Chris Allen Veteran Posted February 16, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 16, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted February 16, 2005 Global Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2005 ROFL! nice picture HAHAH! i heard the news, and it was such a downer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroChaos Veteran Posted February 16, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 16, 2005 OMG, that is the funniest picture i've ever seen. please tell me that is photoshopped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imtoomuch Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 As far as I know that photo is real. It appeared in SI if I'm not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystical112 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 ^ naw i think its real... oh well.. there goes hockey... i guess i gotta wait till baseball now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) Could not agree anymore. Excellent post man. If we lose some of the teams in markets which do not care (ie: Nashville, Carolina, Anaheim, etc) the talent level on the remaining teams would increase. This is one of my favourite solutions to making to game more financially stable as well as more exciting.Good post imtoomuch. (Y) 585483201[/snapback] Yeah, let's contract the teams you don't care about... I mean, because it's not like Carolina got to the Stanley Cup finals just a few years ago and had an amazing fan base before the owner made some stupid moves... and it's not like Nashville isn't a team on the rise with a decent fanbase (same with Anahiem)... I mean, why don't we just contract Atlanta, a team with all the up-and-coming players you can ask for and a fanbase that could explode at anytime. No offense, but it seems to me you're only for contracting southern teams... perhaps you don't deem them worthy of hockey or something, being from Canada? Edited February 16, 2005 by Scorpio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattmatik Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 What the NHL needs to do is to cut the league by 5 or 10 teams. This will do a few important things. First, it will get some of the financially insecure teams out of the league and it will concentrate the NHL talent to fewer teams. Right now there are too many teams and there are too many minor league caliber players in the NHL. 585483159[/snapback] There's been talk about this. Apparantly, some businessman is willing to put up several hundred million dollars to pay to the teams that would be contracted - I think it was like $80 million or something. If they did contract, that would also mean the end of Gary Bettman (which I'm sure a few of you wouldn't mind). He was the one who preached and lobbied for NHL expansion, so if they went down to 22 teams, obviously he would have to quit. I don't really know if they should or not...I can understand the need to do it but it's not like those teams that they are talking about (mostly the southern teams) haven't been successful or acquired a good fan base. The NHL basically screwed itself by trying to saturate itself too fast. There's a reason the other Big 3 sports leagues don't expand on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Yeah, let's contract the teams you don't care about... I mean, because it's not like Carolina got to the Stanley Cup finals just a few years ago and had an amazing fan base before the owner made some stupid moves... and it's not like Nashville isn't a team on the rise with a decent fanbase (same with Anahiem)... I mean, why don't we just contract Atlanta, a team with all the up-and-coming players you can ask for and a fanbase that could explode at anytime.No offense, but it seems to me you're only for contracting southern teams... perhaps you don't deem them worthy of hockey or something, being from Canada? 585484283[/snapback] Carolina suddenly had a fanbase because they were just like the Anaheims, Washingtons, and Floridas. They were a Cinderella team that made it to the Stanley Cup Final only to lose. Where are Carolina's fans now? Gone. Why? Because the very next season after making it to the Cup Final, they finished last in the NHL standings. Odds are, most ppl in these markets either don't care that there's no hockey or they don't even know. Just watch when hockey returns. How many fans do you think will fill the St. Pete Times Forum to watch the defending Stanley Cup Champion Tampa Bay Lightning? 7,000 sounds accurate. The NHL does need to be contracted. What teams need to fold, I won't speculate on, because a fanbase depends on the on-ice product. Some teams in weak markets don't deliver on the ice, and they have a weak fanbase (Florida). Under Bettman's tenure, 2 Canadian teams have been relocated to American markets, one of which is strong (Colorado), the other of which is weak (Phoenix), although neither market compares to the fanbases they had in Quebec and Winnipeg respectively. What the NHL needs to do to have a stronger on-ice product (my own opinion): Contract the league to 24 teams, contract the schedule to 72 games from 82 games, reduce goalie equipment size (drastically), remove the centre red line which eliminates the 2-line pass rule, no touch icing, and tag up offsides. My own proposal, agree or disagree with it, depending on which side you're on: Hard salary cap at 45M, minimum payroll set at 25M 25% luxury tax at 32.5M 75% luxury tax at 37.5M It's obvious the players would not accept this, but that's irrelevant after today's developments. This is just what I believe would work in the long run in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Carolina suddenly had a fanbase because they were just like the Anaheims, Washingtons, and Floridas. They were a Cinderella team that made it to the Stanley Cup Final only to lose. Where are Carolina's fans now? Gone. Why? Because the very next season after making it to the Cup Final, they finished last in the NHL standings. Odds are, most ppl in these markets either don't care that there's no hockey or they don't even know. Just watch when hockey returns. How many fans do you think will fill the St. Pete Times Forum to watch the defending Stanley Cup Champion Tampa Bay Lightning? 7,000 sounds accurate. The NHL does need to be contracted. What teams need to fold, I won't speculate on, because a fanbase depends on the on-ice product. Some teams in weak markets don't deliver on the ice, and they have a weak fanbase (Florida). Under Bettman's tenure, 2 Canadian teams have been relocated to American markets, one of which is strong (Colorado), the other of which is weak (Phoenix), although neither market compares to the fanbases they had in Quebec and Winnipeg respectively.What the NHL needs to do to have a stronger on-ice product (my own opinion): Contract the league to 24 teams, contract the schedule to 72 games from 82 games, reduce goalie equipment size (drastically), remove the centre red line which eliminates the 2-line pass rule, no touch icing, and tag up offsides. My own proposal, agree or disagree with it, depending on which side you're on: Hard salary cap at 45M, minimum payroll set at 25M 25% luxury tax at 32.5M 75% luxury tax at 37.5M It's obvious the players would not accept this, but that's irrelevant after today's developments. This is just what I believe would work in the long run in the NHL. 585484538[/snapback] Newsflash for you: Carolina's fans aren't gone! Want proof? Here you go... http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_...attendance.html Learn your facts, buddy. And, how many people will go to Tampa Bay's first game? I'd say not much, but 7,000 is extremely low. Tampa Bay doesn't have a huge fan base, and they didn't even have a huge one when they won the Stanley Cup. But 7,000? Give me a break. Saying Colorado doesn't have a fanbase as big as it did when it was in Quebec is absolutely idiotic. Take a look at the numbers yet again, buddy: http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_...attendance.html Colorado is a much bigger team now than it ever was in Quebec. It's worth more, it has more fans, etc. All Canadians love to bring up the Canadian teams that were moved, but how about the Flames? Maybe you weren't aware of this, but get this... they used to be an American team! Sounds pretty even, if you ask me. Relocating a bad team to Canada isn't a bad idea. So why was relocating bad teams to America? Granted it was in the 80's, but it's still a move to Canada. If you ask me, the NHL need to just learn how to market the game for what it is. They need to start player promotion like what the NBA did, yet they're not doing it. There are a lot of good, young players coming up, so hopefully they'll start doing that. They need to get people out to the games somehow, because hockey is a in-your-face game. You need to be there to understand it. Promotion is key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted February 17, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 17, 2005 the players diserve whats happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Newsflash for you: Carolina's fans aren't gone! Want proof? Here you go...http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_...attendance.html Learn your facts, buddy. And, how many people will go to Tampa Bay's first game? I'd say not much, but 7,000 is extremely low. Tampa Bay doesn't have a huge fan base, and they didn't even have a huge one when they won the Stanley Cup. But 7,000? Give me a break. Saying Colorado doesn't have a fanbase as big as it did when it was in Quebec is absolutely idiotic. Take a look at the numbers yet again, buddy: http://www.kenn.com/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl_...attendance.html Colorado is a much bigger team now than it ever was in Quebec. It's worth more, it has more fans, etc. All Canadians love to bring up the Canadian teams that were moved, but how about the Flames? Maybe you weren't aware of this, but get this... they used to be an American team! Sounds pretty even, if you ask me. Relocating a bad team to Canada isn't a bad idea. So why was relocating bad teams to America? Granted it was in the 80's, but it's still a move to Canada. If you ask me, the NHL need to just learn how to market the game for what it is. They need to start player promotion like what the NBA did, yet they're not doing it. There are a lot of good, young players coming up, so hopefully they'll start doing that. They need to get people out to the games somehow, because hockey is a in-your-face game. You need to be there to understand it. Promotion is key. 585484789[/snapback] Carolina's fanbase HAS dropped. Look at your own information. 01/02, they get to the final, so in pure bandwagoning fashion, they come back and hope for the same in 02/03, so when that doesn't happen, they lose by your own information 3,000 fans by 03/04. And who said I'm talking about JUST the fans that went to the stadium? Quebec in general was (and still is) a huge hockey market fueled by Canadiens/Leafs games and in the past, Canadiens/Nordiques games. But if you want to base your fanbase beliefs solely on attendence records, yes, Colorado had a higher attendence record, but it's too bad that you failed to mention Colis?e de Qu?bec had a maximum capacity of 15,750, a total almost reached each and every season since 81/82 until their departure. And you don't need to remind me that the Calgary Flames were once an American team called the Atlanta Flames. Relocating "bad teams" to the States as you put it is simply stupid. The Nordiques were the 2nd best team in the NHL during the abbreviated 94/95 season before relocating to Denver. Winnipeg was a bad team for their last couple of years, but they're HARDLY any better as the Phoenix Coyotes. All they've done was go from being a bad team in a hockey passionate market to being a bad team in a market where hockey couldn't be cared less about. There are some actual legitimate facts for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hills420 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Bettman is a piece of ... Only $6.5M separated them from coming to an agreement. How stupid! Not every team would meet the $49M cap, expecially teams like Carolina, Atlanta, etc. I am so ****ed off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kainashi Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Bettman is a piece of ...Only $6.5M separated them from coming to an agreement. How stupid! Not every team would meet the $49M cap, expecially teams like Carolina, Atlanta, etc. I am so ****ed off... 585485083[/snapback] $6.5 million x 30 teams, actually. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy123 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 $6.5 million x 30 teams, actually. ;) 585485089[/snapback] a salary cap of 45M (or whatever it would have been) doesnt mean that every team have to be right at that cap! so no.. not 6.5x30 :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I did look at my own information, and having 12,000 fans going to games isn't a bad number for hockey. I'm not sure where you come from, but in my books those are some solid statistics. Look at the years before the lack of data... that's an increase of 2,000 fans over those years, showing that there was obviously a growth in their fanbase. 12,000 isn't a bad number; no, it's not the highest out there, but contracting a team with a solid fanbase is stupid. That was my point all along -- how about you stick with that subject? When I said "bad" teams I was referring to the fanbase... normally it doesn't matter how good a team is, they're going to move them if they don't sell as well as they can. Obviously this was an implied statement, given the information I was supplying you and the teams I mentioned. And, no, very little of that is legitimate facts. What I gave was and is legitimate fact. You gave opinions, for the most part. The fact of the matter is that the teams you mentioned were having finanical trouble, so they were moved. It is a fact (http://www.neutralzonehockey.com/quebec.htm) that the NHL tried to find an owner in Quebec to keep the team there. They didn't want to move the team, but they just had too many financial problems to sustain the team there. To quote the last paragraph of the source I just sited for you: In fairness, it is hard to feel too bad for Quebec, on the whole, it seemed the local citizens were rather apathetic to the whole situation. Yet, after years of watching the Nordiques lanquish in the cellar, the people of Quebec missed seeing their team finally become the Champions they had developed into. $6.5 million x 30 teams, actually. ;) 585485089[/snapback] Yes, $6.5 million per team... why do you all keep emphasizing per team? The owners are the ones paying it, not the NHL itself -- it's not like $195 million is keeping them apart, $6.5 million per team is... and, yes, there is a difference. I'm not saying it's a lot, but you guys sure are feeding out of Bettman's hands right now. I don't side with the players, but he's just as much of a worm as any of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I did look at my own information, and having 12,000 fans going to games isn't a bad number for hockey. I'm not sure where you come from, but in my books those are some solid statistics. Look at the years before the lack of data... that's an increase of 2,000 fans over those years, showing that there was obviously a growth in their fanbase. 12,000 isn't a bad number; no, it's not the highest out there, but contracting a team with a solid fanbase is stupid. That was my point all along -- how about you stick with that subject?When I said "bad" teams I was referring to the fanbase... normally it doesn't matter how good a team is, they're going to move them if they don't sell as well as they can. Obviously this was an implied statement, given the information I was supplying you and the teams I mentioned. And, no, very little of that is legitimate facts. What I gave was and is legitimate fact. You gave opinions, for the most part. The fact of the matter is that the teams you mentioned were having finanical trouble, so they were moved. It is a fact (http://www.neutralzonehockey.com/quebec.htm) that the NHL tried to find an owner in Quebec to keep the team there. They didn't want to move the team, but they just had too many financial problems to sustain the team there. To quote the last paragraph of the source I just sited for you: 585485096[/snapback] Alright, I'll buy the Quebec statement, but where in my post is it almost entirely opinion based? Phoenix being a weak market? That's fact, not opinion. Winnipeg was a bad team statistically, but their fanbase was as strong as any fanbase in the NHL, unless all those "Save Our Jets" campaigns were just for show. :whistle: If you believe contracting the league is a bad idea, perhaps you can think of an alternative? Believe it or not, there are weak markets in this league. Nashville and Atlanta are up and coming, but Florida and Phoenix? Terrible markets. As for one of my previous comments about 7,000 ppl showing up at Tampa Bay's home opener, does it really sound low? If this season had started when it was supposed to, yes it would be low. But after a year and a half, will Floridians really care that hockey is back? I doubt it. I'll believe it when I see it. The NHL is, and probably always will be the #4 professional sports league in the USA (out of 4). Once baseball resumes, at least half of so-called American hockey fans will forget that this cancellation even occured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkenMaster Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I think the owners aren't willing to sign because they're realizing that paying people upwards of $500 K to 8 or 10 million a year to put a puck in a net is absurd. Case in point: many days we complain about the attendant at McDonalds or BK not getting our hamburger right and think they are overpaid. When we see a doctor and they save our life and we have to pay $5,000 for the surgery (or treatment...) we complain they make absurd amounts of money. Hockey fans (and fans of professional sports in general) pay hundreds of dollars a game to watch a hockey team play. Or they consume alcohol and snacks and many purchase TV packages to watch instead of season tickets. Either way its a costly hobby. It doesn't save your life as a doctor would. And when the team loses, I don't hear people bitch as they would when they get their order screwed up at McDonalds. The problem, is that as a skills base, professional athletes - compared to other skilled labourers are overly paid. And many fans haven't complained until the team went on strike. I would much rather see semi-pro leagues - where there are less fights and more exciting play (no off-sides for instance), for less money to see a game result from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrix XII Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 The league in the US is going to have HARSH reprocussions from this.... In Canada, we'll all eventually come back to the rink cause it's our lifeblood, even though we're annoyed. But I think I speak for almost all Canadians when I say, even though we're upset, and hockey night in Canada comes on, we'll DEFINATELY turn our TV on again (or go to the game). I'm very angry at the NHL for what has happened, but say a Vancouver game was on tomorrow, I would be there as soon as possible ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMac Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I've been gone for a day but I would like to clarify some items for Scorpio who had at my post and I haven't got to respond as of yet. First off the teams I listed lost significant amounts of money. I know this because as I watched the coverage of the cancellation, a former NHL exec (Brian Burke) was discussing the teams that were losing the most money. So I apologize I have no paper trial. The reason why I mentioned teams like Carolina and Nashville were because along with a few others such as Pittsburgh they account for more of half the money the league lost. I have no beef with Southern teams I just recognize that some of them are a large part of the problem. By cutting out some of the weak links the extra players could go to teams that have a better potential to make money. I count LA for example because a huge city could better withstand a team. I cut Anahiem out because it is my belief that California cannot withstand support more than two teams. Therefore I would leave California with LA and San Jose. Ontario has two teams but both of them are doing sufficiently now with Ottawa's new owner Eugene Melnyk. Please don't accuse me of being a southern hating Canadian. I want what is best for business. When Quebec lost its team I was fine because fact is they were going in the toilet financially. Same goes for Winnipeg. The cancers of the league should be removed in attempts to save other teams that could benefit from a stronger roster. The $6.5 million difference in cap is a generalization to illustrate that if all the teams had an equal revenue, (which they don't and this amplifies the problem), that every team would lose 10% (200million/2billion X 100%) of its revenue. The teams don't make their share of revenue therefore are in even more trouble than the teams that make more than their share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts