Any franchise that's better off not playing shouldn't have a team in the first place!
New Jersey
Nashville
Anaheim
Tampa Bay
Phoenix
Florida
Carolina
Dallas - LeftCoaster
Although I would be in favor of relocating several of these teams, eliminating them would not be a reality. If the NHL were to buy out those teams, it would cost nearly 2 billion.
Hey? If the KHL wants to give them more money, then by all means, go there. Take your chances, flying around in antiquated airplanes. Put up with all of the travel and Mickey Mouse tactics. Watch and see if they'll guarantee your contract, if you don't play up to standard. North America is the home of hockey. Players? Your only as good as your last game played. The sweaters and logo's will still be here, long after your gone. - PrinceLH
Currently they pay NHL players 65% of their NHL salary, and players have to pay their own insurance costs. The KHL isn't a threat.
Although I would be in favor of relocating several of these teams, eliminating them would not be a reality. If the NHL were to buy out those teams, it would cost nearly 2 billion. - laughs2907
Relocating them is better for sure, but folding some of them and taking the hit so you can start fresh is not a bad idea either! Markham, Quebec City and Seattle will most definitely get teams when buildings become available IMO.
Relocating them is better for sure, but folding some of them and taking the hit so you can start fresh is not a bad idea either! Markham, Quebec City and Seattle will most definitely get teams when buildings become available IMO. - LeftCoaster
If you relocated the bottom 3, the next biggest money sucker is losing something like 7-8 million a season I think... If you have to buy out that team, you're probably taking a 150-200 million dollar hit. You're talking 20 to 27 years to gain any benefits from it, and then you have 15 teams in one conference and 14 in another... Kinda messy. Anyway, even though that team is losing money, I'd rather keep it around and evaluate the situation... Maybe business would pick up, and if not, perhaps there would be another option for relocation. If it were up to me though, 2-3 teams would be relocated asap...
Tampa sells or has 18+ thousand attendance, but they charge nothing for the seats and are losing money, it's not a viable business. It's a toy for a billionaire owner. - LeftCoaster
You are right about this, to a point. For the most part, any losses suffered by the franchises can be written off by the owners anyway, so it's not as though the owners have to fund the losses out of their own pocket. You wouldn't own a sports team with the primary goal of making money. This is true in any sport.
Contraction/relocating teams may be part of the solution to the health of the league, but how do we decide on teams to move? Attendance? Revenue streams?
Take Anaheim. They have a fantastic owner who is really dedicated to investing in Orange County. His goal is to bring an NBA team to Anaheim, and he has investments all over the place. We are talking extremely stable ownership. Should that not be a factor in deciding to fold or relocate teams? Anaheim do not qualify for revenue sharing, so it is not as if they are sucking on the NHL teat.
If you relocated the bottom 3, the next biggest money sucker is losing something like 7-8 million a season I think... If you have to buy out that team, you're probably taking a 150-200 million dollar hit. You're talking 20 to 27 years to gain any benefits from it, and then you have 15 teams in one conference and 14 in another... Kinda messy. Anyway, even though that team is losing money, I'd rather keep it around and evaluate the situation... Maybe business would pick up, and if not, perhaps there would be another option for relocation. If it were up to me though, 2-3 teams would be relocated asap... - laughs2907
They should fold Florida and Phoenix and move two other teams to more viable markets, if this season goes down the tubes. Just getting rid of those two bottom feeders, would free up close to $50 million dollars in transfer payments. Offer them $125 million each and problem is solved in 5 years. You also gain revenue from the two teams moving into a lucrative market. Instead of costing cash, they contribute to the pot. There should also be a stipulation, if you move, your not eligible for revenue sharing for 10 years.
You are right about this, to a point. For the most part, any losses suffered by the franchises can be written off by the owners anyway, so it's not as though the owners have to fund the losses out of their own pocket. You wouldn't own a sports team with the primary goal of making money. This is true in any sport.
Contraction/relocating teams may be part of the solution to the health of the league, but how do we decide on teams to move? Attendance? Revenue streams?
Take Anaheim. They have a fantastic owner who is really dedicated to investing in Orange County. His goal is to bring an NBA team to Anaheim, and he has investments all over the place. We are talking extremely stable ownership. Should that not be a factor in deciding to fold or relocate teams? Anaheim do not qualify for revenue sharing, so it is not as if they are sucking on the NHL teat. - niedermayer27
If they don't cost money through revenue sharing, then they should continue in the league.
If they don't cost money through revenue sharing, then they should continue in the league. - PrinceLH
My point is that it is not just as simple as saying "cut 4 teams" or "move 4 teams".
For starters, the owner has the right to base his team wherever he wants. Is the NHL going to start forcing teams to move if they don't meet a set of requirements?
There is more to consider than simply "your revenues are low, so move". If the owner of the Panthers could make a fortune just by moving his team to Quebec, wouldn't he just do it?
The problem is that the revenues of the top 6-10 teams keep increasing rapidly, while the rest of the league is either increasing revenues slowly or staying the same. Moving a team will not make much of a difference. The gap will keep increasing and the top teams will keep the league going. The only real solution would be to contract to an 8 team league. But obviously the players are against contraction, as are the majority of the owners.
Any franchise that's better off not playing shouldn't have a team in the first place!
New Jersey
Nashville
Anaheim
Tampa Bay
Phoenix
Florida
Carolina
Dallas - LeftCoaster
Your logic is wrong in regards to Anaheim. The Samueli's are one of the few owners who run their own arena and they don't make money off an empty arena, so I'm sure they're pretty pissed about what Jacobs is doing. Plus , the Ducks don't sign players to idiotic contracts like the Wild and Panthers and the Devils. I'm positive Ducks management would be happy with the players 50-50 split while honoring current contracts.
Your logic is wrong in regards to Anaheim. The Samueli's are one of the few owners who run their own arena and they don't make money off an empty arena, so I'm sure they're pretty pissed about what Jacobs is doing. Plus, the Ducks don't sign players to idiotic contracts like the Wild and Panthers and the Devils. I'm positive Ducks management would be happy with the players 50-50 split while honoring current contracts. - duxcup07
I was just kinda throwing that out there, I do agree with you that Anaheim has one of the richest and most stable owners. Now that his legal issues are behind him plus they've won a Cup!
Realistically Phoenix, New Jersey (can't make payroll) & Florida could all be relocted or Phoenix contracted and the other two relocated.
On a completely unrelated note, have any of you watched any of Ryan Martindale's interviews? You know, the one's where you know.. that pair of words that you know.. he says every you know.. other word? I find it you know.. painful!
On a completely unrelated note, have any of you watched any of Ryan Martindale's interviews? You know, the one's where you know.. that pair of words that you know.. he says every you know.. other word? I find it you know.. painful! - MaximumBone
Interview: 2 minutes and 21 second... He said "you know" 34 times
The NHL isn't going to fold a team they have spent millions to support. If it doesn't go through they are going to sell the team with the owner being allowed to move it to a viable market. You named 3 places that want a team. Granted the owner would have to play them at a loss until their rink is done but this is a product. Worth over 100 million. You don't throw that away.
As for players playing in Russia... I think that is not the majority. It is not the money as much as the lifestyle the players are use to. Have you see the Air Canada Jet the Oilers fly on? Did you know that Air Canada as a Union has to allow their flight attendants the ability to pick their routes based on seniority. The "Jetz" series of planes used by most Canadian teams is the best gig and the oldest flight attendants book it. So Air Canada pays these older ladies full salaries to sit at home and hires an entire staff of women based simply on looks for the flight.
This is just one example of what the players are use to. Russian teams have older model planes that are often sold out of airlines fleets due to age. As we saw during the plane crash a few years back. Russia might pay some more but it just isn't the market that Canada is.
I do still think that a European/Russian division is inevitable. There is a market for Hockey over there where you only have to compete with soccer. In the US you have Basketball and Football for much of the season. Plus there is little interest to begin with. The answer isn't south, it is north.
Start with Phoenix, then Florida, then figure out what to do with New Jersey. After that, Seattle should have a world class arena built and the Oiler's can move to the West Coast! I might actually cheer for them?
Location: Apparently I troll every blog , ON Joined: 02.23.2012
Oct 26 @ 7:43 AM ET
They should fold Florida and Phoenix and move two other teams to more viable markets, if this season goes down the tubes. Just getting rid of those two bottom feeders, would free up close to $50 million dollars in transfer payments. Offer them $125 million each and problem is solved in 5 years. You also gain revenue from the two teams moving into a lucrative market. Instead of costing cash, they contribute to the pot. There should also be a stipulation, if you move, your not eligible for revenue sharing for 10 years. - PrinceLH
Columbus should go with Phoenix, they are the two biggest money flops in the league.
Location: EKolb..ChiRef..Dnozzlesupreme, BC Joined: 10.12.2010
Oct 26 @ 8:36 AM ET
Any franchise that's better off not playing shouldn't have a team in the first place!
New Jersey...6.1
Nashville...7.5
Anaheim...8.4
Tampa Bay...8.5
Phoenix...kill it
Florida...7.0
Carolina...4.4
Dallas...1.1
- LeftCoaster
Thing is, and I posted the Forbes #s of their millions lost, is that if the revenue %s become 50/50 and the teams gain 7 million, then NJ, Car and Dal all become profitable.
Only Tampa, Nashville and Anaheim are taking losses and these are < 2 million. If Tampa could/would charge more for tickets they do even better.
The team to try and contract/relocate is none of there it is CBJ. AFTER including the 7% shift they are still losing ~ 7mill.
First We take 7%, Then we move Phx (and CBJ) (sung to the tune of Leonard Cohen's "First We Take Manhattan")
Location: EKolb..ChiRef..Dnozzlesupreme, BC Joined: 10.12.2010
Oct 26 @ 8:41 AM ET
If you relocated the bottom 3, the next biggest money sucker is losing something like 7-8 million a season I think... If you have to buy out that team, you're probably taking a 150-200 million dollar hit. You're talking 20 to 27 years to gain any benefits from it, and then you have 15 teams in one conference and 14 in another... Kinda messy. Anyway, even though that team is losing money, I'd rather keep it around and evaluate the situation... Maybe business would pick up, and if not, perhaps there would be another option for relocation. If it were up to me though, 2-3 teams would be relocated asap... - laughs2907
Is true to a point...and you are valid in what you say, but a nitpick...
Phx and CBJ lost OVER 10mil this last year...CBJ lost 13.7, Phx over 20.
Every other team of the 18 lost 8.5 or less.
Shift the 7% and the losses are minimal (< 2mil each) for those 16 teams that would still be losing money.
Tampa sells or has 18+ thousand attendance, but they charge nothing for the seats and are losing money, it's not a viable business. It's a toy for a billionaire owner. - LeftCoaster
Change Tampa to Buffalo and make appropriate tweaks, and you also describe the Sabres ... and yet, no one is crying about getting rid of them. If an owner wants to lose millions each year, what business is it of the fans to complain?
Re: Phoenix - the franchise has been doomed ever since Balsillie talked Moyes into dragging the team into bankruptcy with the express intent of moving the team. At that point, no prospective owner and no amount of on-ice success was going to be able to save the team, because "... and they may move for next season" was going to be perpetually hanging over the team. Fans and businesses don't plunk down huge money to see a team that's about to exit stage right. Anhyone who thinks kicking out 3 more teams in the name of "avenging the Southern expansion" will make the league more stable may want to look around at how stable other sports leagues have been when they started dropping/relocating teams on a semi-regular basis. (Hint: start with the WFL, USFL, and WHA.)
I might actually cheer for them? 
