If the parent corporation could benefit from killing one of it's business units, you are sadly, sadly mistaken about 21st century corporate life if you think they wouldn't do so.

Oh, and fwiw, I am intimately familiar with the businesses you mentioned in this example.
- johndewar

MJL needs to take a corporate finance class. He knows a lot about hockey, ill give him that (and most times makes really valid point), but is piss poor in understanding how modern day corporations run...its cut throat out there.

If Nashville does better in it's market, the Flyers benefit in a number of ways. Next if you want, we'll discuss where the big money is. TV revenue!

- MJL

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Gate revenues are peanuts compared to what TV revenues could be, and that's what the NHL wants.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Gate revenues are peanuts compared to what TV revenues could be, and that's what the NHL wants.
- BulliesPhan87

hahahahahahahahahaaha 2 billion for the next 10 years thats your tv revenues! Anyone smart enough knows that the nhl is mostly a gate revenue business.

hahahahahahahahahaaha 2 billion for the next 10 years thats your tv revenues!
- Philly1980

Unsurprisingly, you misunderstand what I'm saying. It's a matter of what TV revenues can be, not what they are.

MJL needs to take a corporate finance class. He knows a lot about hockey, ill give him that (and most times makes really valid point), but is piss poor in understanding how modern day corporations run...its cut throat out there.
- Philly1980

Unfortunately you are missing the biggest point he has made.

The NHL is a business. The Flyers are a franchise.


When the business is doing well, it has a trickle down effect. Players are making 9 million dollars today... 10 years ago that was unheard of. Why is it possible today? Simply because the number of prospering franchises is up from 10 years ago. Viewership is up..

Unfortunately you are missing the biggest point he has made.

The NHL is a business. The Flyers are a franchise.
- jak521

True. That franchise also happens to operate as it's own business, with it's own bottom line.

If an owner of one franchise can't manage their bottom line, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the other owners to manage it for them.

Unsurprisingly, you misunderstand what I'm saying. It's a matter of what TV revenues can be, not what they are.
- BulliesPhan87

well they are going to be 2 billion for the next ten years.... i doubt its going to jump to a billion a year after that...

I view the NHL as the corporation, and the specific teams as branches or contractors of that corporation, with the players being the "clients". Almost as if two competing salesman are poaching each other clients even though they work for the same company. Within the rules but not cool.

While what the Flyers did was within the scope of the rules, I felt what they did was purposefully trying to damage the financial stability of another franchise.

Businesses compete all the time, for business, for market share, for workers, etc etc etc. But ethical business does not include trying to actively sabotage another business which is what the Flyers did in my opinion.

I don't own a business, but telling me I have no idea what I am talking about because of that? Well, you can go F yourself.

Unfortunately you are missing the biggest point he has made.

The NHL is a business. The Flyers are a franchise.


When the business is doing well, it has a trickle down effect. Players are making 9 million dollars today... 10 years ago that was unheard of. Why is it possible today? Simply because the number of prospering franchises is up from 10 years ago. Viewership is up..
- jak521

Ok so its a corporations... when certain units underperform they get taken to the woodshed...you dont keep them for the sake of hoping to keep market share or brand relevance...

True. That franchise also happens to operate as it's own business, with it's own bottom line.

If an owner of one franchise can't manage their bottom line, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the other owners to manage it for them.
- johndewar

Unfortunately that is already happening with revenue sharing. The point, getting back to bad business, is that putting another franchise on its back, may -in the eyes of own org.- be beneficial, but the other orgs disagree. It weakens the total product.

Why were people so enthusiastic about getting a team out of Atlanta and back to Winnipeg? Why do people want a team in Phx to be moved? Imagine if we had gotten Weber, and the Preds fell apart... what would happen then?

I view the NHL as the corporation, and the specific teams as branches or contractors of that corporation, with the players being the "clients". Almost as if two competing salesman are poaching each other clients even though they work for the same company. Within the rules but not cool.

While what the Flyers did was within the scope of the rules, I felt what they did was purposefully trying to damage the financial stability of another franchise.

Businesses compete all the time, for business, for market share, for workers, etc etc etc. But ethical business does not include trying to actively sabotage another business which is what the Flyers did in my opinion.

I don't own a business, but telling me I have no idea what I am talking about because of that? Well, you can go F yourself.



- MBFlyerfan

businesses sabotage each other all the time....they steal lie and cheat. go teach a ethics class lol.

- bradleyc4

Good for the kid.

Unfortunately that is already happening with revenue sharing. The point, getting back to bad business, is that putting another franchise on its back, may -in the eyes of own org.- be beneficial, but the other orgs disagree. It weakens the total product.

Why were people so enthusiastic about getting a team out of Atlanta and back to Winnipeg? Why do people want a team in Phx to be moved? Imagine if we had gotten Weber, and the Preds fell apart... what would happen then?
- jak521

they would become the quebec predator with pooploads of young talent coming down the pipes....and make 3 to 4x the revenues they are making in nashville...boo hoo... ask the suckers in nashville how they feel about trying to prop up a team no one cares about lol.

Good for the kid.
- Scoob

guy on the right is the best

Don't avoid the question and dodge the discussion. You told me I don't own or operate a business. And basically saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. We'll finish this and then we'll discuss that issue of the lockout if you want.
- MJL

To answer your question... The parent company would kill off the struggling business unit and invest the remaining dollars/resources where they would get a better ROI. In the nhl's instance they would relocate the struggling team to a better market.

Ayep.

Carter got a raw deal from the fans here. That's my opinion.
- MBFlyerfan

I was and still am a huge Richards fan. Carter I always liked, but not as much as Richie. I am cheering for LA in the playoffs, but looks like they are toast. That being said, I was ok with the trades, but another year out of the playoffs I may be singing another tune.

Unfortunately that is already happening with revenue sharing. The point, getting back to bad business, is that putting another franchise on its back, may -in the eyes of own org.- be beneficial, but the other orgs disagree. It weakens the total product.

Why were people so enthusiastic about getting a team out of Atlanta and back to Winnipeg? Why do people want a team in Phx to be moved? Imagine if we had gotten Weber, and the Preds fell apart... what would happen then?
- jak521

If Shea Weber is the sole thing keeping Nashville afloat, then Shea Weber's agent should be on the phone to the owners getting him a percentage of the team.

well they are going to be 2 billion for the next ten years.... i doubt its going to jump to a billion a year after that...
- Philly1980

Based on what? The NHL is basing it on their competition, other leagues. It's a very long term plan. I don't think you're qualified to refute its feasibility.

Not to say I think it's the best plan, or that I'm qualified to conclusively judge it one way or the other.

Unfortunately you are missing the biggest point he has made.

The NHL is a business. The Flyers are a franchise.


When the business is doing well, it has a trickle down effect. Players are making 9 million dollars today... 10 years ago that was unheard of. Why is it possible today? Simply because the number of prospering franchises is up from 10 years ago. Viewership is up..
- jak521

No it wasnt see below!

RW Mark Recchi 35 $5,000,000 82 26 49 +18 47 1 1 1 75 76
26 C Michal Handzus 26 $1,533,333 82 20 38 +18 82 2 1 58 60
10 LW John LeClair 34 $9,000,000 75 23 32 +20 51 55 55
11 RW Tony Amonte 33 $5,846,914 80 20 33 +13 38 53 53
97 C Jeremy Roenick 33 $7,500,000 62 19 28 +1 62 3 47 50
12 LW Simon Gagne 23 $2,600,000 80 24 21 +12 29 1 45 46
5 D Kim Johnsson 27 $1,250,000 80 13 29 +16 26 42 42
24 RW Sami Kapanen 30 $3,000,000 74 12 18 +9 14 30 30
44 D Joni Pitkanen 20 $1,185,000 71 8 19 +15 44 27 27
14 RW Justin Williams 22 $1,072,500 47 6 20 +10 32 26 26
25 C Keith Primeau 32 $5,000,000 54 7 15 +11 80 4 22 26
23 C Alexei Zhamnov 33 $4,500,000 20 5 13 +7 14 18 18
28 D Marcus Ragnarsson 32 $3,500,000 70 7 9 +12 58 16 16
20 RW Radovan Somik 26 $600,000 53 4 10 -2 17 1 1 14 15
87 LW Donald Brashear 31 $2,250,000 64 6 7 -1 212 14 7 3 13 27
37 D Eric Desjardins 34 $4,000,000 48 1 11 +11 28 12 12
6 D Chris Therien 32 $2,600,000 56 1 9 +2 50 1 10 11
2 D Eric Weinrich 37 $3,000,000 54 2 7 +11 32 9 9
89 C Mike Comrie 23 $1,500,000 21 4 5 +2 12 9 9
19 RW Branko Radivojevic 23 $825,000 24 1 8 0 36 2 9 11
13 C Claude Lapointe 35 $1,000,000 42 5 3 +2 32 8 8
32 C Patrick Sharp 22 41 5 2 -3 55 4 1 7 11
3 D Mattias Timander 29 $1,200,000 34 1 4 +13 19 1 5 6
55 D Danny Markov 27 $2,700,000 34 2 3 0 58 2 5 7
29 LW Todd Fedoruk 24 $600,000 49 1 4 -4 136 14 3 3 5 19
23 D Jim Vandermeer 23 $400,000 23 3 2 -5 25 3 1 1 5 8
19 LW Eric Chouinard 23 $650,000 17 3 0 -3 0 3 3
45 D John Slaney 31 4 0 2 0 0 2 2
47 RW Kirby Law 26 6 0 1 0 2 1 1
2 D Vladimir Malakhov 35 $3,500,000 6 0 1 -1 2 1 1
51 D Randy Jones 22 5 0 0 +1 0 0 0
22 RW Mike Peluso 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 G Robert Esche 25 $560,000 40 0 0 31 1 1 0 1
48 D Freddy Meyer 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 C Peter White 34 3 0 0 -1 2 0 0
21 RW Boyd Kane 25 7 0 0 -4 7 1 0 1
36 D Dennis Seidenberg 22 $550,000 5 0 0 -4 2 0 0
33 G Jeff Hackett 35 $3,000,000 27 0 0 0 0 0
35 G Neil Little 32 1 0 0 0 0 0
41 G Sean Burke 36 $4,500,000 15 0 0 0 0 0
30 G Antero Niittymaki 23

guy on the right is the best
- Don'tForgetTocchet

i like the gal, chewing on something tasty, who pops down from up top

True. That franchise also happens to operate as it's own business, with it's own bottom line.

If an owner of one franchise can't manage their bottom line, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the other owners to manage it for them.
- johndewar

Ah but it is. You know why? The Flyers have to give some of their revenue to the franchises that are struggling. If the struggling franchises do better. Not only can the Flyers keep more of their money. But they'll also make more.

Believe it or not, that's a 3-liter.
- jmatchett383

Ah but it is. You know why? The Flyers have to give some of their revenue to the franchises that are struggling. If the struggling franchises do better. Not only can the Flyers keep more of their money. But they'll also make more.
- MJL

or we can eliminate them and the flyers keep their revenue...instead of the flyers raising our ticket prices to pay for the welfare teams. the cost always trickles down to the consumer which is us.

Ah but it is. You know why? The Flyers have to give some of their revenue to the franchises that are struggling. If the struggling franchises do better. Not only can the Flyers keep more of their money. But they'll also make more.
- MJL

That's not how the franchise model, as practiced outside of sports, works.

If your McDonald's franchise goes in the toilet, that doesn't mean the McDonald's in the next town keeps you afloat.

To answer your question... The parent company would kill off the struggling business unit and invest the remaining dollars/resources where they would get a better ROI. In the nhl's instance they would relocate the struggling team to a better market.
- moylander

The Parent Company would. But would the parent Company want one of their franchises going for blood against another? You didn't answer the question, you avoided it. And were finding out who understands the business.