Rants Mulliniks
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2008
- 23,167
- 6,215
Of course they are, we're just going to eliminate 200 - 250 who don't belong in the NHL.
Confirmed with Link: Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th
- Thread starter The Blue Devil
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Of course they are, we're just going to eliminate 200 - 250 who don't belong in the NHL.
Rants Mulliniks
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2008
- 23,167
- 6,215
This but it doesn't just apply to business plan, it also applies to product. The past almost 20 years has been near painful to watch.
Mess
Global Moderator
Fans suggested proposal to resolve the lockout
1). Take 30 NHL teams.
2). Set ticket prices league wide @ set prices equal for all fans across the league based on average prices today. Parity for fans in all cities to watch the same product. Phoenix @ Toronto or Toronto @ Phoenix = same ticket price for admission. See ULF's post #732 this thread for current ticket $ per team = $57.20 per ticket league wide average.
3). Collect all league wide HockeyRelatedRevenue X 30 teams & HockeyRelatedExpenses X 30 teams and put in one big combined pot at year end (including playoffs).
4). 50% HRR goes to the NHLPA to divvy up as per player contracts with Salary Cap as per HRR to create 30 equal salaries per team.
5). 50% goes to the Owners, taking their total portion and dividing by 30 teams equally to create Revenue per team. Do the same for HRExpenses.
6). Then calculate net profit per Owner from their 50% HRR share @ Total Owners Revenue - Total Owners Expenses = Profit (identical for all 30 Owners).
7). Cut 30 equal final cheques so Owners in Toronto and Owners in Phoenix and all in-between make the exact same profit each year.
Parity for ALL !!! ... Owners, Players and most importantly in all this the Fans, who after all it is their money that is being divided up equally here.
Last edited:
Mess
Global Moderator
Then Fans go on strike once lockout ends this time holding the Owners and the Players hostage from HRR until "We the People" get what we want to send the message as to who is paying the bills and lining both parties pockets that both sides are squabbling over at present.
See ULF's post #732 this thread for current ticket $ per team around the league presently = $1716.10/30 = $57.20 per ticket league wide average.
Toronto currently the highest at $123.77 = price rollback to $57.20 (league average) = -$66.57 per ticket cost in Toronto or -53.8%. Adjust all other teams equally.
There is absolutely no valid reason as to why a fan going to see a hockey game in Toronto needs to pay $123.77 per seat, while a fan in Phoenix can see the very same product at $36.15. Its all about league wide parity after all.
Last edited:
I guess after all the BS we had to go through, the fans should be allowed to make unreasonable demands, as well. If with an avg ticket price of $36.15, PHX could only draw an average of 72.5% capacity, how much do you think $57.20 ticket prices will draw?
Unless your goal is to drive those teams to bankruptcy ASAP, I don't see how that suggestion is even remotely viable. If getting rid of the teams is the goal, then fold them, don't put them through the torture of 50% attendance seasons, and even bigger losses.
Unless your goal is to drive those teams to bankruptcy ASAP, I don't see how that suggestion is even remotely viable. If getting rid of the teams is the goal, then fold them, don't put them through the torture of 50% attendance seasons, and even bigger losses.
Bomber0104
Registered User
Mess
Global Moderator
Who picked the location of Phoenix ??
If it can't sustain and fill a building at league wide ticket prices then perhaps Seattle or Portland or Kansas City or Kitchener/Waterloo or Hamilton or Quebec City can. No one said Owners weren't responsible for marketing his product in his market or the league marketing its brand, to fill Arenas where they presently reside.
Besides:
12,420 average attendance per game @ $36.15/ticket = $448,983 total revenue.
& so does
7,849 average attendance per game @ $57.20/ticket = $448,983 total revenue.
So a ticket increase to league average of $57.20 and fan attendance reduction by 4,571 fans/game = exact same total revenue collected in Phoenix.
How is Shane Doan forced into taking a 12% paycut in Phoenix (by this owners lockout taking hockey from the fans) going about addressing 75% capacity at $36.15 per seat? A lockout forces 0% attendance and 0 < 75%.
Last edited:
Anthrax442
Registered User
I hate parity and I hate the idea of being equal to some fan in Phoenix. Yes, maybe 3 or 4 of them are as passionate as me, or thousands of fans out here, but it is not our responsibility to feed their market. For that exact reason, I don't like the cap, I don't like the whole NTCs and the whole fact that we reward garbage teams by giving them best prospects. I can't, for the life of me understand, why there can't be a transfer system like there is in soccer, where I can "buy" a player's contract.
The primary goal of the league is to expand the game beyond the traditional markets, so most Canadian options are not a priority. As for the American options, it really depends on location, existing sport cultures (college/NFL/NBA/MLB/Nascar, etc) in the city, which the NHL would be competing against for fanbase.
PHX wouldn't have been my choice, just reasoning out why the locations you listed may not be the best options.
The goal is to grow expansion fanbase, not to shrink it.
It will give PHX a better chance to compete with lowered salary cap AND increased HRR percentage. They should be able to put a better quality product on the ice, which could end up drawing more fans. Who knows, they may even be able to get away from that dreadful trap they utilize, which just puts the spectators to sleep.
ULF_55
Moderator
Anthrax442
Registered User
Anthrax442
Registered User
charliolemieux
rsTmf
- Apr 1, 2010
- 9,715
- 55
I still say reward the big market teams with more home games...
Say that the Leafs play 60 home games and the Coyotes 20. The extra revenue from ticket sales alone is $20 million just for these two teams!
The top 10 teams get 20 extra home dates every year - Bottom ten lose 20 and the middle ten get 41.
If the big market teams can't "buy" a team because of the cap, they could at least be more attractive because of home ice advantage...
Yell it isn't "fair" - but if it really is all about money, this is a way to get a lot more $$...
charliolemieux
rsTmf
- Apr 1, 2010
- 9,715
- 55
That way would sure generate more money than making Phoenix charge $52 a ticket.
Having an unbalanced schedule like that is beyond unfair.
It would taint every championship won by a team that had a disproportionate number of home games.
Now I'm not anti revenue sharing but teams need to be able to keep some of the profits they generate.
Even if local TV deals is all they keep 100% of that should be enough.
National TV should be split ofcourse.
Even beyond revenue sharing, what about contract length, and the other transition issues.
So the Leafs would generate revenue for 60 games, while the Coyotes have to make due with revenue from 20 games. Ignoring the main motivation behind "expanding" the league (expanding the fanbase to areas where the game is not popular), revenue sharing would need to be completely reworked.
Even with all that, I don't see why the Jets (at $13M operating income) should get the same amount of games "rewarded" to them as the Leafs, who generate $80M+ profits, and share tens of millions of $$ with deadbeat teams. Why do the Flames not get some extra games? They only make $2M less than the Jets.
As for how successful establishing hockey cultures in non-traditional markets has been... I've decided to whip up a spreadsheet of the hometown states of the USA IIHF U20 teams of the past decade or so. It's certainly not conclusive, but it's interesting to see some prospects starting to pop up in the middle of nowhere (in hockey market sense).
Source
Last edited:
Hurt
Registered User
- Apr 6, 2009
- 28,305
- 801
What an absolutely terrible idea. Why don't we all just reward each team a single point every game too, have as much parity as possible. Also, we have to share players. Beyond stupid. 
Budsfan
Registered User
- Sep 17, 2006
- 19,218
- 1,365
This just won't work unfortunately, the 10 worst money losing teams, would still not survive.
I suggested if you cut 10 of those money losing teams and 1/3 of the players, it probably would work, with less fingers in the pie, it would spread the money more equally, across the board.
The Money losing teams, are finding it tough, to attract fans at the lower prices, that they now have, and the more successful teams, like the Leafs, would be reducing their prices to half of what they now charge and while the Leafs would still be sold out, the money losing teams, would have less fans and lose even more revenue, this is not a win, win, it's a lose, lose situation.
When it comes to the players the better ones will be absorbed into the remaining teams in the NHL and the others will be on AHL teams and perhaps this is where the expansion should happen, at the AHL level, it would certainly improve the product there and may lead to increased revenue for that league.
With a new CBA in place, a strict set of rules for player contracts and salary cap and other issues, would have to be enforced and penalties would have to outweigh any bending of those rules.
This League is not working and until it contracts, it won't and may I also suggest, that those places losing NHL teams, could become AHL teams and in the same way players have to prove they can make it to the NHL, so should the AHL teams, have to prove they can be an equal partner in the NHL and go through an exhaustive review, to become a new NHL team.
Last edited:
Opinions on if the PA follows through with decertification and already struggling teams can't compete and sign the better players fall to the bottom of the standings and can't sell tickets...
1. What are the chances of contraction?
2. Which teams could be the first to toss the keys on Bettman's desk?
3. And when how soon could we see teams fail as a result of the PA decertifying?
1. What are the chances of contraction?
2. Which teams could be the first to toss the keys on Bettman's desk?
3. And when how soon could we see teams fail as a result of the PA decertifying?
Then what would be the encouragement for a team to try to win the cup and not just do the bare minimum to just barely compete
ULF_55
Moderator
You mean besides having players who want to win regardless of what happens off the ice?
Wouldn't that be up to management to draft and sign players who want to win?
Playoff games would be home and away, after the other teams have paid the bills for your regular season wins. ;-)
ULF_55
Moderator
Would the wealthy clubs be willing to share more revenue is there was something in it for them?
Honestly, Rangers, Leafs, Flyers ... supporting the Islanders, Coyotes ... does nothing to make the league better.
Do you think teams would be more willing to share their revenue if they got a draft picks for Revenue Sharing?
1st. rounder for every 5 million
2nd. rounder for every 3 million
3rd. rounder for every 1 million
So if you provided 13 million you'd get 2 1st. and a 2nd., say at the end of the rounds?
Honestly, Rangers, Leafs, Flyers ... supporting the Islanders, Coyotes ... does nothing to make the league better.
Do you think teams would be more willing to share their revenue if they got a draft picks for Revenue Sharing?
1st. rounder for every 5 million
2nd. rounder for every 3 million
3rd. rounder for every 1 million
So if you provided 13 million you'd get 2 1st. and a 2nd., say at the end of the rounds?
p.l.f.
use the force
- Status
