Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

2015 Stanley Cup Playoffs


Recommended Posts

The only hockey guaranteed in the new Quebec arena is the annual PeeWee tournament.

Although AB equalization money built the place, it will be much harder to get them to buy $200 per seat seasion tickets .

If they can avg what the other 5 teams in Canad get from patrons, it should do just fine.

Hell if they could get the avg price the Leafs get theyd have a team by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hoping the Sens can put the boots to the Flyers tomorrow.

They did. Good to see them in, even if I am not a Sens fan, glad for them and will mkae great viewing.

Five Canadian teams in with LA and Boston out, perfect. The US TV networks must be hating it.

The best markets are Minny, they are hockey mad so ratings should be good there, Pitt is good market, Ny Rangers play in the biggest US market, Wings own Michigan and other States and Anaheim is in out west.

All in all, I think they are pretty happy, the lead up has been amazing, the race is tight and the sports world is talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devon Dubnyk is 27-8 since being traded from Edmonton.

Edmonton must have the worst management in the league, other than the Leafs.

Agree that the Oilers have awful management, but not about Dubnyk.

He was absolute shit here in his last season, after several years of careful development in the minors and on the Oilers. He had a brutal team in front of him, but his own play was awful. After Edmonton tossed him he was garbage in 3 or 4 other places before settling in Minnesota. I'm glad he has done well somewhwre, finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't help the networks with the TV contracts.

The NHL has been salivating after a US TV contract for decades. The fact is most Americans have no interest in hockey, never have, and never will. Even in a lot of NHL cities down south almost no one cares about hockey. It's a niche market, at best. The few cities where hockey is reasonably popular already have cable and local TV contracts (which, by the way, doesn't have to be shared with other cities). The only large network contract the NHL has or will ever get is in Canada.

You could have New York against LA every single Stanley cup final for fourteen years and you won't get a large network contract. The NHL should fire Bettman, abandon its dreams of a US network contract, and close down those teams in the cities without fans (ie Dallas, Florida, Phoenix etc) .It would improve the quality of the on-ice product.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL has been salivating after a US TV contract for decades. The fact is most Americans have no interest in hockey, never have, and never will. Even in a lot of NHL cities down south almost no one cares about hockey. It's a niche market, at best. The few cities where hockey is reasonably popular already have cable and local TV contracts (which, by the way, doesn't have to be shared with other cities). The only large network contract the NHL has or will ever get is in Canada.

You could have New York against LA every single Stanley cup final for fourteen years and you won't get a large network contract. The NHL should fire Bettman, abandon its dreams of a US network contract, and close down those teams in the cities without fans (ie Dallas, Florida, Phoenix etc) .It would improve the quality of the on-ice product.

Finally someone I can agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL has been salivating after a US TV contract for decades.

Huh? How oblivious can you guys be?

On April 19, 2011, after ESPN, Turner Sports and Fox Sports placed bids, NBC Sports announced it had reached a ten-year extension to its television contract with the NHL (through the 2020–21 season) worth nearly $2 billion over the tenure of the contract..........A rights fee of roughly US$200 million per year for the combined cable and broadcast rights, nearly triple that of the previous contract

The new Canadian contract is for about $400 million per year, for a total of about $640 million, or around $20 million CDN per team per year for each team in the NHL.

Yes, another abject failure by Bettman to serve and grow the sport.

eta: next up: squeezing those dickheads at the Olympic Committee for some of their fat profits using NHL players.

Edited by overthere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? How oblivious can you guys be?

The new Canadian contract is for about $400 million per year,

Chump change. This contract allows them to broadcast a few games a year, mostly in the playoffs. By comarison, the NHL's deal with Rogers cable pays twice as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't know about the longterm deal for $200 million per year with NBC, did you?

I'm talking about a regular contract to broadcast a full slate of games throughout the season similar to what they have with the other major leagues. That's why the league keeps trying to expand into sunbelt cities, so they can say they're nationwide, not just a northeast league. This is not that kind of contract. As I said, it's less than half the size of the one they have with Rogers cable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so excited that the playoffs are starting! It means that I won't have to watch the fricking Oilers for 6 months! I will be bandwagoning with the Senators, Islanders, Jets, and Wild this year.

In regard to the Bettman discussion: why does anybody actually care if the game "grows"?

If hockey becomes more popular in the US, it might put more money in the pockets of people who own NHL franchises, and for NHL players, but I doubt there's a lot of NHL players or owners here on the MLW. So really, who cares how many Americans watch the playoffs on network TV?

I'd think that if you're a fan in a Canadian city aside from the big 3, you might be happier hoping the game doesn't grow. If hockey takes off in the US in a big way, it could start pricing hockey out of smaller Canadian markets.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd think that if you're a fan in a Canadian city aside from the big 3, you might be happier hoping the game doesn't grow. If hockey takes off in the US in a big way, it could start pricing hockey out of smaller Canadian markets.

-k

? Welcome to the 90s ? That's when we lost Quebec City and Winnipeg. The trend is going the other way now. If we're adding places like Nashville and Las Vegas, then there's no reason that Quebec and Moncton can't have cities too. As for the big 3, Torontonians should be excited as a 2nd franchise would mean a chance of a winning team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about a regular contract to broadcast a full slate of games throughout the season similar to what they have with the other major leagues. That's why the league keeps trying to expand into sunbelt cities, so they can say they're nationwide, not just a northeast league. This is not that kind of contract. As I said, it's less than half the size of the one they have with Rogers cable.

You're attempting to ignore the reality of the cope of the deal signed nearly four years ago, which is significant and unprecedented in the promotion of pro hockey in the United States.

The previous deal with NBC (2004) paid or rather guaranteed the NHL nothing except an undefined share of advertising revenue. Despite your claim that "most Americans have no interest in hockey, never have, and never will. ", there is no way that a major US network goes from $0.00 to $200 million per year on a long term deal unless they are recouping that money from American viewers. That reality may make you unhappy, but it does not give you license to pretend that reality does not exist. When you unclench your wee fists, open your eyes and stop screaming- there it is again.

What is not 'regular' about big chunks of cash coming to every NHL team(including Canadian teams) from a US broadcaster ? It is a bigger coup than Bettmans deal with Sportsnet for Canadian rights. $6 million per team per year from the US TV deal is a nice chunk of operating costs with a salary cap of around $70 million, especially when that amount was $0 until recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So really, who cares how many Americans watch the playoffs on network TV?

I do, because increased US popularity means increased revenue to CDN teams, and that helps ensure the viability of small markets. Canada has a disproportionate share of those in the overall market for pro hockey.

If hockey takes off in the US in a big way, it could start pricing hockey out of smaller Canadian markets.

You're not thinking this through.

One huge factor on the expense side is the salary cap. Big market teams from either country cannot outspend small market teams.

On the revenue side, national TV rights are shared equally by all teams. If hockey takes off in the US, small market CDN teams get their share.

Both salary caps and massively larger TV revenues came from the same place- the Wee Satan Bettman.

If we're adding places like Nashville and Las Vegas, then there's no reason that Quebec and Moncton can't have cities too.

They're not adding Nashville to the NHL, they already have a team.

Metro Las Vegas has a population of about 1.4 million. Metro Moncton has a metro population of about 140,000. Is that a reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, because increased US popularity means increased revenue to CDN teams, and that helps ensure the viability of small markets. Canada has a disproportionate share of those in the overall market for pro hockey.

In terms of total market size, sure. But in terms of actual hockey market size, the Canadian teams have most U.S. markets licked. A population of 1 million with only 100,000 people who are inclined to give a shit is no better than a market of 100,000 hockey fans.

Oh and how about that nice Yakupov bridge contract? Far cry from the $6 million or else to the KHL line you were peddling..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and how about that nice Yakupov bridge contract? Far cry from the $6 million or else to the KHL line you were peddling..

Love it. The very best part is that he can now be traded. Without that contract there would be no way.

McTavish doesn't often speak of him as being part of the core team now, and knows he has to get rid of somebody to begin to fill the gaping holes in goal and on defence.

Bye bye Nail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...the fun starts tomorrow night. Lets see who has the best guess......

Rangers over Pitt in 6

Habs over Sens in 6

TBay over Wings in 5

Caps over Islanders in 7 (no idea why tho....)

Jets over Ducks in 7 (there...I said it but no surprise if other way around)

Blues over Wild in 6

Hawks beat Preds in 7

Canucks over Flames in 5

Edited by Guyser2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love it. The very best part is that he can now be traded. Without that contract there would be no way.

McTavish doesn't often speak of him as being part of the core team now, and knows he has to get rid of somebody to begin to fill the gaping holes in goal and on defence.

Bye bye Nail.

Except you also claimed that Yakupov wouldn't garner any return so how do you figure he could fill any holes? Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...