretty safe to say Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Detroit are always in the green. At least since the 80's.
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs. >>
We disagree. I think that if every NHL game was played with the kind of intensity you see in the later rounds of the SC playoffs, or in the Olympics, that the sport would be much more popular. A shorter season would move the league in that direction. >>
well a shorter season would be good for all non-football sports. That said, if what I proposed previously isn't a larger factor (it is) ie the general lack of a hockey culture in every US market that isn't Chicago, MI, WI, MN, upstate NY, or New England, and that Americans, like every other country in the world, tend to favor their own sports, why isn't baseball or football or basketball more popular in Canada?...since we're using hockey after all. LaCrosse is Canada's other national sport. No one here cares about LaCrosse either...unless you attend Johns Hopkins U or something. Canada has one baseball team. They don't draw flies (21st) or ratings either. It wasn't the 1994 strike that wiped out the Expos. They were already in financial trouble and drew 1.2M when fielding their best team. There is no baseball or basketball or football culture there. If there was, Canada would probably have produced more than 3 baseball players or 1 basketball player of consequence. Every single American born player who could conceivably be considered a great player comes from one of the aforementioned traditional American hockey markets. It's not a Canada/US thing, I'm just using these examples as I feel they're pretty much identical. There are certainly American markets that do not support our own sports teams. Besides, I actually don't think playoff hockey is really that superior. Sure the atmosphere, build, intensity, sense of urgency is greater, but it's also often an inferior on-ice product. Skill is often ref'd out of games. Fewer penalties, more sludge defense and trapping. The games are officiated wildly different than the regular season where dopes like Johnny Boychuk can cross check the Mason Raymonds of the world so viciously to the point of breaking multiple vertebrae in one's back sans penalty. Just think of the two occasions over the last few years involving your boy Zetterleto. You had Malkin pull him out of a scrum in the finals and beat him down. Should have been an automatic one game suspension. He played Game 7. Then Weber this year going WWF on him bashing his heavily bearded melon off of the glass. Sure it's nice to see guys like Penner, Rick Nash or Joe Thornton actually use their size for once, but still, who wants to see Trevor Lewis and Bryce Salvador as top 20 (playoff) scorers?
edit to add: pre-2004 lockout teams (combined) averaged 5.85 PP per playoff game. 2011-12 - 1.99. >>
I don't want this to get confrontational, but I think we can probably both agree that your statement that 'Americans, like every other country in the world, tend to favor their own sports' is at best vague and at worst just factually incorrect. The English invented soccer, and it's the most popular sport in probably 150 countries across the globe. Many Asian countries are gaga for basketball, the Japanese love baseball, as do the Dominicans and Venezuelans, the South Africans and New Zealanders love rugby, many Northern European countries adore ice hockey, etc. Even in this country the most popular sports 50 years ago were boxing, baseball and horse racing, and two of those three most certainly were not originated in the USA.
Sure, we can argue over the word 'tend', but the point here is that sports DO have a history of being successfully exported. Some Americans do seem to have more difficulty embracing sports that originated outside our borders, but certainly not all (see: the Pacific Northwest and soccer, the locales you identified earlier and hockey). So, we can agree that there is a precedent for Americans being receptive to other sports, and that there's nothing inherent in the human condition that prevents this.
I do think that American culture is shockingly insulated from foreign influence, so there are barriers to introducing new sports to this country. But recognizing that barriers do exist is not the same as declaring that any attempt to broaden the fan base is doomed to failure.
sure that was painting with a broad-brush as is stating that Many Asian countries are gaga for basketball I'm also not arguing against the success of exported sport, but in most of those countries you are referring to they do not or did not have much, if any, of a sporting culture of their own aside from largely individual Olympic sports or soccer. Just as there are some Middle Eastern cultures that really do not have an arts culture of their own which is why we've seen the newly oil rich royalty of Qatar spending billions on European art over the last decade to fill the museums next to their giant air-conditioned malls. It's being imported because for the most part they haven't created it on their own. In this case we're talking about the US which has a certain culture based around multiple national sports both of which we created or revolutionized. The insulation is natural and indigenous to many other countries as well. I'm well aware of the small pockets of European baseball fans (mostly in the UK), but I'd wager the ratio of Americans who follow European soccer trumps the number of European baseball or American football fans. The ratings show that there are plenty of American tennis fans who prefer watching Federer or Djokovic to Roddick or Isner.
<< <i>"The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million."
Here is a passage from a recent Forbes article. Take out the top 5 profitable teams and you have 25 franchises losing $86 million a year. Over half the teams are losing money. One can see why the owners would have such an interest in locking out players when that is going on. I suppose one could argue for revenue sharing (or more of it if it's already going on). Even with an even distribution of profits, you have an average team making only $4.2 million a year. That's much less than any free agent star would make in one year. Once again, people like to jump on owners and call them greedy and what not but every year, virtually every player walks away with an insane amount more money than he would otherwise make. While you have the majority of the owners losing money. I'd have to side with ownership on this one. >>
Personally, I'm not taking sides. If owners can get players to agree to take less then God bless 'em. If players get more, then great for them. However, I do think that salary caps run completely contrary to the spirit upon which this country was founded (and prospered), so I'm always a little surprised to hear people laud wage control mechanisms like this one when in their other walks of life they praise the efficiency of market outcomes.
Here is a passage from a recent Forbes article. Take out the top 5 profitable teams and you have 25 franchises losing $86 million a year. Over half the teams are losing money. . >>
Then let those teams fold. If you have 10 Dunkin Donuts that are making money, and 20 that are losing money, you get rid of the ones that are losers.
<< <i>"The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million."
Here is a passage from a recent Forbes article. Take out the top 5 profitable teams and you have 25 franchises losing $86 million a year. Over half the teams are losing money. One can see why the owners would have such an interest in locking out players when that is going on. I suppose one could argue for revenue sharing (or more of it if it's already going on). Even with an even distribution of profits, you have an average team making only $4.2 million a year. That's much less than any free agent star would make in one year. Once again, people like to jump on owners and call them greedy and what not but every year, virtually every player walks away with an insane amount more money than he would otherwise make. While you have the majority of the owners losing money. I'd have to side with ownership on this one. >>
Again, no one knows (for certain) who is or isn't turning a profit in the NHL. 13 teams claimed to have turned a profit in the 2011-12 season. There is no way that is possible. The Hawks claimed they lost money. They didn't. They just transferred their profits to past losses/debt. I assume other franchises have done this as well. Like MLB, there is a shared revenue program in the NHL and while we know the bottom 15 teams received up to $18M in revenue sharing, the league does not reveal exactly how much each franchise is receiving, nor do we know exactly how much a given franchise is receiving from state or city funds. We know Nashville is receiving public funds (allegedly $38.6M over the last 5 years) to cover losses but, like other sports, they do not have to share financial statements with their government partners and taxpayers. Nashville is one of the few NHL cities that does not own their arena. Edmonton also. But they receive additional (unconfirmed) money from the city to run the arena, as well as book non-hockey events at the arena and so on. Many of these events, hockey or concerts, do not break even and ultimately lose money for arena operations, but the city is willing to trade a loss on those events in exchange for the tax revenue generated by fan spending outside of the building. No different than when the Marlins were lobbying for a new stadium and claimed they needed help because they weren't turning a profit....and then the Marlins' financials were leaked that showed they were making millions (largely from revenue sharing). That's going on in the NHL too.
I think most of you are TOTALLY missing the point. Sports franchises, for the most part, are not profitable businesses on a year to year basis.
They are rich man's hobbies. The rich men overpay to get the players they want, then lock them out so they can gey a higher percentage of revenue. I'll bet if the owners "win" salaries will take another huge rise in the next couple of years because the owners will have a bigger slice of the pie.
Ever since (most) sports franchises have been owned by these rich "hobbiests" there have been lockouts and strikes way too often. I put most of the blame on the owners.
It's way past time both sides made a compromise to get the players back on the ice.
LET'S PLAY HOCKEY!!
Joe
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<<<However, I do think that salary caps run completely contrary to the spirit upon which this country was founded (and prospered), so I'm always a little surprised to hear people laud wage control mechanisms like this one when in their other walks of life they praise the efficiency of market outcomes.>>>
Boo, while I appreciate your sentiment, the fact is, this country stopped caring about the efficiency of market outcomes long ago. Two examples (of many) being the Fed manipulating markets by artificially holding down interest rates and the government providing incentives at every turn to promote home ownership. The term "free market" applies to very little of today's economy - and hence why we are longer prospering.
As for the hockey, it certainly doesn't look good for this season - too bad too, because the sport was headed in the right direction with NBC.
Why did the NHLPA hire Fehr after he engineered irreparable harm to MLB in 1994? Enjoy another year without Hockey NHL players, after you just recovered from the last lost season. NBC should dump your ass and leave some lowlight cable company to pick up the scraps, just like 8 years ago.
Of course why does the NHL keep Bettman, whose expansion of the NHL to the south is an overall failure, which also destroyed hockey in the second tier US markets in the North as well.
<< <i>The fact that this thread drops so far shows how little the majority of people care about hockey. Too bad as we know what a great sport it is. >>
I wouldn't base the give a bleep level of hockey fandom on this thread. There aren't many hockey fans on CU anyway. Plus most of us are more concerned with other matters. For example, how many bodies does Darren Dreger really have tucked away in his basement freezer?
Those Dreger pics are great. I enjoyed looking at all of the photoshops people were coming up with on twitter last night. The WJC has provided a nice distraction for the past week or so, especially with the USA's performance.
Still hopeful for that 48 game schedule, but im not going to believe it until I see them in training camp.
I don't know if it's because my team will be terrible (Senators) or I've lost some interest but it may take me a little while, maybe I'll just cheer for a NY team instead... Islanders?
Goot
Posts: 3,496
Comments
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
<< <i>I can't see how the few fans that came back after the last lockout would come back again... >>
Attendance overall has risen 5.5% (+900 attendees per game since 2003-04) , and rose in 23 of the markets immediately after the 2004-05 lockout. The NHL's regular-season average increased from 16,534 in 2003-04 to 16,954 in 2005-06, and was 17,454 last season. The only decreases from 2003-04 to 2005-06 were in Columbus (17,369 to 16,796), Dallas (18,355 to 17,829), Edmonton (17,678 to 16,833), New Jersey (15,060 to 14,230), New York Islanders (13,456 to 12,609), St. Louis (18,560 to 14,213) and Washington (14,720 to 13,905). Revenues have also increased 57% since 2004.
That said, players are set until October 15th when they receive their escrow checks (12%) so they're cool until around Christmas. Personally I expect the league to skate in anger around Thanksgiving (Nov 24th or 25th) which will ensure the much needed build up to the Winter Classic and HBO 24/7. Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic.
Lock You Out
Owners need to get their $hit together and quit overspending on players.
Blaming players and agents is the easy way out.
Let's hope they settle their differences so the people that pay everyone's wages, the fans, get to watch a full season of hockey!
Joe
What the players need to understand is that many of the clubs will lose less money if no games are played this season.
Scary but this could last awhile.
Robert
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic.
>>
This would be fantastic. An 82 game regular season (and an additional 20+ games for teams that make a deep run in the playoffs) is a screaming joke. One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this.
Edit to add: I'd also be delighted to see something as utterly un-American as a 'salary cap' eliminated once and for all, but I dare not dream so big.
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs.
<< <i>What the players need to understand is that many of the clubs will lose less money if no games are played this season. >>
Why is it on the players to figure out a solution to the owners losing money? Revenues are up well over 50% since the last lockout. The players caved in big-time last time, the owners got everything they wanted, and they STILL want a lockout? The owners got a nice TV contract, increased attendance, increased TV exposure, 57% more revenues - and yet they still are trying to claim they're all losing money. Meanwhile, in the day or two before the official deadline, they were still signing players to overpriced contracts! C'mon, quit trying to lay the onus on the players who have done nothing wrong here.
Tabe
Yes I do believe everything I read on the internet as long as it agrees with my thinking
oh, do I care? Yes fer sure..
<< <i>While it's easy enough to blame owners as the greedy wealthy capitalists, let's not forget that they are the one's making the HUGE investment in the first place to allow for the players to have a forum for making millions of dollars a year. The owners, in any sport, could take their hundreds of millions or billions and invest it in an infinite number of avenues. Often times, a sporting franchise is not the most financially lucrative option. But for the average player in any big sport, their alternative to making millions a year is to make maybe $50K a year (if they're lucky) doing something they're probably going to hate doing. I'm not sure of the specific numbers involved, but I can't get too upset with owners wanting to earn a return on such a significant investment.
People often trivialize the matter and say that they should just refrain from giving out big contracts but I don't think the matter is so simple. If you don't compete for players, than you risk losing (or not having star power) and thus not attracting ticket sales, which could hurt your bottom line. But pay them too much, and that leads down the same path. It's a very fine line that ownership has to walk. With the players, it's a question of do I make $3 million a year or $3.5 million. They're going to be millionaires either way. It's just a question of degree. >>
So what you're saying is that owners should be able to reap significant returns without assuming virtually any risk. Is that correct? Before you answer, consider:
1) There is virtually nothing 'risky' about owning a pro sports franchise. Revenue does not fluctuate wildly from year to year.
2) You have argued here that owners should not be faulted for wanting a 'significant' return on such an investment.
<< <i>
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs. >>
We disagree. I think that if every NHL game was played with the kind of intensity you see in the later rounds of the SC playoffs, or in the Olympics, that the sport would be much more popular. A shorter season would move the league in that direction.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>While it's easy enough to blame owners as the greedy wealthy capitalists, let's not forget that they are the one's making the HUGE investment in the first place to allow for the players to have a forum for making millions of dollars a year. The owners, in any sport, could take their hundreds of millions or billions and invest it in an infinite number of avenues. Often times, a sporting franchise is not the most financially lucrative option. But for the average player in any big sport, their alternative to making millions a year is to make maybe $50K a year (if they're lucky) doing something they're probably going to hate doing. I'm not sure of the specific numbers involved, but I can't get too upset with owners wanting to earn a return on such a significant investment.
People often trivialize the matter and say that they should just refrain from giving out big contracts but I don't think the matter is so simple. If you don't compete for players, than you risk losing (or not having star power) and thus not attracting ticket sales, which could hurt your bottom line. But pay them too much, and that leads down the same path. It's a very fine line that ownership has to walk. With the players, it's a question of do I make $3 million a year or $3.5 million. They're going to be millionaires either way. It's just a question of degree. >>
So what you're saying is that owners should be able to reap significant returns without assuming virtually any risk. Is that correct? Before you answer, consider:
1) There is virtually nothing 'risky' about owning a pro sports franchise. Revenue does not fluctuate wildly from year to year.
2) You have argued here that owners should not be faulted for wanting a 'significant' return on such an investment. >>
I did not say that owners should "reap significant returns". That's you projecting onto the words. I said they should expect a return on their "significant investment".
Nor did I say that it was "risky" owning a pro sports franchise. Revenue is only one part of the profit/loss equation. >>
You're right- I misquoted you. My apologies for that.
Edit to add: As for the profitabiliy question, here's an interesting read on that:
Gladwell article
The NHL is run by a bunch of Canadians who are about as smart as Jim Basilone from Research In Motion, Canada's big smartphone maker that has seen it's stock
go south.
Heck, they couldn't support franchises in Winnipeg and Quebec. They have more strikes then any other professional sports league, and everyone cries
over money up there.
They don't have the smartest guys running this league. I know Bettman is American, and so is Fehr, but the majority of the agents and players who are having
a big say in this are Canadian, from Bobby Orr to Sidney Crosby, and they're always crying about more money.
Basically, the heck with hockey. Let the sport die a slow death, and let all the players go play in Russia or Sweden. Even 99 couldn't get these guys to figure things out.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs. >>
We disagree. I think that if every NHL game was played with the kind of intensity you see in the later rounds of the SC playoffs, or in the Olympics, that the sport would be much more popular. A shorter season would move the league in that direction. >>
well a shorter season would be good for all non-football sports. That said, if what I proposed previously isn't a larger factor (it is) ie the general lack of a hockey culture in every US market that isn't Chicago, MI, WI, MN, upstate NY, or New England, and that Americans, like every other country in the world, tend to favor their own sports, why isn't baseball or football or basketball more popular in Canada?...since we're using hockey after all. LaCrosse is Canada's other national sport. No one here cares about LaCrosse either...unless you attend Johns Hopkins U or something. Canada has one baseball team. They don't draw flies (21st) or ratings either despite virtually nothing else sporting wise occuring in the country during over half of the baseball season...aside from lacrosse and one week of tennis. It wasn't the 1994 strike that wiped out the Expos. They were already in financial trouble and drew 1.2M when fielding their best team. There is no baseball or basketball or football culture there. If there was, Canada would probably have produced more than 3 baseball players or 1 basketball player of consequence. Every single American born player who could conceivably be considered a great player comes from one of the aforementioned traditional American hockey markets. It's not a Canada/US thing, I'm just using these examples as I feel they're pretty much identical. There are certainly American markets that do not support our own sports teams. Besides, I actually don't think playoff hockey is really that superior. Sure the atmosphere, build, intensity, sense of urgency is greater, but it's also often an inferior on-ice product. Skill is often ref'd out of games. Fewer penalties, more sludge defense and trapping. The games are officiated wildly different than the regular season where dopes like Johnny Boychuk can cross check the Mason Raymonds of the world so viciously to the point of breaking multiple vertebrae in one's back sans penalty. Just think of the two occasions over the last few years involving your boy Zetterleto. You had Malkin pull him out of a scrum in the finals and beat him down. Should have been an automatic one game suspension. He played Game 7. Then Weber this year going WWF on him bashing his heavily bearded melon off of the glass. Sure it's nice to see guys like Penner, Rick Nash or Joe Thornton actually use their size for once, but still, who wants to see Trevor Lewis and Bryce Salvador as top 20 (playoff) scorers?
edit to add: pre-2004 lockout teams (combined) averaged 5.85 PP per playoff game. 2011-12 - 1.99.
Let the USA and rest of Europe have their league in America.
We can call them both the NHL.
Watch how fast all the great players from the Canadian clubs cry that they want to be traded to the American clubs.
Heck, even Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Hull, and many others have never moved back to Canada. They all live here for a reason.
<< <i>
<< <i>What the players need to understand is that many of the clubs will lose less money if no games are played this season. >>
Why is it on the players to figure out a solution to the owners losing money? Revenues are up well over 50% since the last lockout. The players caved in big-time last time, the owners got everything they wanted, and they STILL want a lockout? The owners got a nice TV contract, increased attendance, increased TV exposure, 57% more revenues - and yet they still are trying to claim they're all losing money. Meanwhile, in the day or two before the official deadline, they were still signing players to overpriced contracts! C'mon, quit trying to lay the onus on the players who have done nothing wrong here.
Tabe >>
It really wouldn't matter anyway as it's virtually impossible to tell which franchises who claim they're losing money are in fact not turning a profit. The Blackhawks ownership has claimed they've incurred losses since the cup year. This despite selling out every game in the largest barn in the league where ticket sales account for well over 50% of a given team's total revenue as well as accruing playoff money every year. They accomplish this by transferring whatever profits they're now turning to the debt they incurred from the early 2000s when the Hawks were drawing 11K per night back when Daniel Cleary, Mark Bell, and Tyler Arnison accounted for roughly 95% of all alcohol sales to Chicago area residents. I think it's pretty safe to say Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Detroit are always in the green. At least since the 80's.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Though it's certainly possible opening day/night will indeed be the Winter Classic. >>
One of the reasons the NHL fails to attract a larger fan base is because the players phone in so many games; bringing the reg. season down to 50 games or so (even if it's only for one year, and from Jan-Apr) should help correct this. >>
I think it comes down to two simple well worn factors. A largely enclosed rink provides a lackluster visual experience that doesn't translate well to television. Oh and the puck is hard to follow and there's Euros on the teams. Hockey is Canada and Americans only care about sports Americans created in an American setting. See: Soccer. Except for golf which we didn't create, but rather revolutionized. Also golf is an activity. Players in all sports take games off. The Bears' offensive line takes entire games off all the time and DA BEARZ are still wildly popular. Lamar Odom and DAT GERMAN GUY seemed to take the entire season off in Dallas and yet people, for some reason, still watch the NBA post 1998.
And I thought the NHL was less greedy than the other big sports. This hurts me especially since the Chicago Express started playing ECHL last year and folded due to lack of attendance. If they started up this year attendance wouldn't be an issue with the blackhawks not playing.
Except...you know...there's still the Chicago Wolves and the Hawks' affiliate in Rockvegas and all. Besides why would you want to schlep it out to Hoffman Estates when Rockford offers one of the finest Olive Gardens you'll ever find. You could also possibly find a Cheap Trick gig post-game. Who could have ever predicted the Chicagoland hockey fanbase wouldn't care about watching a Columbus Blue Jackets affiliate in a suburb that no one who doesn't live in said suburb travels to. Terrible hockey from a terrible parent organization in the burbs. >>
We disagree. I think that if every NHL game was played with the kind of intensity you see in the later rounds of the SC playoffs, or in the Olympics, that the sport would be much more popular. A shorter season would move the league in that direction. >>
well a shorter season would be good for all non-football sports. That said, if what I proposed previously isn't a larger factor (it is) ie the general lack of a hockey culture in every US market that isn't Chicago, MI, WI, MN, upstate NY, or New England, and that Americans, like every other country in the world, tend to favor their own sports, why isn't baseball or football or basketball more popular in Canada?...since we're using hockey after all. LaCrosse is Canada's other national sport. No one here cares about LaCrosse either...unless you attend Johns Hopkins U or something. Canada has one baseball team. They don't draw flies (21st) or ratings either. It wasn't the 1994 strike that wiped out the Expos. They were already in financial trouble and drew 1.2M when fielding their best team. There is no baseball or basketball or football culture there. If there was, Canada would probably have produced more than 3 baseball players or 1 basketball player of consequence. Every single American born player who could conceivably be considered a great player comes from one of the aforementioned traditional American hockey markets. It's not a Canada/US thing, I'm just using these examples as I feel they're pretty much identical. There are certainly American markets that do not support our own sports teams. Besides, I actually don't think playoff hockey is really that superior. Sure the atmosphere, build, intensity, sense of urgency is greater, but it's also often an inferior on-ice product. Skill is often ref'd out of games. Fewer penalties, more sludge defense and trapping. The games are officiated wildly different than the regular season where dopes like Johnny Boychuk can cross check the Mason Raymonds of the world so viciously to the point of breaking multiple vertebrae in one's back sans penalty. Just think of the two occasions over the last few years involving your boy Zetterleto. You had Malkin pull him out of a scrum in the finals and beat him down. Should have been an automatic one game suspension. He played Game 7. Then Weber this year going WWF on him bashing his heavily bearded melon off of the glass. Sure it's nice to see guys like Penner, Rick Nash or Joe Thornton actually use their size for once, but still, who wants to see Trevor Lewis and Bryce Salvador as top 20 (playoff) scorers?
edit to add: pre-2004 lockout teams (combined) averaged 5.85 PP per playoff game. 2011-12 - 1.99. >>
I don't want this to get confrontational, but I think we can probably both agree that your statement that 'Americans, like every other country in the world, tend to favor their own sports' is at best vague and at worst just factually incorrect. The English invented soccer, and it's the most popular sport in probably 150 countries across the globe. Many Asian countries are gaga for basketball, the Japanese love baseball, as do the Dominicans and Venezuelans, the South Africans and New Zealanders love rugby, many Northern European countries adore ice hockey, etc. Even in this country the most popular sports 50 years ago were boxing, baseball and horse racing, and two of those three most certainly were not originated in the USA.
Sure, we can argue over the word 'tend', but the point here is that sports DO have a history of being successfully exported. Some Americans do seem to have more difficulty embracing sports that originated outside our borders, but certainly not all (see: the Pacific Northwest and soccer, the locales you identified earlier and hockey). So, we can agree that there is a precedent for Americans being receptive to other sports, and that there's nothing inherent in the human condition that prevents this.
I do think that American culture is shockingly insulated from foreign influence, so there are barriers to introducing new sports to this country. But recognizing that barriers do exist is not the same as declaring that any attempt to broaden the fan base is doomed to failure.
<< <i>"The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million."
Here is a passage from a recent Forbes article. Take out the top 5 profitable teams and you have 25 franchises losing $86 million a year. Over half the teams are losing money. One can see why the owners would have such an interest in locking out players when that is going on. I suppose one could argue for revenue sharing (or more of it if it's already going on). Even with an even distribution of profits, you have an average team making only $4.2 million a year. That's much less than any free agent star would make in one year. Once again, people like to jump on owners and call them greedy and what not but every year, virtually every player walks away with an insane amount more money than he would otherwise make. While you have the majority of the owners losing money. I'd have to side with ownership on this one. >>
Personally, I'm not taking sides. If owners can get players to agree to take less then God bless 'em. If players get more, then great for them. However, I do think that salary caps run completely contrary to the spirit upon which this country was founded (and prospered), so I'm always a little surprised to hear people laud wage control mechanisms like this one when in their other walks of life they praise the efficiency of market outcomes.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>
Here is a passage from a recent Forbes article. Take out the top 5 profitable teams and you have 25 franchises losing $86 million a year. Over half the teams are losing money. . >>
Then let those teams fold. If you have 10 Dunkin Donuts that are making money, and 20 that are losing money, you get rid of the ones that are losers.
<< <i>"The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million."
Here is a passage from a recent Forbes article. Take out the top 5 profitable teams and you have 25 franchises losing $86 million a year. Over half the teams are losing money. One can see why the owners would have such an interest in locking out players when that is going on. I suppose one could argue for revenue sharing (or more of it if it's already going on). Even with an even distribution of profits, you have an average team making only $4.2 million a year. That's much less than any free agent star would make in one year. Once again, people like to jump on owners and call them greedy and what not but every year, virtually every player walks away with an insane amount more money than he would otherwise make. While you have the majority of the owners losing money. I'd have to side with ownership on this one. >>
Again, no one knows (for certain) who is or isn't turning a profit in the NHL. 13 teams claimed to have turned a profit in the 2011-12 season. There is no way that is possible. The Hawks claimed they lost money. They didn't. They just transferred their profits to past losses/debt. I assume other franchises have done this as well. Like MLB, there is a shared revenue program in the NHL and while we know the bottom 15 teams received up to $18M in revenue sharing, the league does not reveal exactly how much each franchise is receiving, nor do we know exactly how much a given franchise is receiving from state or city funds. We know Nashville is receiving public funds (allegedly $38.6M over the last 5 years) to cover losses but, like other sports, they do not have to share financial statements with their government partners and taxpayers. Nashville is one of the few NHL cities that does not own their arena. Edmonton also. But they receive additional (unconfirmed) money from the city to run the arena, as well as book non-hockey events at the arena and so on. Many of these events, hockey or concerts, do not break even and ultimately lose money for arena operations, but the city is willing to trade a loss on those events in exchange for the tax revenue generated by fan spending outside of the building. No different than when the Marlins were lobbying for a new stadium and claimed they needed help because they weren't turning a profit....and then the Marlins' financials were leaked that showed they were making millions (largely from revenue sharing). That's going on in the NHL too.
<< <i>What we need now is for basketball to strike again only this time not come back. >>
I like your thinking.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
They are rich man's hobbies. The rich men overpay to get the players they want, then lock them out so they can gey a higher percentage of revenue. I'll bet if the owners "win" salaries will take another huge rise in the next couple of years because the owners will have a bigger slice of the pie.
Ever since (most) sports franchises have been owned by these rich "hobbiests" there have been lockouts and strikes way too often. I put most of the blame on the owners.
It's way past time both sides made a compromise to get the players back on the ice.
LET'S PLAY HOCKEY!!
Joe
Boo, while I appreciate your sentiment, the fact is, this country stopped caring about the efficiency of market outcomes long ago. Two examples (of many) being the Fed manipulating markets by artificially holding down interest rates and the government providing incentives at every turn to promote home ownership. The term "free market" applies to very little of today's economy - and hence why we are longer prospering.
As for the hockey, it certainly doesn't look good for this season - too bad too, because the sport was headed in the right direction with NBC.
<< <i>
<< <i>What we need now is for basketball to strike again only this time not come back. >>
I like your thinking. >>
Your thinking has changed since the Dickey trade?....
Mark
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What we need now is for basketball to strike again only this time not come back. >>
I like your thinking. >>
Your thinking has changed since the Dickey trade?....
um......he said 'basketball', not baseball.
I still couldn't care less about basketball.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>Geez....I really thought the Leafs had a chance at the Cup this year.
If it turns into a 20 game season they could!
Of course why does the NHL keep Bettman, whose expansion of the NHL to the south is an overall failure, which also destroyed hockey in the second tier US markets in the North as well.
<< <i>The fact that this thread drops so far shows how little the majority of people care about hockey. Too bad as we know what a great sport it is. >>
I wouldn't base the give a bleep level of hockey fandom on this thread. There aren't many hockey fans on CU anyway. Plus most of us are more concerned with other matters. For example, how many bodies does Darren Dreger really have tucked away in his basement freezer?
Still hopeful for that 48 game schedule, but im not going to believe it until I see them in training camp.
The shorter the season, the better the Leafs chances are to make the playoffs.
Toronto Argos won the CFL cup this year.
Jays may win the World Series because of their stacked line-up.
and Leafs may win the Stanley Cup if it's a 10 game season!
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
what do you mean? The US didn't beat Canada. Nobody ever defeats Canada. Canada only beats itself - according to every Canadian media member ever.
Go Preds!
Robert