They're only losing money according to the NHL. It's akin to players needing to feed their families.

Last lockout Ed Snider stood in front of a camera and said the Flyers were losing money. That was complete BS. Are there teams losing money. I'm sure there are. The NHL isn't losing money. There's far more than enough money at the top to easily erase the debt at the bottom. They just don't want to help each other out if they can bleed the money from the players.
- mayorofangrytown

And I don't want to pay to prop up rotting carcasses. Contract. Then tell me about revenue sharing.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...est-Lockout-Blog/89/47135

A guest blog over in Rangerville with interesting perspective on negotiating tactics and what they mean.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...est-Lockout-Blog/89/47135

A guest blog over in Rangerville with interesting perspective on negotiating tactics and what they mean.
- bodiva88

Great article. And it's inline with what I've been saying about the League's tactics all along. Although I'm not at a point where I think there won't be a Season.

And I don't want to pay to prop up rotting carcasses. Contract. Then tell me about revenue sharing.
- bodiva88

What reasons do you think that the NHL continues to keep teams in areas that aren't considered good Hockey markets?

You don't get to be wealthy enough to own a professional sports team by sharing your money. From what I've read about Ed Snyder, he doesn't just want a lot of money he wants ALL of the money.
- Dkos

Revenue sharing has been in place in the NHL for a while. He's been sharing his money with other teams. And will continue to have to do so.

Max Domi (London) with a beautiful back hand short side over the goalies shoulder

Erie's Connor McDavid is one special player, not hard to see why at 15 the OHL gave him special exception status to play early in the OHL

I haven't been following and i'm sure this is an over simplification:

Existing contracts should be paid in full. If the NHL wants to prorate them for cap purposes, fine.

Keep hockey revnue the same, but change the split to 50-50. There's wiggle room between applying the pro ratedor full pe existing contract amounts.

Limit contract length to 6 years and eliminate the 35+ rule for injuries.


I would seriously look at FA compensation i.e. draft picks and supplemental picks when players switch teams.

What reasons do you think that the NHL continues to keep teams in areas that aren't considered good Hockey markets?
- MJL

Pride and Stupidity. It's the only explanation I can think of.

These owners could not have just fallen into the money that they have to own their franchises, right? One would think they would have more business sense than to keep teams in markets that cannot support their organization.

Of course, the NHL now "owns" two franchises, so... maybe they just want to own them all?

I'm out of answers and frustrated - mostly because the best sport in existence is constantly Seravalli'd up by what seems like the most incompetent array of owners and administration personnel ever.

What reasons do you think that the NHL continues to keep teams in areas that aren't considered good Hockey markets?
- MJL

same reason the NBA and MLB stay in markets not strong for them, see also why the NFL has no team in the number 2 city in the United States of America

What reasons do you think that the NHL continues to keep teams in areas that aren't considered good Hockey markets?
- MJL

Hubrus? There isn't a sound business reason. They aren't huge television markets that teams HAVE to be in. Heck, Columbus is naturally part of Pittsburgh's regional sports loyalty.

I have a friend who says other businesses don't shrink when healthy. And I point out that poor performing locations of national businesses close all the time and new ones are put in places where they expect better performance. It's what smart businesses do. They cut their losses and maximize their potential. It's hard to believe these guys aren't all living on inherited wealth because it's hard to imagine they had the brains to build businesses that got them their m/billions.

And another well-reasoned take on bad faith.

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...7696--nhl.html#more-43181

same reason the NBA and MLB stay in markets not strong for them, see also why the NFL has no team in the number 2 city in the United States of America
- watsonnostaw

THe NBA moved out of Seattle over a building to...wait for it...OKLAHOMA! The mind boggles.

Or

Yeah! What Skippy said!

THe NBA moved out of Seattle over a building to...wait for it...OKLAHOMA! The mind boggles.
- bodiva88

the NHL would have been better off if Bain Capital had bought the league in 2005, Mitt for Commish!!!!

Hubrus? There isn't a sound business reason. They aren't huge television markets that teams HAVE to be in. Heck, Columbus is naturally part of Pittsburgh's regional sports loyalty.

I have a friend who says other businesses don't shrink when healthy. And I point out that poor performing locations of national businesses close all the time and new ones are put in places where they expect better performance. It's what smart businesses do. They cut their losses and maximize their potential. It's hard to believe these guys aren't all living on inherited wealth because it's hard to imagine they had the brains to build businesses that got them their m/billions.

And another well-reasoned take on bad faith.

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...7696--nhl.html#more-43181
- bodiva88

I don't know what the answer is. On face it sure seems like some of these franchises that are doing poorly should be moved. I'd like the answers to these questions. Because it's a concern of the fans, and rightly so. As some of these teams are losing money, the League wants the players to pay for it. Hence were in a lockout. But I have to beleive there is more to it then just the simple business practices you reference. There could be public money involved in being given land, building arenas, etc. And contractual obligations with that in keeping the team there for a specified amount of time. We don't have the full picture.

Pride and Stupidity. It's the only explanation I can think of.

These owners could not have just fallen into the money that they have to own their franchises, right? One would think they would have more business sense than to keep teams in markets that cannot support their organization.

Of course, the NHL now "owns" two franchises, so... maybe they just want to own them all?

I'm out of answers and frustrated - mostly because the best sport in existence is constantly Seravalli'd up by what seems like the most incompetent array of owners and administration personnel ever.
- Flyskippy

It's all about growing the fan base.

How many hundreds of thousands of kids in the South are now NHL/hockey fans because they have a "local" NHL team to root for? Cultivating new fans in untapped markets is a priceless commodity for the NHL.

It's all about growing the fan base.

How many hundreds of thousands of kids in the South are now NHL/hockey fans because they have a "local" NHL team to root for? Cultivating new fans in untapped markets is a priceless commodity for the NHL.
- bradleyc4

Thus the repeated lockouts. How many hundres of thousands of kids in Europe are now NHL fans because of the players now playing in Europe instead of the NHL. Genius I tell ya.

It's all about growing the fan base.

How many hundreds of thousands of kids in the South are now NHL/hockey fans because they have a "local" NHL team to root for? Cultivating new fans in untapped markets is a priceless commodity for the NHL.
- bradleyc4

Not enough. Or else Atlanta wouldn't have lost a franchise twice.