Toggle sidebar

OT: Around Hockey and the NHL

Sure looks like an upgrade for the Hurricanes who desperately need to take the next step and become a true contender and Colorado gets a good player in return whose speed should match well with MacK and Mak. They obviously thought Rantanen couldn’t have been kept after the season. Necas should be up for a big raise in a year too though.

I don’t get Chicago’s motivation in all this. Wouldn’t they have gotten a 3rd for Hall as a rental straight up at the TDL without having to retain salary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Renopucker
JoVel said:
I think it's a great trade for the Canes, and a risk well worth taking even if Rantanen goes to UFA. They've never had that one game breaking talent and fall short in the playoffs because of it, and Rantanen is a decent step above Aho in that regard.

Also maybe this is good news for Kucherov's Art Ross hunt.
Click to expand...
Now maybe they'll lose 4 games to 1 in the ECF.
 
So what about this idea.

A small percentage of each ticket sold, TV revenue, revenue share, recaptured escrow, etc., is required to go to grassroots hockey development? It would be monitored by the league and PA. This would allow the Torontos of the world to upgrade existing rinks, and the Tampas to build new ones.

The Premier League does parachute payments to relegated teams, and solidarity payments to lower league teams. Relegation isn't on the table, of course, but the idea of using the top league's money to somehow fund someone else isn't without precedent, even in a very competitive, capitalistic league like the EPL.

From 2013 Is the Premier League funding ‘grassroots’ football enough?

If 5% of 2.5 billion (the rumored new Canadian tv deal per year + some reasonable estimates for future US and international tv deals) is $125 million, then they could build what, 6 new facilities each year? Each NHL market would theoretically be getting a new mid-tier two-pad rink every 5-6 years or so. (I'm assuming it costs $20 million to build). If you start adding in the .5%'s from tickets and merch, US TV deals, etc., then you can build/renovate more.

If the rinks the teams build are included as part of franchise value, then that would probably go up as well. More kids would get involved in the game, and TV ratings (or whatever it is by that point), merch sales, etc. go up. If the NHL has its own private label equipment, then those sales should get bolstered as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hoek and Renopucker
Felonious Python said:
So what about this idea.

A small percentage of each ticket sold, TV revenue, revenue share, recaptured escrow, etc., is required to go to grassroots hockey development? It would be monitored by the league and PA. This would allow the Torontos of the world to upgrade existing rinks, and the Tampas to build new ones.

The Premier League does parachute payments to relegated teams, and solidarity payments to lower league teams. Relegation isn't on the table, of course, but the idea of using the top league's money to somehow fund someone else isn't without precedent, even in a very competitive, capitalistic league like the EPL.

From 2013 Is the Premier League funding ‘grassroots’ football enough?

If 5% of 2.5 billion (the rumored new Canadian tv deal per year) is $125 million, then they could build what, 6 new facilities each year? Each NHL market would theoretically be getting a new mid-tier two-pad rink every 5-6 years or so. (I'm assuming it costs $20 million to build). If you start adding in the .5%'s from tickets and merch, US TV deals, etc., then you can build/renovate more.

If the rinks the teams build are included as part of franchise value, then that would probably go up as well. More kids would get involved in the game, and TV ratings (or whatever it is by that point), merch sales, etc. go up. If the NHL has its own private label equipment, then those sales should get bolstered as well.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the % rate between 8 and 10 personally. Not just to build rinks, but set up buckets of funding for equipment and travel costs - upon application at the local level
 
Major4Boarding said:
I'd like to see the % rate between 8 and 10 personally. Not just to build rinks, but set up buckets of funding for equipment and travel costs - upon application at the local level
Click to expand...
A higher number would be better, of course, but that kind of number has to be hashed out between the owners, and 5% is better than 0%. The basic idea is to start a snowball effect where the overall pie is so large, that the 5% is able to cover more than just building two decent sheets. Eventually, hopefully, they'll build enough rinks that travel costs aren't much of a thing. Florida kids don't have to have their parents drive them 3 hours for a game.

The question becomes, is it better to pay out yearly, or all at once, every 5 years or so (whenever their turn comes up, with some flexibility).

I'd do it in turns. A team gets a lump sum payment of like $20 million dollars, where they're expected to make significant grassroots investment. If they can't prove to the league and PA that they're doing that, like they're dragging their feet on actually building that new local rink, then they don't get another payout until it's complete.

If a team doesn't want to participate, they still pay in, but that means money, more often, for the rest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Renopucker and Major4Boarding
I went back and edited the explanation for 2.5b. I forgot to mention that 2.5b is a some fanciful combination of the rumored Canadian number, plus some made up figures for the next US and international deals. It'd be an ambitious number, but logically reasonable to happen like 5 years from now.

They could basically get those numbers now with 2.5% coming from total league revenue (which is like 6 billion). It'd be more like a 5% tax on the owners, as there's supposed to be a 50/50 split between them and the players.

2.5% of 6b is 150 million. That would be 6 team grants of 25 million dollars each year. 50 million for each NHL market over a ~decade. 6 teams every year would work better with 36 teams, but I figure that there will be some give and take. Teams choosing to flip spots for a year or two because that would work out a bit better for them. These projects take time, and I think it's better to see them appropriately scale their grassroots projects, over taking on too many things because their windfall is coming up.

Now, I know that there's already an NHL industry fund. They granted 14 million dollars last season. This concept is more about owning the entire tree. Roots to fruits. It's why I think that the Premier League is a much more reasonable model for the NHL, over the NBA or NFL. Outside of Minnesota, the hockey ecosystem in NA is pretty much entirely owned by somebody. The expensive youth programs, the junior teams, the pro teams, etc.

Maybe players will go to a prep school, or public university, but those are essentially businesses as well.

When I call it an investment, it quite literally is. Teams become rink owners because who else has the money?
 
Last edited:
Utah Yeti are out because there'd be confusion with a cooler, but Utah Mammoth are in despite the Colorado Mammoth pro lacrosse team?

Hmm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom