Puck

Ok, I get your point. Let's say Anaheim and Phoenix both develop some consistency and make the playoffs the next 3 or 4 seasons straight. That's going to help their attendance figures, correct? Success on the ice is going to translate to an improved financial picture. That's my argument in a nutshell. I'm not trying to argue either is EVER going to be considered a hockey market. It's simply not going to happen, although there are a lot of Canadian sunbirds in Arizona, so it's possible, albeit unlikely.

1) These are facts? These read to me as some guy's opinion. I don't see many, if any, facts here. 2) See #1. If that's the case, where's the facts to back it up? Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. 3) Really? He's POSITIVE "every fan will come back enthusiastically"?? That's leap of faith. 4) 65% is for this season only, while NHLers are locked out. For the Russians, some already have homes over there, so the cost of accommodations isn't outrageous. They're playing in front of friends and family in a culture they're comfortable in. There's virtually no income tax. I read somewhere NHLers in North America lose almost 50% to taxes. I bet the take home pay is pretty much the same (that's not a fact, BTW, hence "I bet"). And after the lockout is over, they can sign for whatever they want. There will be repurcussions, however, unless the NHL allows PA members to get out of their existing contracts as a concession to accepting a rollback/escrow/whatever. But these media guys spouting statistics as if they are facts aren't looking at the bigger picture. Plus, don't underestimate the anger the players have toward Bettman. Personally, I'd take a pay cut just to spite that vertically challenged little troll.

At least the Islanders are moving in the right direction. @jammer2 Your obervations re: Dallas are duly noted. I still think Phoenix going from dead last in regular season attendance to selling out every home playoff game supports my hypothesis. As do the spikes in Carolina, Anaheim and TB's attendance figures following their respective cup wins. I suspect if I were to go look up Florida's playoff attendance last season, or their regular season attendance in the "year of the rat" there'd be similar evidence. I think your last post summarizes how difficult it is to be an owner in a non hockey market. It's a huge risk to invest heavily in player contracts when there's no guarantee of on ice performance matching expectations. I imagine Carolina and Minnesota will be pretty upset if those offseason acquisitions don't parlay into playoff spots, at the very least. I imagine this is why Wang is so leery of investing in contracts after his experiences with DiPietro and Yashin. Yes, he misjudged their talent, but he made an investment and took a risk. That it didn't work out for him is no surprise to anyone, proving you need solid hockey minds behind your checkbook or it's all for naught.

That's correct. There's not much info out there about the design or what it means. Kind of looks like Gandalf with vampire teeth, doesn't it? There was a post from Jason Bourne's site about it, but I can't find it now. Anyhow, your turn.

@radoran Let me clarify... by "success" in that statement you bolded, I was referring to on-ice competitiveness, not financial success. I'm in agreement with you that "hockey markets" don't need to have on-ice success to do well financially. However, most of the hockey market teams you cite have owners willing to spend to the cap or are contenders (like the Flyers). Winnipeg will likely never be a 'spend-to-the-cap' team unless they have a legitimate shot at a cup. I'm not convinced Edmonton can spend to the cap and turn a profit either, new arena or not. There's an exception to this... I live in BC so I get a lot of Canucks news. When the team was mired in the awful Keenan-Messier era, the building rarely sold out. Last March or April, they hit 400 consecutive sellouts. I'm in disagreement with your analysis of Dallas. The statistics show that when they ice a competitive team, the fans support them. When the team isn't competitive, the fans don't come out. Thus, a direct correlation between "competitiveness" and "financial success". This supports my assertion that non-traditional markets need to ice a competitive roster to have success financially. New Jersey moved from East Rutherford to Newark when they opened the new arena. Vanderbeek has been fighting with the mayor of Newark since they moved, taking the city to court over parking revenues, etc. More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/sports/hockey/stanley-cup-finals-devils-thorny-financial-history-repeats.html?_r=0 Upon digging a little further, I'm surprised to learn their attendance numbers are actually better in Newark than they were in East Rutherford. Nevertheless, a billionaire owner taking the city to court and winning concessions (and thereby draining local tax coffers) can't sit well with on-the-fence fans. Vanderbeek is a sleazy d-bag and I'd have a hard time supporting a team owned by him regardless of on-ice performance. Phoenix: "Despite the Coyotes’ league-low average attendance of 12,420, Phoenix is buzzing. Every playoff game has been sold out." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/sports/hockey/2012-stanley-cup-troubled-coyotes-are-in-western-finals.html Anaheim is too reliant on tourists buying tickets, which is exactly why a team in Vegas will never work. But when they won the cup in 2007, they had consecutive seasons of 17,000+ average fans in the stands before tailing off to 14,760 last season... when they didn't make the playoffs. They'll never be considered a hockey market. The bottom line for me is hockey markets in Canada, along with the Rangers, Flyers, Boston and Chicago will likely always do well at the gate regardless of on-ice performance. However, non-traditional markets need to do well on the ice to turn a profit. But if they don't do well at the gate, the owners don't spend money on the product. Basically both the fans and the owner become apathetic. The owners demanding the players take a salary cut, whether it be by rollback or escrow, or whatever, isn't going to help their bottom line. Icing a team that can compete with the Flyers, Rangers, Penguins, Kings, Canucks, etc., consistently will bring the fans out.

I think this is a positive move for the Islanders franchise... I wonder what the length of the lease is though, as apparently the Barclay Center only holds 14,500 for hockey. That's not good enough in a New York market. Does this help Wang market the team to prospective buyers? He's still not going to get his $300 million asking price.

Hint: Red Foxx

Dallas Stars average yearly attendance: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=5404 Stars yearly performance (scroll to bottom): http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/dallas-stars-5404.html In 2008-09 they stop making the playoffs and attendance dips each year afterward. I don't think that's a coincidence, but that's my opinion. Carolina attendance: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=5154 Carolina performance (scroll down): http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/carolina-hurricanes-5154.html Carolina's attendance isn't that bad considering they averaged over 16,000 fans per game over the last 6 or 7 seasons and only made the playoffs once in that span. Tampa Bay attendance: http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=8385 Tampa Bay performance: http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/tampa-bay-lightning-8385.html Note: Tampa's attendance peaked the year after they won the cup. Last year, attendance was up over 1000 fans per game after a run to the ECF. @radoran: "There is no evidence-based direct correlation between "winning" and "financial success"." I agree to this statement as it applies to traditional markets, and your insights regarding the Flyers aren't wrong. But you seem to define success by winning the cup. There's only 1 cup winner every year, so thereby the other 29 teams are failures. I'm not sure recent cup losers and conference final losers would call their seasons financial disasters. There's a difference between "being competitive" and being "perpetually awful." (I'm looking at you, Charles Wang.)

I was referring more to a shortened regular season with a longer post-season. Attendance goes up in the postseason in non-traditional markets. Doesn't make a difference in places like Toronto, New York, Philly, Vancouver, etc.

Yeah, the Lightning have Stamkos but missed the playoffs last year despite making it to the WCF the year before. They rarely sell out that building but if they consistently made the playoffs, could they perform better at the gate? Didn't Carolina miss the playoffs the year after winning the cup? Put a team like Detroit in Raleigh and I suspect attendance would go up. That franchise is a lot of things; consistent ain't one.

Is that a bad thing?

@radoran Traditional market fans (aka Leaf fans) will support their team in good times and bad, I guess. I'm not sure what years you're quoting stats from. Take Dallas for example - did they rank 28th in attendance in 1999 or 2012? Big difference. Phoenix may have been 30th in attendance in the regular season, but that rink looked pretty full in the WCF. Islanders? I'd respond with "Charles Wang"... 'nuf said. Jersey's attendance woes have a lot to do with the rink location (same with Phoenix). I think an blindfolded idiot threw a dart at a map in both those cases... Ottawa's (Kenora, actually) too. BTW, the Senators made the cup final in 2007 and lost to the Ducks.

@FirstState: My understanding is that, after matching an offer sheet, the matching team cannot trade the player in the first year. I just did some research on the topic, and it looks like after that first year, they can trade him anywhere they want.

Hockey succeeding in non traditional markets is dependent on those teams winning. The Panthers and Coyotes of the world do alright when those teams make the playoffs and the fans have something to cheer about. The years of not turning a profit have a lot to do with the piss poor product on the ice. Dallas Stars fans supported the team when it was contending year after year and now that they're run-of-the-mill, the building doesn't sell out. Perhaps it's time to look at expanding the number of teams that make the playoffs. If I recall correctly, 16 teams made the playoffs in a 21 team league after the WHA merger (76%). It's still 16 teams that get in now that it's a 30 team league (53%). More teams in the playoffs = more fan interest in more markets = more revenue. I've had this conversation with some buddies at work and I'm a bit surprised it's not brought up more often. It's a way to grow the game and grow revenue. Thoughts?

You could also ask Adam Deadmarsh, Mike Richter, Pat LaFontaine, Stu Grimson, Steve Moore, Dave Scatchard, Geoff Courtnall, Scott Stevens, Matthew Barnaby, Dean Chynoweth (13 career concussions!!), and Marc Savard. And these are just the guys whose careers were ended early by concussions. There's hundreds of retired NHLers out there plagued by all sorts of ailments from their playing days.

That's true, there's a lot of small details to hammer out but the big one was the revenue split and it looks like they are almost on the same page there. Basically all that needs to be done is to figure out a limit on escrow or guarantee a percentage of existing contracts. As for HRR, it depends on whose word you take on what the NHL means by "clarifying HRR definitions"... some have said this means the league wants to redefine it, others say they're simply looking for mutual understanding on some gray areas. Bettman and Daly have both gone on record saying that the HRR in the proposal is the same as it was before. I'm all for limiting contract lengths to about 7 years. I think 5 years is a little unreasonable but I'm assuming the league came up with that number with the intention of negotiating a different number. Some other fine details that need to be ironed out: revenue sharing, Olympic participation, realignment, and so on. I think they have a framework in place for drug testing, benefits, arbitration and suppemental discipline.

Read an article this morning that indicates there's reason for optimism because both sides are talking "50/50"... it's just a matter now of working out the finer details. I hope the author is right. "Bettman proposed a plan with a 50/50 split of revenue Tuesday. Two days later, the union responded with three proposals, each calling for the same revenue division between owners and players. Owners want the revenue divided evenly right away. Players are content with a gradual shift away from the 57 percent they received on the last collective bargaining agreement. That difference does not alter the reality that over the past week the NHL and NHLPA laid out proposals calling for a 50/50 split — even though Bettman said many owners wanted a more favorable percentage, and Penguins defenseman Brooks Orpik said he was surprised players agreed to the ratio. Following from afar, labor experts agree there is finally a deal to be made." http://triblive.com/...s-owners-season I read somewhere else that Bettman has used his "I'm very disappointed" rhetoric in each of the last three lockouts. Doesn't surprise me one bit. For a brilliant businessman/lawyer, he's sure got a penchant for being a drama queen.

This was tougher than I thought! Here you go:

Cool thread guys. My guess is Richard Bachman.

Exactly @jammer2. If the lockout lasts that long, the players will be getting 50% of revenue from a business with a PR problem and an indifferent fan base. They'll lose far more in the long run than they will in the short term. If I were them I'd take the 50/50 split and expanded revenue sharing, extend the deal by a few years and tell Bettman where to shove his contract restrictions. If the game continues to grow at it's current rate, they'll be back at current revenue sharing levels (dollar-wise) within two years.

The owners are pushing for the lower cap because they expect player salaries to be cut across the board. If everyone on the team is making less, the lower cap doesn't handcuff them as badly as you think. As for the rule in the NHL proposal about current long term deals counting against the cap of the signing team if/when the player retires, I'm not sure either but I look at it two ways: 1) Bettman hates those deals and is out to punish the teams that attempted to circumvent the old CBA. It's also a way to placate the small market owners. 2) They have no intention of actually having this rule in the new CBA and expect the PA to object, therefore it's an easy concession to make.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/article/1274114--roberto-luongo-trade-to-leafs-isn-t-a-done-deal-at-least-not-yet-cox Saw this on Twitter this morning. The Vancouver media hasn't reported that Luongo will only accept a trade to Florida and I'm not sure he's foolish enough to go that route. Everyone knows Florida is his number one choice. Doesn't mean it will happen. I did read elsewhere that Tallon has indicated he's no longer interested - that could be speculation though. However, knowing Tallon's record of developing youth, and the fact they have Markstrom for the future and Theodore for the present, I don't see Luongo being a fit for the Panthers. Back to a possible TO deal; Cox's article speculates Bozak would be the centerpiece going to the Canucks in a deal for Roberto. Bozak fills a need on the checking line for the Canucks and if Gillis can get a prospect defenseman (he's not getting Gardiner) and/or a pick, he'd be foolish not to do that deal.

@jammer2 Thanks for the welcome. I think I jumped the gun with my post as I didn't realize there were 9 pages to this thread. I'm getting used to the layout of the forum. If I rehashed something that was already put out there, chalk it up to being a noob. Looks like the majority is in agreement; Courtier > Subban. Having said that, I'm sure Philly would be interested in PK if the asking price were reasonable. Philly seems like a good fit for players with bad attitudes and crusty dispositions.

I'm not sure I agree that the owners have more to lose. In terms of the popularity of the sport and fan support, both sides will lose if there's a prolonged lockout. A guy like Ed Snider has owned the Flyers since their inception - a run of 45 years. His "hockey career" is going to run until the day he dies. Players, on the other hand, have finite careers. Losing an entire years salary (100%) to save 12.3% seems foolish to me. I understand they don't want to be pushed around and I understand there's lingering bad blood over having the last CBA crammed down their throats, and as much as I'd love to see them break Bettman, I don't see it happening. The NHL has moved toward the player's demands. The players haven't moved at all. As for Fehr, I agree with hf101. Fehr has the players united and informed. I think the PA needs to give a little more, but remember, this is a negotiation. Fehr's biggest job right now is keeping the players united. There's no gag order on the players and I think if this dispute goes beyond next week (and thereby killing the Nov 2 start date for an 82 game schedule), there may be players openly questioning his leadership in the media. I think the best thing would be for both sides to shut up. No more talking to the media (I'm looking at you, Bettman, Daly & both Fehrs). Both sides are playing the PR game and frankly, it's a load of bull excrement. There's a deal to be had here that both sides can live with, but showmanship and ego is getting in the way.

@hf101 Thanks for the welcome. I think the NHL is a different beast than it was in 1993, almost 20 years ago. That year was also Bettman's first as commissioner. While I concede anything is possible, I don't see Bettman or the BOG rubber stamping an Oilers relocation plan. First, Bettman was personally involved in the negotiations between the Oilers and Edmonton for the new arena. He doesn't have the time to deal with this right now. That will change soon. Secondly, there's no viable market with an NHL-ready arena. Third, the Oilers lease doesn't expire until 2015, giving the city and Katz 3 years to mend their differences. Along the same line of thinking, the next civic election in Edmonton is exactly a year away (Oct 21, 2013) and the politics surrounding the arena deal could easily decide the fate of the next mayor and council. Plus, to my knowledge, Katz doesn't have a sexual harassment suit pending against him. (For those that don't know, Norm Green's wife demanded he move the team because a local Minnesotan woman launched a sexual harassment suit against him.)