id love to see 2-4 team contraction, but it has nothing to do w/ enforcers. in fact, i want every team to have one.
Agreed, there will always be enforcers and they should always have a place in the game. But if there were less teams then the talented guys will most likely keep their jobs in favour of the 4th liners.
Which four would you get rid of? My vote would be: Phoenix, Columbus, Florida, Nashville
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:34 am Posts: 12700 Location: ...a town in north Ontario...
southp wrote:
Agreed, there will always be enforcers and they should always have a place in the game. But if there were less teams then the talented guys will most likely keep their jobs in favour of the 4th liners.
I think pure enforcers are on their way out... guys like Orr, Shelley, Ivanans, etc. who contribute nothing at all to a team other than fighting. If a player can't provide some semblance of offensive production, contribute defensively, kill penalties or something, I don't think we'll see him as a regular very often the way so many guys have made a living the last decade or so.
_________________ I think we relinquished enough... and it's still dark enough... and it goes on and on and on...
whoever the bottom 4 teams are in terms of making $, they need to go.
In terms of operating income that would be Phoenix (-$24.4M), Columbus (-$13.7M), Tampa (-$8.5M), Anaheim (-$8.4M) Those are based on 2011 numbers I believe.
_________________ Toronto '96/Montreal '98/Barrie '98/Jones Beach I & II/Montreal '00/Toronto '00/Albany '03/Montreal '03/Montreal '05/MSG I '08/Toronto '09/MSG II '10/Montreal '11 Vinyl Thread
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
Definately need to retract. I think Nashville is actually pretty sound economically (nevermind they lost about 7.5 last year my mistake).
The Islanders should have been retracted a decade ago. (I'm not sure they even have fans anymore) They are worthless. Phoenix, likewise.
Not sure of the other 2.
That Columbus Ohio would have an NHL team is a little silly. It's a glorified college town plus Nationwide Insurance and a few computer companies. If it were Canada I'd understand, but that was a rather silly decision too. They don't have the industry to sell lots of corporate seats.
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am Posts: 2465 Location: A dark place
southp wrote:
warehouse wrote:
ive seen colton orr kill penalties
whoever the bottom 4 teams are in terms of making $, they need to go.
In terms of operating income that would be Phoenix (-$24.4M), Columbus (-$13.7M), Tampa (-$8.5M), Anaheim (-$8.4M) Those are based on 2011 numbers I believe.
Phoenix shouldn't have a hockey team. We live in a desert!
_________________ Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.
Apparently the league and NHLPA was meeting all weekend, so hopefully they discussed more than just "non-core issues".
I sincerely believe that in order for the league to thrive and to put an end to this recurring lockout business they need to shut-down those poor teams. Imagine you are the owner of a wildly successful business with yearly profits in excess of $100M, yet you are forced to fork over millions of dollars to your competitors for them to stay in business. How does that make any sense? Now, I understand in professional sports that you need many teams to make a league "interesting", but it doesn't have to be 30 teams. Things were perfectly fine in the 80's when we only had 21 teams.
The problem now is that the NHLPA wants to keep those jobs for their players. Less teams = less jobs = less millionaires.
I say all this, but if I was a fan of the Coyotes or Jackets, I suppose I'd be singing a different tune.
_________________ Toronto '96/Montreal '98/Barrie '98/Jones Beach I & II/Montreal '00/Toronto '00/Albany '03/Montreal '03/Montreal '05/MSG I '08/Toronto '09/MSG II '10/Montreal '11 Vinyl Thread
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:34 am Posts: 12700 Location: ...a town in north Ontario...
southp wrote:
Apparently the league and NHLPA was meeting all weekend, so hopefully they discussed more than just "non-core issues".
I sincerely believe that in order for the league to thrive and to put an end to this recurring lockout business they need to shut-down those poor teams. Imagine you are the owner of a wildly successful business with yearly profits in excess of $100M, yet you are forced to fork over millions of dollars to your competitors for them to stay in business. How does that make any sense? Now, I understand in professional sports that you need many teams to make a league "interesting", but it doesn't have to be 30 teams. Things were perfectly fine in the 80's when we only had 21 teams.
The problem now is that the NHLPA wants to keep those jobs for their players. Less teams = less jobs = less millionaires.
I say all this, but if I was a fan of the Coyotes or Jackets, I suppose I'd be singing a different tune.
I completely agree. I actually think hockey could eventually be much more successful in the south, but they should have done it gradually. They tried to do it all in one shot and that's lead to a league where a whole bunch of teams are unsustainable.
_________________ I think we relinquished enough... and it's still dark enough... and it goes on and on and on...
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:41 pm Posts: 23014 Location: NOT FLO-RIDIN Gender: Male
Tampa's numbers are only down because the new owner put huge money into the arena. If you remove the Len Barrie years, they're consistently in the top-half of the league in home attendance.
_________________
given2trade wrote:
Oh, you think I'm being douchey? Well I shall have to re-examine everything then. Thanks brah.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:34 am Posts: 12700 Location: ...a town in north Ontario...
Mickey wrote:
Tampa's numbers are only down because the new owner put huge money into the arena. If you remove the Len Barrie years, they're consistently in the top-half of the league in home attendance.
Funny... I just looked it up and the Lightning average attendance was 18,468 last year, which is just below the Rays average the last couple years.
_________________ I think we relinquished enough... and it's still dark enough... and it goes on and on and on...
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:41 pm Posts: 23014 Location: NOT FLO-RIDIN Gender: Male
PhilPritchard wrote:
Mickey wrote:
Tampa's numbers are only down because the new owner put huge money into the arena. If you remove the Len Barrie years, they're consistently in the top-half of the league in home attendance.
Funny... I just looked it up and the Lightning average attendance was 18,468 last year, which is just below the Rays average the last couple years.
Yeah yeah yeah.
warehouse wrote:
we're talking about total income, not just attendance.
Sure, but if you're looking for teams to contract, you'd do better to look at the reasons why they're in the hole. Like I said, Tampa's owner shelled out huge for stadium improvements, which led to that 8.5 deficit, which sounds like a team in crisis until you see their attendance numbers (average home is good for 13th in the league) and where that money's coming from. Dunno if there's similar data for Columbus or Anaheim.
_________________
given2trade wrote:
Oh, you think I'm being douchey? Well I shall have to re-examine everything then. Thanks brah.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:34 am Posts: 12700 Location: ...a town in north Ontario...
Mickey wrote:
PhilPritchard wrote:
Mickey wrote:
Tampa's numbers are only down because the new owner put huge money into the arena. If you remove the Len Barrie years, they're consistently in the top-half of the league in home attendance.
Funny... I just looked it up and the Lightning average attendance was 18,468 last year, which is just below the Rays average the last couple years.
Yeah yeah yeah.
That actually wasn't meant to bash the Rays, although I still don't understand how no one goes to their games when they've had so much success the last few years. I guess because the Rays, Marlins and Panthers have poor attendance I always assumed it was a Florida-wide thing, but the Lightning seem to do pretty well.
_________________ I think we relinquished enough... and it's still dark enough... and it goes on and on and on...
If a team has won a cup you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. So the Lightning get a pass.
Here's a good article from the former owner of the Panthers, claiming that it's the poor hockey decisions and not NHL economics that have hurt these teams in question. The owners are looking for the CBA to bail them out of their respective holes.
This thing isn't going to get done until the players realize they play a niche sport. 50/50 is a gift, they realistically should get about 40%. It's absolutely absurd for them to think they should get a higher share of revenue than the NFL players do.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum