Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    Colour me confused, but with the league and the NHLPA both willing to have players salaries tied to revenues continuing into the future, why are the players pushing for transfer payments rather than franchise relocation?

    There are a few teams that eke out minimal revenues, and operate on annual income losses rather than profits - the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, Islanders and Panthers being the worst offendors. This drags down the overall revenues, and therefore the players salaries. Why are they not pushing for the franchises to be moved to stronger markets?

    The Isles are slightly different as they're in a hockey market, but suffer because of their building. This could be solved in 2015 when the lease on Nassau is up, and the could potentially move to the new rink in Queens (still on the Island) Not a true franchise relocation - more like when the Canucks moved from East Van to Downtown. But the other three, with at least four strong hockey markets available (Seattle,Milwaukee, Quebec and GTA - the last two close to breaking ground on new NHL calibre rinks), could be moved, increase revenues, and decrease transfer payments. It's a plus for the players and a plus for the owners.

    I honestly thought this topic would be brought up after the players saw that the move from Atlanta to Winnipeg increased annual league revenues by well over $50 million ( with revenues from the Thrashers to Jets going from $71 million to $122 million, plus an increase in merchandise sales directly linked to the move going into general NHL revenues). It's baffling that this is not part of the debate.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]Colour me confused, but with the league and the NHLPA both willing to have players salaries tied to revenues continuing into the future, why are the players pushing for transfer payments rather than franchise relocation? There are a few teams that eke out minimal revenues, and operate on annual income losses rather than profits - the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, Islanders and Panthers being the worst offendors. This drags down the overall revenues, and therefore the players salaries. Why are they not pushing for the franchises to be moved to stronger markets? The Isles are slightly different as they're in a hockey market, but suffer because of their building. This could be solved in 2015 when the lease on Nassau is up, and the could potentially move to the new rink in Queens (still on the Island) Not a true franchise relocation - more like when the Canucks moved from East Van to Downtown. But the other three, with at least four strong hockey markets available (Seattle,Milwaukee, Quebec and GTA - the last two close to breaking ground on new NHL calibre rinks), could be moved, increase revenues, and decrease transfer payments. It's a plus for the players and a plus for the owners. I honestly thought this topic would be brought up after the players saw that the move from Atlanta to Winnipeg increased annual league revenues by well over $50 million ( with revenues from the Thrashers to Jets going from $71 million to $122 million, plus an increase in merchandise sales directly linked to the move going into general NHL revenues). It's baffling that this is not part of the debate.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    I'd guess it's been discussed Red, but so much comes into play when moving a Franchise. Teams have leases with stadiums etc..If a team is thinking about moving or plans to move it's something you dont want getting out until it comes to fruition. Example:

    Say Columbus plans to move to Quebec once their lease expires in 2017. No way you want this info leaked because in the meantime you have to sell tickets, advertising etc..Who the heck is going to spend anything on a lame duck franchise. That franchise is struggling as it is, if they put out there that theyre moving, those revenues are ll but lost for the next 4 seasons. Remmeber how fast the Atlanta to Winnipeg move happened. May have seemed like an eternity to you, but for moving a franchise it went down pretty quickly.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    Waiting game for the NHL owners board of directors and Bettman. Which cities in Canada and the US will step up to the plate and have modernized arenas ready by 20__...

    Seattle ? Lots of talk nothing happening...

    Quebec ? haven't even broken ground on an arena yet

    Hamilton ? RIM almost gone, Bettman was right not letting that clown Balsillie have a team.

    So hockey continues to fail in Phoenix, New Jersey, Columbus and on the Island because there is no where else to put the teams yet.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]Waiting game for the NHL owners board of directors and Bettman. Which cities in Canada and the US will step up to the plate and have modernized arenas ready by 20__... Seattle ? Lots of talk nothing happening... Quebec ? haven't even broken ground on an arena yet Hamilton ? RIM almost gone, Bettman was right not letting that clown Balsillie have a team. So hockey continues to fail in Phoenix, New Jersey, Columbus and on the Island because there is no where else to put the teams yet.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Didn't Kansas City have something built or close to having something done. Not sure that is a better option than what they have now?

    I think the only thing keeping the Devils there is the TV deal they have. I think they reach out to most parts in New York.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    The reason the players don't is because it's none of their business.

    Workers don't tell employers where to set up the store.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]Colour me confused, but with the league and the NHLPA both willing to have players salaries tied to revenues continuing into the future, why are the players pushing for transfer payments rather than franchise relocation? There are a few teams that eke out minimal revenues, and operate on annual income losses rather than profits - the Coyotes, Blue Jackets, Islanders and Panthers being the worst offendors. This drags down the overall revenues, and therefore the players salaries. Why are they not pushing for the franchises to be moved to stronger markets? The Isles are slightly different as they're in a hockey market, but suffer because of their building. This could be solved in 2015 when the lease on Nassau is up, and the could potentially move to the new rink in Queens (still on the Island) Not a true franchise relocation - more like when the Canucks moved from East Van to Downtown. But the other three, with at least four strong hockey markets available (Seattle,Milwaukee, Quebec and GTA - the last two close to breaking ground on new NHL calibre rinks), could be moved, increase revenues, and decrease transfer payments. It's a plus for the players and a plus for the owners. I honestly thought this topic would be brought up after the players saw that the move from Atlanta to Winnipeg increased annual league revenues by well over $50 million ( with revenues from the Thrashers to Jets going from $71 million to $122 million, plus an increase in merchandise sales directly linked to the move going into general NHL revenues). It's baffling that this is not part of the debate.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]
    As we all know, Gary Bettman is on record as saying he will do everything in his power before he allows a team to relocate. He has repeatedly made his feelings
    public on how he feels about the subject. The players have no say on this issue. It looks like places like Quebec, Seattle, Kansas City or whoever will be waiting a very long time before they get a sniff of the NHL.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]The reason the players don't is because it's none of their business. Workers don't tell employers where to set up the store.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    They did go into in how the teams and owners should share revenue with their proposal.
    Moving teams is a touchy business and Bettman usually doesn't take it well when mentioned.
    I agree though if the players start on this talk they're going over the top and someone mught just tell them to mind their own business.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    NHL: A lengthy lockout could cost Columbus All-Star Game

    http://www.bluejacketsxtra.com/content/stories/2012/08/19/a-lengthy-lockout-could-cost-columbus-all-star-game.html

    "If the lockout extends even a month into the season, it could scuttle one of the biggest sporting events ever planned for central Ohio.When the Atlanta game was canceled, the Thrashers (now the Winnipeg Jets) didn’t get an All-Star Game until 2008"

    More economic impact for a struggling franchises.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    Players should have no say in relocation of franchises; however, the all owners should have a written agreement in place amongst the ownership groups for the movement of a team to another city if the team is consistently in the red, having payroll problems, or leasing issues. 

    Starbucks employees don't have a say as to where their ownership puts/moves its stores; it's based on bottom line and where the most people go to buy the coffee. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]NHL: A lengthy lockout could cost Columbus All-Star Game http://www.bluejacketsxtra.com/content/stories/2012/08/19/a-lengthy-lockout-could-cost-columbus-all-star-game.html "If the lockout extends even a month into the season, it could scuttle one of the biggest sporting events ever planned for central Ohio.When the Atlanta game was canceled, the Thrashers (now the Winnipeg Jets) didn’t get an All-Star Game until 2008" More economic impact for a struggling franchises.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    It's a stupid idea anyway.  Put the All-Star game in the city with the best gate percentage, every year.  Add a disclaimer that no city can host the all-star game more than once in a 10 year span.

    What a waste it was to have the game in Atlanta!  They have been putting the game in mostly expansion cities for almost 20 years.  The good fans of Buffalo haven't seen it since 1978 but North Carolina has, along with Atlanta, Dallas, Colorado, Miami, Tampa, etc.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]NHL: A lengthy lockout could cost Columbus All-Star Game http://www.bluejacketsxtra.com/content/stories/2012/08/19/a-lengthy-lockout-could-cost-columbus-all-star-game.html "If the lockout extends even a month into the season, it could scuttle one of the biggest sporting events ever planned for central Ohio.When the Atlanta game was canceled, the Thrashers (now the Winnipeg Jets) didn’t get an All-Star Game until 2008" More economic impact for a struggling franchises.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]
    Never mind the all star game in Columbus, what happens if they have to cancel the Winter Classic in Detroit ? How embarrassing would that be for the league ?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation? : Never mind the all star game in Columbus, what happens if they have to cancel the Winter Classic in Detroit ? How embarrassing would that be for the league ?
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    I think if the season started on Dcc. 30th, they would still play that game.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation? : Never mind the all star game in Columbus, what happens if they have to cancel the Winter Classic in Detroit ? How embarrassing would that be for the league ?
    Posted by jpBsSoxFan[/QUOTE]

    They should cancel it.  It's not "classic".  It's common.  And the hype behind it is gone for me.  Do it once every five years.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation? : They should cancel it.  It's not "classic".  It's common.  And the hype behind it is gone for me.  Do it once every five years.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I have to agree, the Winter Classic has lost its luster a little bit. That being said I loved it in 2010 when it was played in Fenway Park. I still have visions of Marco Sturm scoring in overtime to sink the Flyers. I wonder if they will ever consider playing it at Gillette Stadium. I think that would be neat & also they could fit a lot more people in.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]The reason the players don't is because it's none of their business. Workers don't tell employers where to set up the store.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    In many cases that's partially true, but once again, you insist on broad generalities as being the rule.  When compensation is based on the most under performing property, virtually all "workers" will have something to say about it.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    I believe they did raise relocation and other measures in the last CBA negotiation - back when the players had some vocal, sh---disturber types at the microphone.

    Then, the case was more about "the partnership" and the players needing to know that the cap wasn't subsidizing underperforming franchises - that is, if their salaries are tied to revenue, and the owners are responsible for maximizing revenue, how can the players be sure that the owners are truly exploring all avenues to expand the revenue base?  It's a legit CBA question.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TommyD603. Show TommyD603's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    1) That's not a league thing. That's an individual franchise thing.
    2) Even if it were, the owners would never accept such a condition, right on the face of it because it's brash and insulting and not the players' place. Why would you propose something that you KNOW won't work AT ALL? You already have no leverage and are going to get slashed, and then you're going to ask for the moon and stars? You're locked out and making no money, as opposed to playing in Florida and making a handsome living. You'd deal with it.
    3) If they owners were to say "yeah, that's a good idea, fine," the logistics still dictate that it would cost them an INSANE amount of money to build new rinks and essentially start their entire business over, with the exception of possibly Quebec City. You can't just plop into Seattle and go "Ok, done."
    4) If they agreed to pay out and do all that, the season starts in like a month and a half. It's not even possible.
    In conclussion: Even if you dispell logic and disbelief at every single level imaginable, the answer is "duuuuhhhhhhh... NO." That said, I love you, Red, and your posts. Except this one.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bgrif008. Show bgrif008's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    Here in Columbus, they have a great fan base. Problem is they have grown tired of the organizations lack of putting a quality team on the ice. Seriously,...the BJ's have been to the playoffs ONCE. What a Joke and they have or had one of the highest salaried teams. The organization has just been a train wreck when it comes to scouting and putting a winning team on the ice.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation? : In many cases that's partially true, but once again, you insist on broad generalities as being the rule.  When compensation is based on the most under performing property, virtually all "workers" will have something to say about it.
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    Dear stevegm,

    It has become quite clear to me that you are having a very difficult time understanding what I write.  To make it easier on your mind, try putting "in general" in front of any sentence that confuses you. 


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation? : Dear stevegm, It has become quite clear to me that you are having a very difficult time understanding what I write.  To make it easier on your mind, try putting "in general" in front of any sentence that confuses you. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Dear NAS.
    I understand perfectly what you write.  I's becoming clear you're uncomfortable being called on dumb-azz comments.  Try "thinking" before you hit the keyboard.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosbruins2011cup. Show bosbruins2011cup's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    Instead of relocation I would like to see some teams flat out contracted out of the league. Would be a win win get hockey out of markets where it will never be profetable for the team or league and each roster gets a little more talented since there are les nhl jobs. Contraction will never happen but it would be nice to see some teams moved to hockey markets.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49-North. Show 49-North's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]Instead of relocation I would like to see some teams flat out contracted out of the league. Would be a win win get hockey out of markets where it will never be profetable for the team or league and each roster gets a little more talented since there are les nhl jobs. Contraction will never happen but it would be nice to see some teams moved to hockey markets.
    Posted by bosbruins2011cup[/QUOTE]


    The PA would do everything in its (limited) power to prevent this. 

    A major part of any union's mandate is to maximize the number of its members at any given point in time.  Contraction would remove all the active roster spots and 'scratches' from the union ranks, and would also likely impact AHL spots.

    I think the challenge here is to identify "hockey markets".  We need to differentiate between a "hockey market" and an "NHL market".  These are not synomous.  Almost every city in Canada is a 'hockey market', which explains why every city has at least a junior team, if not a minor league team.  But, how many of these cities can support an NHL franchise, with its requirements for top-notch facilities, a large corporate market to support purchase of suites, club seats and provide advertising and sponsorship revenue?  How many of these cities have the economic base to support up to 16,000 season ticket holders paying premium prices?  One may be able to argue the potential for two more franchises in Canada: Quebec City and perhaps one more in Southern Ontario, but beyond that, it becomes quite dicey.

    In the U.S., there are certainly cities with the population and economic potential to become homes for NHL franchises, but are they actually "NHL markets"?  I think the case can be made for Seattle (once they deal with their facility issue), but I'd be hard pressed to think of another strong candidate.  Kansas City?  Yes on the facility, but I don't know enough about the 'hockey culture' there to have any sort of opinion on the market for season tickets or sponsorships.  Milwaukee?  Decent, though not state-of-the-art building, would appear to be a 'hockey market', but is it an NHL market? 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from xdrive. Show xdrive's posts

    Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?

    In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why aren't the players pushing for relocation? : Didn't Kansas City have something built or close to having something done. Not sure that is a better option than what they have now? I think the only thing keeping the Devils there is the TV deal they have. I think they reach out to most parts in New York.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]

    well they also have a brand new building thats only 2 years old
     

Share