Comments for August 20, 2012 at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 12 out of 12 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Mon, 20 May 2013 01:06:31 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22226 [quote]Anyway, don't blame Bettman for the lockout. Blame the six or seven richest teams' ownership.[/quote] Puzzling comment. Why would you think those teams would want any part of the lockout? They are doing good business as is. Not playing costs them money, unlike the teams who are constantly in the hole. This lockout is all about the league trying to make the players take less money and on better terms so that struggling franchises can survive. How does that serve the interests of the richest teams who are the ones making big revenues and subsidizing the rest of the league? The NHL's proposal doesn't really help the big teams at all, in fact it limits their competitive advantage even further. If it were up to them, they would spend as much as they saw fit. If there is any reason to believe this lockout will be short it's because it doesn't serve the high revenue teams' interests and they're the ones making all the money. Bettman is not going to get too far upsetting the owners who actually generate revenue in this league. As yet, it has not cost the league any games, but I'd expect that some of the bigger teams will start to put pressure on Bettman to get a deal done before it starts taking cash out of their pockets. - ChicagoChief Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:47:18 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22225 While I think there's a measure of truth to both sides of this arguement, I think the flaw in what you've posted is that you couldn't sell your game sustainably without diversity of competition, even though some of the competition is much less interesting than others. And you also want to maximize your sales "events" by increasing the total # of games played (ideally healthily mind you). To say there is no difference between 30 teams or 10 or 2 just makes no sense at all for the league, though it might make sense to a small handful of teams/owners. Other than maybe mtl-tor you can't have 82 games vs the same team and sustain, and you lose most of your potential to sell something. 30 teams provide 1230 games to sell something from (tv time, ads, jerseys, etc.); 10 teams would provide only 410 games; 2 teams 82 games. Seems pretty clear which end of the spectrum has more profit potential, though please don't misinterpret that as condoning the current model. - sanstanya Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:44:46 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22221 @Wally1 - If each team plays 82 games a year it makes absolutely no difference if there are 30, 10 or even 2 teams in the league...you'll still have the same amount of home and away games. In theory this would mean there is NO net loss in revenue....until you consider the fact that networks/fans are less interested in paying for/watching Toronto play FLA, PHX, etc than Montreal, Boston, etc. So the theory that these fringe teams contribute to the overall success of the league is false, they actually take away from the profitability of the top franchises so in the eyes of the major players they are considered toxic assets. - 4horsemen Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:28:51 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22220 I've found these articles very useful for wrapping my head around the financial issues in the current CBA discussions. For anyone like me who finds having the general numbers handy to balance out the rhetoric from both sides I recommend digging in. [url] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/why-nhl-teams-cry-poor-despite-the-leagues-record-growth/article4429817/[/url] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/[/url] [url]http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/[/url] - rangersfury Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:59:49 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22219 I recall arguing with a bunch of posters on another site that Tangradi was totally overrated. 3 yrs later, my opinion hasnt changed. He doesnt seem to fit in the fast pace of the NHL. - DuklaNation Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:39:33 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22218 We are seeing the same thing across the country. Union after union fighting against the Corporation for a fair shake. As usual, we have a bunch of billionaires who want more and more for themselves and less and less for everyone else. Of course Bettman is awesome for the owners, he's a greedy pig just like them. - shingy Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:35:05 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22217 What Dobber is trying to say I think is that although some teams are preforming poor financially, they are allowing the stronger teams to reap even more profits. Example: When Phoenix or Florida or Nashville visits Toronto or Montreal, the games will likely be sold out still. Even though those small market teams aren't generating nearly enough profit as they'd like to on their own, they are allowing large market teams to reap even greater profits than they may otherwise do. The logic I believe would be that it is fair that the large market teams distribute some of their profits to the small market teams to account for this disparity. - wally1 Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:28:09 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22216 I haven't been paying too much attention to the detailed negotiations, so I found your comment regarding the richest teams having their " pockets lightened by $20 or $30 million or more" intriguing. Is that a cumulative net affect of the players proposal? Or is that lessening due specifically to the revenue sharing suggestion? I ask because with the players willing to take a lesser percentage of revenue, wouldn't that allow the teams to recoup some or all of the $20 or $30 million? - Knuckles Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:02:49 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22215 I'm not sure I follow the logic that you need 30 teams to form a league but even if that's true the owners would SURELY want those teams in the most profitable locations no? You do not see companies like Walmart putting up charity stores in hopes that customers will come, they put up stores where the market demand is there for it. I understand you didn't say Original 6...I did because for the most part they are some of the richest teams. Why? Because they're in huge hockey markets! So if Florida, Nashville, etc refuse to play in NY or Toronto then we just get to watch the popular teams play other more popular teams...sounds like a HUGE win to me and the networks. I'm still looking for the downside. You know when the bidding starts on Leafs games once the schedule is announced the cheapest games are those against these fringe NHL cities. People want to see the Leafs play the Habs, Det, NYR, Bos, etc. Bettman has been poison for the major franchises because he insists that it's in the best interest of 'the company' to fund failed projects. I'm not saying his attempt wasn't worth it but every good CEO knows when to fold em and situations like the one they have in PHX are when rational CEO's pull the plug and egos like Bettman dig their heels in and expect a socialist bailout. - 4horsemen Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:10:54 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22213 horseman - If Nashville refuses to play any games in New York or Toronto, and Florida follows suit, as well as Phoenix - then the Leafs and the Rangers will understand that they are making money thanks to the existence of the lesser teams. You need 30 teams to form a league. Your parallel is more like a perpendicular. Also, I didn't say original 6. I said the 6 or 7 richest teams. The lockout will happen because the richest teams refuse to bend on revenue sharing. Revenue sharing that is necessary - the NHL is a single company, with each team as a 'location'. Some locations of Wal-Mart are more profitable than others. As far as I'm concerned from an ownership standpoint Bettman has been nothing but gold. Cost certainty, revenues that have skyrocketed, and less changing of cities/locations than the NBA or NFL in the last 20 years. If you're an NHL owner, you ain't firin' Bettman - you're giving him a raise. - Dobber Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:53:38 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22212 [i]Anyway, don't blame Bettman for the lockout. Blame the six or seven richest teams' ownership.[/i] Why, because Bettman's failed US ventures should become the problem of the original 6 ? An intriguing parallel can be drawn between this and the sub-prime mortgage fiasco experienced in the US where a government system was designed to ensure everyone could buy a house (NHL Franchise), no matter if they had the money for it or not (fanbase). Then, when the whole thing inevitably blew up the economically responsible Americans (profitable teams) were left on the hook for the bill that the government (Bettman) created. This sort of socialist thinking is fatally flawed in my estimation. Now, I do understand that a transfer agreement is already in place but to suggest that an impending lockout be blamed on the richest teams for not wanting to donate more to failed projects doesn't sit well with me. I have a buddy with a floundering fantasy hockey website, it's not very good and will probably never take off because he has a limit of 10 viewers at a time but I feel that all fantasy hockey websites out there should be forced to pay him a yearly fee of $50 to keep him afloat so pony up Dobbs!!! ;D - 4horsemen Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:29:49 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/home-mainmenu-1/24-rambling/4843-august-20-2012#comment-22210 Does that piece of news change your projection of Tangradi this year? - Dakkster Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:31:27 +0100