how many players are going to get tied up in euro hockey leagues
 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
-
09-27-12 11:18 PM #36
-
09-27-12 11:31 PM #37
Originally Posted by apeterlives
Quite a few going over til this is done. In NHL forum red man has a list
-
09-27-12 11:45 PM #38
Originally Posted by apeterlives
I've got almost 100 so far & that list does not include all of those young'uns that were coming up from junior and now have gone back.
Swedish courts just struck down a rule that blocked most locked out players from going there - only 8 have made the trek there but I anticipate that many more are on their way. Safe / secure for families / high standard of living / passionate for hockey. If nothing big comes out of the meeting later today, I'll bet my list grows by 30% before the end of next week.
There are some side benefits:
-players are staying in shape when / if the greedy funkers get their shit together
-pressure is rising for the broadcasters to start showing some European & junior games for the hockey hungry public
-
09-27-12 11:51 PM #39
Next years NHL draft will be the greatest ever
-
09-28-12 06:59 PM #40
Originally Posted by hockey216
1) Or you can have 30 teams that can actually afford to financially compete with the big market teams.
2) NO my friend, the solution is to have owners that can actually afford to run an organization the NHL in a non-salary cap world.
3) The NHL is under no obligation to do neither. If you can't afford to sustain an NHL team and actually need the NHL to step in and help you in any way financially, including having a salary cap, then the bottom line is you don't deserve to have a franchise.
-
09-28-12 07:03 PM #41
Originally Posted by PhillyFlyers
totally agree. look at the thrashers move to winnipeg, they love their team up there now. get hockey to places where people will support hockey. no need for two teams in florida.
devils also very poor team. don't understand why, but they are definitely broke.
-
09-29-12 03:29 PM #42
Do you hear yourself? "Find businessmen who want to intentionally lose money"? Originally Posted by PhillyFlyers
Are you kidding? Do you hear the irony in that statement?
No businessman/owner is going to want to buy a losing investment, no matter how rich they are.
No owner would intentionally lose money by investing. Sometimes investments don't work out. ok. but no one would intentionally invest $200 Million dollars if they know they are going to lose. Franchises have to be profitable for people to want to buy them. No matter how rich the owners are. Any businessman is going to look at the financial statements before investing $200 Million dollars. If the team is losing money like hotcakes, and is expected to continue to lose money, and if the team sucks and can't compete with big markets because of your salary cap, no businessman would buy the team. So the solution is to make clubs profitable. How do you make them profitable? By making them able to compete. That way you can sell tickets, which is how you make most of your money. Your "no salary cap theory" would make small market clubs fail because they can't sell tickets.
How are small market teams going to compete with big market teams if the big market teams are astronomically more talented and the small market teams suck? NHL is different because media contracts are worthless. Would you pay $50,000 for season tickets over the next decade to see your team lose every fuking night? Most fans would not. Small market stadiums would be empty. franchises would be bankrupt. You can only move teams around cities for so long. Sometimes the stadium is empty not because the city. Sometimes its empty because the team sucks and cannot compete with teams that spend $30 million dollars more per year to buy all the best players.
How are small market teams going to sell tickets if they are losing every night? Big market teams buying up all best players makes the gap in talent between big and small market clubs even bigger. The small markets would suck even more. stadiums even emptier. and financial trouble of league even bigger.
You can have a league with no salary cap if you only want 16 teams to compete. You are advocating a 16-team league. You would rather eliminate half the teams in the NHL than just make a salary cap?
The problem in the NHL is that small markets are losing money. Making small markets lose EVEN MORE MONEY would not help the situation.Last edited by hockey216; 09-29-12 at 03:46 PM.
-
09-29-12 04:32 PM #43
1) You put this statement in quotes and I never made this statement. When did I say anything about finding businessmen who want to intentionally lose money? Originally Posted by hockey216
What I said was to find owners that can actually afford to run a franchise that can compete with big market teams who spend to the cap limit and field competitive teams.
How did you not understand this? Nothing was said about finding owners willing to lose money.
2) Totally false. Small market teams like Nashville sell out every home game so they are obviously selling tickets. The problem is Nashville, as an organization, is still losing money. Mind you this is with the salary cap in place. Sooner or later, if they fail to turn a profit, it is going to bite them in the ass eventually. So, your precious theory that the salary cap saves small market teams is complete nonsense in actuality.
The salary cap was unable to save the Atlanta franchise.
3) That's not really the problem of the big market teams is it? Right now, under the current CBA prior to this lockout, big market teams actually donated to the small market teams through revenue sharing.
Imagine that. Big market teams forced to donate to small market teams. In essence, they are giving money to small market teams to be able to better compete against the people who are giving them money.
This system is idiotic.
4) Never advocated a 16 team league. Don't know what you're reading, but it's certainly not what I wrote.
I stated you can have 30 teams in the league as long as you have owners who can afford to compete with the big market teams and spend near the cap limit like the big market teams do.
Big market teams spend the most. They also make the most. Do you think this is a coincidence?
By the way, just FYI, the NHL would be a far better league if only 16 teams existed.
5) By saying small market teams are losing money and therefore are unable to compete, you are essentially saying that the current system is a failure. Thank you for agreeing with me.
-
09-29-12 04:54 PM #44
1) How are small market teams going to win against big market teams if the small market teams suck and the big market teams are stacked with all stars? Originally Posted by PhillyFlyers
2) You don't think teams sell more tickets when they are winning? You think thats "totally false"? Why do you think the charlotte bobcats have an empty arena and the miami heat have a full arena?
-With atlanta, they made bad ownership decisions. Salary cap cant prevent GMs from being stupid. But granted that you have a GM of equal talent, it will make field more competitive.
4) you say "system of competitive teams is idiotic" but you have still failed to explain how the small market teams will stay in business if the big market teams beat them every week.
Tell me how a small market team will be a profitable franchise if they are losing every week. Do you not understand the correlation between profitability of a franchise and whether the team is winning.
No salary cap = really strong top teams, really weak small teams = small market teams cant win games = small market teams cant sell tickets = small market teams go bankrupt = less teams in the league.
Do you not understand the concept that teams make more money when they are winning?
Do you not understand the concept that teams in small markets have to win games to sell tickets?
Do you not understand that if the big market teams stack up on all stars, and if the small market teams have no all stars, that the small market teams will lose tons of games?
I did say current system is a failure. I never advocated a salary cap. that would make things worse! I am advocating a reduction in player income.
... but noooooo. "the nhl players are poor babies... uhhh uhhh... poooorr baabbiieess only made 30 million dollars over the last decade."
$30 Million is a ton of money and makes them richer than over 99% of Americans.
-
09-29-12 04:58 PM #45
You don't understand that small market teams have to win in order to make money and survive financially.
You don't understand that having no salary cap increases the gap in skill between rich and poor teams. That makes the gap between profitability even bigger.
Small market teams would collapse with no salary cap. Under your system league would have 16 teams. You say you don't want that... but then you advocate policies that would make 16 teams lose money. You can only lose money every year for so long before you go bankrupt. I think salary cap is better than eliminating 50% of nhl teams.
-
09-29-12 05:03 PM #46
You have to understand that owning an nhl franchise is a BUSINESS.
The goal of BUSINESS is to make money.
Decisions that REDUCE PROFITABILITY (like salary cap), LOSE money for small markets.
To address the problem of small markets losing money, making small markets LOSE EVEN MORE MONEY is not a solution.
-
09-29-12 05:29 PM #47
1) Again, this is not the problem of the big market teams to figure out is it? The answer you want is to actually have an ownership group willing to spend what it takes to win. Again, if you can't afford to compete you don't deserve a franchise. Originally Posted by hockey216
2) The point was small market teams can sell out every game and still lose money, like Nashville. Teams might sell more tickets when they are winning but that doesn't mean because you are a small market team you can't sell tickets.
5 out of the top 10 best attendance figures last season belonged to teams that either are or once were considered small market teams.
3) What? When did I say "system of competitive teams is idiotic"? Again, you put that in quotes and I never made such a statement.
What I referred to as idiotic was the fact that big market teams, under the system of revenue sharing, was actually donating money to small market teams to be able to better compete against them.
If you are a businessman are you going to give money to your competitors so they can better be able to compete against you?
Of course not. That is why it's idiotic.
4) This is becoming redundant now. Small market teams are losing money even when they are winning. Look at Nashville. Look at New Jersey. Look at San Jose. Look at Florida.
5) Really? Then explain how small market teams like Edmonton, were able to create an absolute dynasty in the 1980s before the salary cap existed in the NHL?
Explain how small market teams like the Pittsburgh Penguins were able to win 2 Stanley Cups without a salary cap. Explain how the Calgary Flames did it. Explain how a small market team like the New Jersey Devils won 3 Stanley Cups without a salary cap. Explain how Colorado did it. Explain how Dallas did it. Explain how Tampa Bay did it.
-
09-29-12 07:56 PM #48
1) Small market teams can win cups without a salary cap, but it is MUCH HARDER and they probably have to spend a lot to do it. Pittsburgh spent so much money in the 90's that they went bankrupt and had to start paying Mario Lemieux in shares of ownership instead of checks. That's what happens in bankruptcy. Debt holders become equity holders. Most NHL players would rather be paid in cash instead of shares in a depreciating asset, however. Your pittsburgh bankruptcy example is not very relevant. Most owners want to win. But they don't want to win so bad that they would be willing to bankrupt themselves in order to do it. Some small markets can win without a cap. They might get lucky and draft a hot goalie. but that won't sustain very long because 3 years later when the contracts up the hot goalie will leave for a higher paycheck in a bigger market. it is much easier for small markets to survive with a salary cap. If you were to make a model to somehow quantify small markets ability to win cups and salary cap, you would see a strong linear relationship between variable winning cups and variable salary cap. You are citing error terms in regression models and trying to say that the error term is the mean. No. The mean is the mean. It is the predicted value. Error terms have normality assumption with a mean of 0 and constant variance. Error terms happen because of variance. Citing the fact that teams could win (even though it was harder) does not mean that a salary cap does not make it harder. Originally Posted by PhillyFlyers
2) You want owners to "spend more than what they take in." It seems you would be better suited for the business world if you worked in government than in an actual company. The government is the only entity that can operate at a loss. The goal of business is to make profit. You want to avoid investing in projects with negative value, and want to invest in projects with positive value. I agree that it does not make sense that winning owners should have to pay for losing owners. To eliminate that, you have two options. A) Eliminate the franchises that lose money; Or B) make the small market franchises profit, so that the winners wont have to subsidize their losses. Saying you want to enact a plan that would make the small markets suffer even greater losses does not rectify the problem. It enhances it. Owners would just have to pay MORE money to the losing franchises.
3) Your 50% (5/10) number is not for teams that are CURRENTLY small markets. But yes. it is an even bigger problem if you can win every night and still lose money. That enhances the need for a reduction in labor costs even further. The league doesn't make any money from media contracts. So they have to A) sell tickets and B) sell merchandise to cover for all their expenses. If you can't cover your expenses with your revenue from tickets and merchandise, you have two options. A) Keep losing money and go bankrupt, or B) lower your expenses so that the revenue from tickets and merchandise exceeds expenses. Aside from making more people want to watch hockey on TV, they have a choice between going bankrupt or reducing labor costs. Making teams less likely to win games by giving all the good players to the best teams reduces ticket sales. That makes small markets even worse off.
You have to understand that the goal of finance is to increase value. If you have two investments of equal risk, you go with the investment with higher value. If you have small market teams that are losing money every year, they will eventually go bankrupt or be eliminated. You aren't going to "find rich owners that want to invest in them" as you say. You say that we need to "find rich owners that will pay more than they take in". Spending more than you take in means it is a losing investment. Why would a person intentionally lose money by investing over $100 Million dollars into something when the value is negative? They could put it in risk-free US govt bonds and earn a positive percentage return. Why would they put their money in a losing investment instead?
You seem to get your ideas about business by watching the government. The government is not a model for how business should run. The only reason the US government can never go bankrupt is because it has a printing press. It can just use a printing press to pay off its debt no matter how large it is. Businesses don't have access to that printing press. Businesses can't just print the money if they go bankrupt. Business works different from the government. You will never find investers who want to intentionally lose money in investments.
So the "Find rich owners who want to spend as much as they take in" theory will not work. People will only invest if the revenues are higher than the expenses. Nobody wants to intentionally lose money.
4) If you do not want to eliminate the unprofitable markets, what is your plan? You don't want the losses to be subsidized. ok. neither do i. So eliminate the losses. How are you going to do that? By increasing the salary cap? No. That will not eliminate the losses by small markets. it will compound it. Over time small markets would get less competitive because the rich teams would be stacked with all stars and the small teams would be all C-level players and rookies. That would not increase ticket and merchandise revenues in small markets. Do you want to eliminate all the profitable teams and reduce to 16 nhl teams? Or do you want to make franchises profitable and have a more competitive league?
What is your plan to address the fact that many small-market NHL franchises are losing money?
You are seriously underestimating how strongly ticket sales are correlated to winning. If teams are losing everyweek because big market teams have all the all stars, they will not sell tickets. they will go bankrupt. Most fans wont pay $50,000 over the course of a decade for season tickets to a team that fuking sucks. Teams make so much more money when they are winning. A salary cap helps them win because they can get teams that are equally talented to the big markets. This is the best way to keep smaller markets competitive.Last edited by hockey216; 09-29-12 at 09:07 PM.
-
09-29-12 08:55 PM #49
Hey PhillyFlyers, did you go to the Flyers championship parade last year?
You said they were the best team in the East right?
And Bryzgalov is "the best goalie in the nhl by far right now".
Did you see that pathetic goal he gave up against NJ on a terrible play?
How was the stanley cup parade?
How could they lose a 7 game series if they are better than everyone else by far?
-
09-30-12 03:54 PM #50
Originally Posted by hockey216
NHL, NBC sign record-setting 10-year TV deal
Tuesday, 04.19.2011
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=560238
-
10-01-12 11:33 AM #51
Yes. I think Bettman did good job getting this deal done. Originally Posted by Snowball
NHL, NBC sign record-setting 10-year TV deal
Tuesday, 04.19.2011
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=560238
I was saying that the media rights the NHL gets do not compare with the other major professional sports. The NFL, NBA, MLB are much bigger market sports than the NHL. I don't know why nobody watches hockey anymore. It's a damn shame.
-
10-01-12 01:01 PM #52
1) So now you're back-tracking on what you stated previously. You said: Originally Posted by hockey216
"No salary cap = really strong top teams, really weak small teams = small market teams cant win games = small market teams cant sell tickets = small market teams go bankrupt = less teams in the league."
Which is it?
2) LOL you are hilarious. You keep putting things I've never stated into quotes like you're quoting me. Never said this. Learn to read. It's a good skill.
3) Can't you read properly? I said 5 out of the top 10 teams that had the best attendance figures last year either ARE OR ONCE WERE CONSIDERED SMALL MARKET TEAMS.
4) Where are you getting this? I never said anything about government finances. Are you fukkin illiterate?
5) Don't need a plan. If you can't afford to operate a team you shouldn't have a franchise.
6) No I'm not. You, however, are completely missing the fact that many teams in the league sell tickets, win games, and still are losing money.
-
10-01-12 01:01 PM #53
Originally Posted by hockey216
Who's your team?
-
10-01-12 01:44 PM #54
Ok. You admit you have no plan, and that you want all the small markets to fail. So you want to let 16 small markets to fail and go to a 16-team nhl. Ok. Great. That's what i was asking you. You'd rather downsize to 16 nhl teams than have any salary cap. Ok. I disagree. I think salary cap system better helps small markets survive. Glad i finally understand that you want to eliminate all of the small markets in the NHL. Thank you for stating your position. Originally Posted by PhillyFlyers
-
10-01-12 01:45 PM #55
-
10-01-12 01:53 PM #56
the small market teams are failing on their own. Originally Posted by hockey216
your arguments in this thread stink-you've based half your arguments here by misrepresenting PhillyFlyers positions-you've put words in his mouth so often here it almost appears like yore arguing with yourself.
Reply With Quote
