wazee:
I admit, its a pretty far-fetched idea, but I'm just throwing it out there.
To answer a couple of your questions:
wazee said:
Why do you think the bottom 23 teams would allow the top 7 to have the Stanley Cup? Why would they be allowed to keep the name 'NHL'? Your answer...For 10M bucks.
No, not for $10M. The 23 teams would let the 7 teams keep the name "NHL" basically to get rid of the PA. The NHL deals with the NHLPA.
The NHL would get to keep the Stanley Cup because the top players in the world would play in that league. It makes sense to me.
I'm no lawyer, but my idea may allow the teams that were no longer part of the NHL to pretty much institute whatever CBA they want without having to declare an impasse, or deal with the NHLPA.
wazee said:
Just curious why you think that small a number would do it? I think you would have to start with at least 100M for each franchise you want to demote...and you would end up paying a lot more if it went to the courts.
To me its pretty obvious why a small number would do it. You're not actually selling your franchise... you're accepting a payment to do all the things that you'd want to as far as collective bargaining. The $10M is basically compensation for the risk of losing a couple of your top players, and losing association with an established league and the best trophy in sports.
However, when you look at what the teams keep, $10M should be more than sufficient, and easily digestible by the NHL hold-overs. The NHL is a gate driven league, and gate reciepts should not be affected too negatively over the long term. Fans in Edmonton will still pay to see NHL2 games... even without the Leafs and Rangers. The team may lose Ryan Smyth, Brewer and Hemsky... but the rest of the team will probably still be intact.
wazee said:
It is pretty amazing that you think the owners of 23 teams who paid for an NHL franchise would be even consider allowing their property to be devalued by demotion to a 2nd tier league for a mere 10M.
Its pretty amazing that you think that the franchises would be devalued:
1. Your #1 competing league is paying your startup costs.
2. You have an established fan base, sponsors, and local tv contracts
3. A new CBA with cost certainty (read: linkage at maybe 50%) will almost guarantee profitablity, even in small markets
4. Some of the best tv markets and highest growth markets are in NHL2
wazee said:
What do you think the franchise value of a 2nd tier team would be in comparison to a NHL team? 50%? Highly doubtful. 20%? Maybe. What is an AHL franchise worth?
Why don't you do the math yourself.
If you're to believe Brook's article, the top 7 teams make a collective $661M in revenue (averaging $94.4M/year). That means the other 23 teams earn, on average $62.57M/yr.
So lets say a new CBA has linkage at 50% ($31M/yr), and whatever else they feel would basically guarantee profits.
Why don't you grab a pen and some paper, write down the 7 teams, project who'll play on those teams and what the player budget will be. Then take last year's rosters for the remaining 23 teams, subtract the players that went to the "new NHL", and add prospects and players cut from the top 7 teams. Then try and grasp that the payroll is $31M or less and revenues are around $50-65M.
Then see if the product is really that bad, and answer for yourself whether these cities can fill their buildings.
Then realize that there are still 2 teams in NY, 8 teams in Canada (3 in Ontario), and in some of the hottest tv markets south of the border. You will certainly compete with the NHL in their markets, but they're unlikely to enter your markets with their "free-market" CBA.
Then project 5 years out. Is there room for revenue growth? If so, then the salary cap will rise. This means that NHL2 will be more competitive in signing top players away from the NHL.
Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward. Eventually the NHL2 may be the stronger league, and absorb the franchises from the NHL... making a 30 team league again.