Let's make this easy:

Last years losses:

Phoenix - 24M
NYI - 8M
Florida - 7M
Nashville - 7.5M
Winnipeg - 5.2M
Carolina - 4.4M
Tampa - 8.5M
Minnesota - 6M
These are all teams that can be eliminated from the NHL.
- Charliebox

Fixed

Keeping the weak sisters in the league also helped to keep the Revenue down before going into this CBA.

After the New CBA is agreed upon, I fully expect the Yotes to be moved.
- HuileHab

It is an interesting thought.

I think the Yotes is more about Bettman trying to drive growth by driving national interest.

It does the NHL no good to relocate to Seattle for instance when that marketplace is already served by a solid franchise/team in Vancouver. Anything North and East are already hockey hotbeds. There is no chance of additional TV revenue by increasing presence there.

It is the same reason why the NFL may actually never come to Toronto. I think you would see Mexico or London first. There is zero question that Toronto would support an NFL team. There is 100% certainty that we could find an owner interested in buying here. But the league as a whole does not gain as much as they would with a billion new central american viewers or a new European TV contract.

Yes, but what you are missing is that there is motivation for the NFL owners to keep the weaker teams afloat... so that they keep that big national TV deal.

The NHL TV deal is insignificant compared to their gate receipts. Those gate receipts would not decrease for the money-making teams if teams like Columbus, Phoenix, NYI et al were moved elsewhere.

So... there is zero motivation for the richer owners to want to give more in revenue sharing. They are perfectly justified in their stance on this issue.
- Aetherial

I would agree with you if the NHL's stance regarding the failing markets was different. By supporting the failing marketplaces and trying to keep those franchises in place, the NHL is justifying the need for increased revenue sharing to support the failing franchises. Instead you have a discord between the NHL's position and teams not willing to support the NHL's desire to keep those teams' in place and afloat.

After period of unprecedented revenue growth:

* More teams losing money than pre CBA (even after relocating Thrashers)
* Gap betwen money making and money losing teams wider
* Another work stoppage because the only solution left is to lower salaries to the point where the Coyotes can keep up with the increase in the Cap caused by revenue growth generated by teams that they can never keep up with
- Canada Cup

I'm not so sure there are more teams losing money now than in 2005.

As per your second point, are you talking about profits or competitiveness?

I would agree with you if the NHL's stance regarding the failing markets was different. By supporting the failing marketplaces and trying to keep those franchises in place, the NHL is justifying the need for increased revenue sharing to support the failing franchises. Instead you have a discord between the NHL's position and teams not willing to support the NHL's desire to keep those teams' in place and afloat.
- uf1910

I think you make a very solid point here, because I believe the NHL is trying like hell to keep these teams afloat, but unwilling to pay for it.

I think this is happening because the league knows that it *could* see real monetary benefit from increasing national interest, but the wealthy owners also know that the reality is, this will never happen.

As long as it does not hurt their own bottom line much by pursuing the national exposure, they are OK with it. When it hurts their bottom line though... then they acknowledge that they will not pay for a pipe dream.

They want the players to pay for it. A pipe dream that may (hahahahah) come true one day is fine if the players are paying for it.

Let's face it, the wealthy owners would rather contract, than pay to keep teams afloat in places that have no interest in an NHL team.

I would agree with you if the NHL's stance regarding the failing markets was different. By supporting the failing marketplaces and trying to keep those franchises in place, the NHL is justifying the need for increased revenue sharing to support the failing franchises. Instead you have a discord between the NHL's position and teams not willing to support the NHL's desire to keep those teams' in place and afloat.
- uf1910

You fail to get that the majority of revenue sharing in the NFL comes from the TV deals, the richer team don't actually give most of their revenues to make the league profitable. In the NHL, the TV deal beings peanuts, not enough to cover the lack of revenues from the small market teams. You CAN'T ask 5-6 teams to fund the last 10 teams....it won't happen.

Yet TBL lose money every year and can't cover their cost which means they are one of the team that needs revenue sharing to help. If they were losing 20+M per year before and not it's 10M.....they are still hurting.

Look at that list.....operating income....Tampa was 3rd worse in the league

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/
- Symba007

When Forbes came up with those numbers, how much of the $40M Vinik invested into the Forum was accounted into that $8.5M loss? I ask this b/c we don't know the answer to that question much less the accuracy of those numbers across the league. I'm not naive enough to think Vinik didn't lose money, but I'm also not naive enough to trust those numbers as being 100% accurate either

You fail to get that the majority of revenue sharing in the NFL comes from the TV deals, the richer team don't actually give most of their revenues to make the league profitable. In the NHL, the TV deal beings peanuts, not enough to cover the lack of revenues from the small market teams. You CAN'T ask 5-6 teams to fund the last 10 teams....it won't happen.
- Symba007

The majority of the NFL revenue sharing has nothing to do with the national TV deals. That money is already distributed equally amongst all of the teams. The revenue sharing comes from the local radio deals, mdse, advertising, and other forms of revenue that big markets have an advantage over the small markets.

I'm not so sure there are more teams losing money now than in 2005.

As per your second point, are you talking about profits or competitiveness?
- Atomic Wedgie

Forbes (with usual caveats) says more. re second point, talking profits

You fail to get that the majority of revenue sharing in the NFL comes from the TV deals, the richer team don't actually give most of their revenues to make the league profitable. In the NHL, the TV deal beings peanuts, not enough to cover the lack of revenues from the small market teams. You CAN'T ask 5-6 teams to fund the last 10 teams....it won't happen.
- Symba007

I don't disagree with you but the NHL's position regarding keeping teams where they are does require the need for revenue sharing to support the failing franchises.

I think you make a very solid point here, because I believe the NHL is trying like hell to keep these teams afloat, but unwilling to pay for it.

I think this is happening because the league knows that it *could* see real monetary benefit from increasing national interest, but the wealthy owners also know that the reality is, this will never happen.

As long as it does not hurt their own bottom line much by pursuing the national exposure, they are OK with it. When it hurts their bottom line though... then they acknowledge that they will not pay for a pipe dream.

They want the players to pay for it. A pipe dream that may (hahahahah) come true one day is fine if the players are paying for it.

Let's face it, the wealthy owners would rather contract, than pay to keep teams afloat in places that have no interest in an NHL team.
- Aetherial

Agreed on all points. But then I pose this question...Who is really running this league? Is it Bettman and Daly or is it the big market owners like jacobs etc? Because right now you have a discord between the NHL's position and what the league is willing to do to support it's position.

Agreed on all points. But then I pose this question...Who is really running this league? Is it Bettman and Daly or is it the big market owners like jacobs etc? Because right now you have a discord between the NHL's position and what the league is willing to do to support it's position.
- uf1910

Jacobs and Snider hold more power than anyone.

Jacobs and Snider hold more power than anyone.
- Atomic Wedgie

I wonder how the conversation goes when the Weber contract is brought up

Jacobs and Snider hold more power than anyone.
- Atomic Wedgie

And while I agree with you 100%, shouldn't that be construed as an indictment on Bettman and Daly and their abilities to act as commissioners of the whole league if they are in fact controlled by a handful of owners?

And while I agree with you 100%, shouldn't that be construed as an indictment on Bettman and Daly and their abilities to act as commissioners of the whole league if they are in fact controlled by a handful of owners?
- uf1910

Jacobs is head of the Board of Governors.

He is elected by the other owners.

There's a structure in place.

Jacobs is head of the Board of Governors.

He is elected by the other owners.

There's a structure in place.
- Atomic Wedgie

Every team has 1 1/29th vote when it comes to making decisions anyway,

Jacobs is head of the Board of Governors.

He is elected by the other owners.

There's a structure in place.
- Atomic Wedgie

Understood, but that structure also led to the discord between the NHL's support of the failing franchises and the owners lack of support of those same failing franchises. So again I ask, who is really running the league and should the fact that question is being asked be construed as an indictment on the men who are supposed to be running the league.

Understood, but that structure also led to the discord between the NHL's support of the failing franchises and the owners lack of support of those same failing franchises. So again I ask, who is really running the league and should the fact that question is being asked be construed as an indictment on the men who are supposed to be running the league.
- uf1910

Owners voted 30-0 for the lockout.

What is this discord you speak of?

Owners voted 30-0 for the lockout.

What is this discord you speak of?
- Atomic Wedgie

that's what Bettman allowed the public to know. If you think the Rangers actually voted in favor of the lockout, you be crazy.

We are going to be without hockey for a while.

Owners voted 30-0 for the lockout.

What is this discord you speak of?
- Atomic Wedgie

The fact the NHL and Bettman continue to support hockey in failing markets yet don't push for the necessary steps to help hockey in those failing markets (ie increased revenue sharing). Or the discord could be the fact they aren't pushing for more revenue sharing b/c the NHL powers are incapable of pushing for more revenue sharing b/c the real power lies in the owners that would be paying for the revenue sharing in the first place.

Either way the NHL wants the failing markets to succeed but won't push for the major steps that would support that eventual success...thus the discord I speak of

http://deadspin.com/59518...-their-lockout-propaganda

Enjoy the absurdity.

The fact the NHL and Bettman continue to support hockey in failing markets yet don't push for the necessary steps to help hockey in those failing markets (ie increased revenue sharing). Or the discord could be the fact they aren't pushing for more revenue sharing b/c the NHL powers are incapable of pushing for more revenue sharing b/c the real power lies in the owners that would be paying for the revenue sharing in the first place.

Either way the NHL wants the failing markets to succeed but won't push for the major steps that would support that eventual success...thus the discord I speak of
- uf1910

That's the NHLPA solution.

It's not the only solution.

The NHL's solution is to reduce the amount of money paid to the players, so that teams can achieve profitability.

Look at the Forbes numbers:

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_1_s_a0_

A lot of franchises aren't that far from profitability. Cutting $7 million from expenses would put all but 8 franchises into the black.

http://deadspin.com/5951872/inside-a-secret-nhl-focus-group-how-a-top-gop-strategist-is-helping-hockey-owners-craft-their-lockout-propaganda

Enjoy the absurdity.
- eichiefs9

I was asking Yost this as well, what is so alarming or silly about that? Sure the article makes the SPIN that it is sneaky or propaganda or something... but if you just look at the actual content and questions asked, the NHL is clearly trying to get a bead on where fans are at right now. That sort of research goes on ALL THE TIME in business. And while the article implies underhandedness or grappling a new buzz phrase that will resonate with fans such as "shared sacrifice" I sure didn't see any of that in the actual documents that were provided...

http://deadspin.com/5951872/inside-a-secret-nhl-focus-group-how-a-top-gop-strategist-is-helping-hockey-owners-craft-their-lockout-propaganda

Enjoy the absurdity.
- eichiefs9

there are definitely a lot of hockey fans, especially those in Canada who buy the owners/Bettman propaganda hook, line and sinker.