NHL Thread: 2021-2022 Season

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Take that back right now.


It's fine to want this but it doesn't make logistical sense for the remaining teams around them. You still have to acknowledge that Ottawa, Buffalo, Columbus, Pittsburgh still exist, as well as every other team in the NY-DC area.

For the NHL it's about balancing regional and national TV games so you can squeak out as many viewers as possible, and at the moment the most viewers in the US come from Chicago, Boston, and Pittsburgh. So spread them around with games against the likes of the Rangers, Philadelphia, and Washington and you've got decent ratings.

I"d have 3 conferences with 11 teams each.


I don't really care for the o-6 narratives and all that junk.

The 0-6 is a big deal because they are big hockey cities, it just happens to be the case that they are old school.

Minnesota/Islanders/flyers/penguins/kings teams are all defacto o6s in my mind.

Hockey is fawked because they have this baseless OCD obsession with dividing the league in two symmetrical halfs when there isn't a symmetrical division of time zones.

To me it's clear they need 3 conferences.

With a western, northern, and eastern conference.

Western is Seattle-Van-Flames-Oilers------sharks-ducks-kings---coyotes-knights-Avs-Wild

Southern is Islanders-Rangers-Devils-Flyers-Penguins-----Caps-canes-panthers-TBL-Stars-Predators

Northern is Jets-Leafs-Habs-Nordiques-Sens----RedWings-Bruins-Blackshawks-Blues-Sabres-CBJ



Obviously the nordiques bit is wishful thinking, throw a team in houston for all I care, but you get the overall premise.

5/11 get playoff spots, with the 6th from each conference playing a wild card round robin.

[Djeffery]

What am I missing regarding the blackouts? Aren't the regional games shown in that team's region and blacked out elsewhere? Blackouts used to be about not showing the game in your area in order to sell tickets, now they are about not showing the game outside your broadcast territory. Was watching a Leafs game on Sportsnet and the other team (Montreal I think) has their regional games on TSN. I could watch the Sportsnet feed but not TSN in London.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by esquire

I wonder if the North Division might have staying power based on that... teams like Florida and Dallas not having to sell their fans on seeing the Flames or Canucks. NBCSN can probably do without the Canadian vs. US team matchups too.

I think the one thing that has become clear is how much of a mess the league is overall.The current format is an artifact of the 90s, when southern markets had no history and there wasn't a consistent salary cap system. The inter conference/divisional match-ups were created to address the inequality among teams.

Non of this makes any sense in the current era.

This has created this devils bargain where Vancouver has to play the panthers twice a year so they can get the leafs in their arena 1 time. The flip side is also true where someone in Miami has no interest in the canucks but every interest in the stars that 1 time.

I think the best solution is to end all inter conference play, with 1 exception.

Each group of 4 teams needs to be paired with 4 teams in the other conference.

I.e. jets-flames-oilers-cannucks- only play their inter conference rivals.

I.e. Sens-Habs-Sabres-Leafs

Each group of 4 gets to pick their preferred group of 4 from the other conference.

This effectively means every team gets their optimum league of 20 teams. This wouldn't just benefit Canadians, but US sports networks wanting to see those LA-New York games. Miami-Dallas etc.If you limited inter conference games to weekends, you could make every Saturday Sunday marquee events for casual fans, and the timezone issue would be non-existent.

[thenoflyzone]

Blackouts need to go. They are ridiculously antiquated and serve no purpose in the currently globalized sports entertainment business.

It reminds me of the different wrestling territories in the States back in the 70s/80s, before Vince McMahon Sr. brought the sport to a national level with cable tv. (They touch on the subject in a very good documentary about Andre the Giant on crave !)

Anywho, here is a good article explaining how NHL blackouts work. That being said, some of the statements/reasonings are stupid, quite frankly.

https://www.snnow.ca/support/nhl-blackout-restrictions

Regional blackouts are a mandate of the NHL, designed to cultivate and protect a team’s home market.

huh? cultivate and protect? seriously ? LOL....

I think the NHL market in Canada is cultivated and protected well enough, wouldn't you guys agree?.....

I'm currently sitting in Montreal, watching Calgary vs. Habs on RDS, because the game is blacked out on Sportsnet, since its a regional blackout for Calgary. But I can watch PIT vs BOS on sportsnet. Ridiculous....

(no offense to RDS, I quite like Pierre Houde's play-by-play calls !)

For example, if you live in British Columbia or the Yukon, you are entitled to watch every Vancouver Canucks game.

Nooooooo..... If i were to live in BC or Yukon, I should be "entitled" to watch any fucking game I want, especially if I'm paying over $150/month for cable TV and internet....

[Coldrsx]

Drai is a monster of a finisher and is going to get another 50 this year.

Come on Oilers, you can do it!

[Black Star]

To many breakdowns for the Oil....the little mistake keep costing them.

[logan5]

Maybe Ottawa has a great future, but right now they are worse than awful. Even whemn Ottawa had a 5 on 3 PP, they looked so lifeless. Canucks sweep the 3 games, and outscore the Senators 16-3.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Blackouts need to go. They are ridiculously antiquated and serve no purpose in the currently globalized sports entertainment business.

It reminds me of the different wrestling territories in the States back in the 70s/80s, before Vince McMahon Sr. brought the sport to a national level with cable tv. (They touch on the subject in a very good documentary about Andre the Giant on crave !)

Anywho, here is a good article explaining how NHL blackouts work. That being said, some of the statements/reasonings are stupid, quite frankly.

https://www.snnow.ca/support/nhl-blackout-restrictions



huh? cultivate and protect? seriously ? LOL....

I think the NHL market in Canada is cultivated and protected well enough, wouldn't you guys agree?.....

I'm currently sitting in Montreal, watching Calgary vs. Habs on RDS, because the game is blacked out on Sportsnet, since its a regional blackout for Calgary. But I can watch PIT vs BOS on sportsnet. Ridiculous....

(no offense to RDS, I quite like Pierre Houde's play-by-play calls !)



Nooooooo..... If i were to live in BC or Yukon, I should be "entitled" to watch any fucking game I want, especially if I'm paying over $150/month for cable TV and internet....

Market protection = multiplying and double dipping on advertising dollars.

[NS Bayman]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Blackouts need to go. They are ridiculously antiquated and serve no purpose in the currently globalized sports entertainment business.

It reminds me of the different wrestling territories in the States back in the 70s/80s, before Vince McMahon Sr. brought the sport to a national level with cable tv. (They touch on the subject in a very good documentary about Andre the Giant on crave !)

Anywho, here is a good article explaining how NHL blackouts work. That being said, some of the statements/reasonings are stupid, quite frankly.

https://www.snnow.ca/support/nhl-blackout-restrictions


huh? cultivate and protect? seriously ? LOL....

I think the NHL market in Canada is cultivated and protected well enough, wouldn't you guys agree?.....

I'm currently sitting in Montreal, watching Calgary vs. Habs on RDS, because the game is blacked out on Sportsnet, since its a regional blackout for Calgary. But I can watch PIT vs BOS on sportsnet. Ridiculous....

(no offense to RDS, I quite like Pierre Houde's play-by-play calls !)



Nooooooo..... If i were to live in BC or Yukon, I should be "entitled" to watch any fucking game I want, especially if I'm paying over $150/month for cable TV and internet....

Well said. Last night I decided to test out what games are blacked out for me. I went on Gamecentre Live and MTL vs. CGY was blackout on GCL but not on TSN... for me in NS. OTT vs. VAN was also blacked out on GLC. Not sure if it was blacked out on cable.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by logan5

Maybe Ottawa has a great future, but right now they are worse than awful. Even whemn Ottawa had a 5 on 3 PP, they looked so lifeless. Canucks sweep the 3 games, and outscore the Senators 16-3.

There's no future in Ottawa until they are rid of Melnyk.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Drai is a monster of a finisher and is going to get another 50 this year.

You think he'll do it playing 26 less games?

[Coldrsx]

Sure, why not.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

There's no future in Ottawa until they are rid of Melnyk.

I'm convinced they are going to QC.

Quebec City offered 500 mill for a team, nowhere near enough for the league to give them an expansion after claiming to stop at 32.

500 mill is just enough to say the team was sold under duress after melynk ran it into the ground. It's hard to agrue he hasn't been doing his best at this point.

Which is to say they'll give him something like 200 mill for the team while the rest goes to the league that currently needs that money.

I said all of this in the fall of 2019, but it seems far more likely to happen after covid.

Ottawa doesn't have a proper arena full stop.

No one to our south cares about Ottawa, it's barely bigger than Buffalo.

The biggest struggle for any new team in Canada has been carving out territorial rights and I'm sure Montreal is happy to take half of Ottawa for the sake of QC.


Lets do the check list

1) Doesn't take a team from a major American TV market

2) Doesn't alienate American fans

3) Placates a fanbase dying for a team, in a city that built a proper Arena//Cannot afford modern era expansion fees.

4) Covid plus melnyk have given the perfect excuse to move the team, with minimal public outcry/without making the league look like it's built on a bubble.

5) Generates money when the league needs it.

6) Allows for a sweatheart expansion deal to be done if Ottawa ever decides to build a downtown arena. The league can't officially backtrack and offer an expansion team at a cost a Canadian market can afford. But I'm sure they could bend cut a deal if the league was giving a team back to a city that shouldn't of lost theirs. This is useful is the league wants to make easy money without devaluing itself in the States.

7) The factor that has become more apparent the league doesn't have to bow down to one bad owner. The league doesn't want Melynk making a profit for running the team into the ground, but at the same time they can't let the team sell for nothing. By placing a relocation/expansion fee on top of a $200 million sale prices, the league still looks good. A bad owner isn't rewarded for spoiling a market, while a discount nhl team is still worth 500 million.


It's a simple math.

310 million in expansion fees.

200 million into Melnyks pocket.

and in just a few years a 500 million expansion fee for ottawa.

The league would get 810 million in expansion fees for a new team.

An amount no singular Canadian market could afford.

Melnyk would be properly shafted for attempting to spoil a market.

Alternatively they could let Melnyk sell the team for 400 million, and loose out on 300 million that they could literally spend tomorrow.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

By placing a relocation/expansion fee on top of a $200 million sale prices, the league still looks good.

It's not a given there will even be a relocation fee. And if there is one, it certainly won't be $300 million. It's one thing wanting to move a team from Arizona to Hamilton or Atlanta to Winnipeg, it's another moving a team from Ottawa to Quebec city. The franchise value difference (or potential revenue loss by the league) between Ottawa and Quebec City is negligible, and so a relocation fee should be negligible also. That wasn't the case for the potential Arizona>Hamilton or Atlanta>Winnipeg.

I don't think your scenario will happen. For one, the Nation's Capital should not lose a team, even if, according to your scenario, it's only for a few years. Ottawa has proven in the past that it can support an NHL franchise and fill its arena, even if it's in Kanata. A few years of weak attendance isn't reason enough to relocate. Ottawa has a metro area of over 1 million, and GDP is almost double that of Quebec City. The Sens aren't going anywhere.

As much as I would love for Quebec City to get a team, I don't think it should come at the expense of another Canadian franchise. Melnyk will most likely sell the team to a new owner, who will keep the team in Ottawa, and which will restore confidence between the team and the fans.

https://www.silversevensens.com/2019...relocation-nhl

[Djeffery]

That math doesn't add up. To begin with, why is Melnyk going to sell his team for a third of what the Seattle expansion team is paying? Why would the league cut Ottawa a break on a future expansion fee "because the city shouldn't have lost their team" as you say, but wouldn't cut QC a break a few years ago? If someone is going to pay $500 million for an expansion team in Ottawa, why wouldn't they just buy the Sens? The idea that Melnyk would take $200 million and let the league have $300 million of the sale price of his team is silly.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

That math doesn't add up. To begin with, why is Melnyk going to sell his team for a third of what the Seattle expansion team is paying?

Because he can't sell without the leagues approval. I believe he was offered $400 million for the team and they shot it down. They can refuse sale basically forever, as far as I understand it. My understanding is that the league feels they need to set an example with Melnyk. He's spoiling a market, this is tolerable in hockey mad Canada, but it could be a disaster if this was allowed to occur south of the border. The other half of the equation is forcing him to sell at less than full value would generate a ton of money for the league.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Why would the league cut Ottawa a break on a future expansion fee "because the city shouldn't have lost their team" as you say, but wouldn't cut QC a break a few years ago?

Because QC's team existed in ancient history. It's the same reason seattle didn't get a discount because of their previous NHL experience.

The league controls 100 percent of the supply, they aren't gonna sell a team to QC if they can make more in Houston.

Taking Ottawa's team and placing it in Houston is a completely different situation.American's are far too fickle with regards to having a loosing team. The optics of taking a Canadian team would be awful. More relevantly you aren't just buying a team, you're buying up territorial rights. Seattle or Houston have much much larger markets than QC or Ottawa.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

If someone is going to pay $500 million for an expansion team in Ottawa, why wouldn't they just buy the Sens?

Because the league doesn't need to let this happen. Neither Ottawa nor QC can afford a full NHL expansion fee.

The league can get 800 million dollars or it can basically get nothing from this market, and reward melnyk $400 million for sabotaging a market.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

The idea that Melnyk would take $200 million and let the league have $300 million of the sale price of his team is silly.

No that is what happens when you buy into group ownership and try to fluff them around.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

https://www.silversevensens.com/2019...relocation-nhl

All this will tell you is the obvious. Melnyk can't relocate the team without the leagues approval. And why would they if they don't have to?

The relocation fee gives them a serious cash injection when they absolutely need it. A 200-300 deal would be exactly the type of thing that would send a message to other owners that you can't circumvent the leagues authority.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

It's not a given there will even be a relocation fee. And if there is one, it certainly won't be $300 million. It's one thing wanting to move a team from Arizona to Hamilton or Atlanta to Winnipeg, it's another moving a team from Ottawa to Quebec city. The franchise value difference (or potential revenue loss by the league) between Ottawa and Quebec City is negligible, and so a relocation fee should be negligible also. That wasn't the case for the potential Arizona>Hamilton or Atlanta>Winnipeg.

The league turned down $500 million, a $300 million relocation fee is absolutely in the realm of a seriously cheaper and more affordable option. Expansion fees were a tiny fraction of what they were when the Jets moved to Arizona/from Atlanta. It's a completely different league structure. Why would houston be expected to pay $800 million when you can relocate a team for free?

The league isn't stupid and they have the power.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

I don't think your scenario will happen. For one, the Nation's Capital should not lose a team, even if, according to your scenario, it's only for a few years. Ottawa has proven in the past that it can support an NHL franchise and fill its arena, even if it's in Kanata. A few years of weak attendance isn't reason enough to relocate. Ottawa has a metro area of over 1 million, and GDP is almost double that of Quebec City. The Sens aren't going anywhere.

This is an emotional appeal. The point is they lack an Arena and an Owner. The lack of an Arena etc is exactly why it would make sense to leave and come back.

They have the option of Squeezing money out of QC, Melnyk, and Ottawa. They have a monopoly and covid + QC + Melnyk has given them the perfect way out.

Ottawa isn't loosing a team, at least a team worth saving, they're having their franchise suspended for a small number of years, until they get a downtown arena figured out.

The Ottawa market needs time to reconfigure.

You can't charge Melnyk a sales fee, but a relocation fee is absolutely a thing they could get away with.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

As much as I would love for Quebec City to get a team, I don't think it should come at the expense of another Canadian franchise. Melnyk will most likely sell the team to a new owner, who will keep the team in Ottawa, and which will restore confidence between the team and the fans.

This would make sense if they had an arena deal worked out, and if Melnyk didn't piss the league off.

And make no mistake Melnyk isn't just not likable, he's a threat to the leagues business model. If an owner can just cash out at any time, the billions of dollars of team value could erode over just a few sales. More damming is that it's clear he not just rogue, he's blatantly sabotage a market to get his way, this is intolerable when revenue sharing is a thing.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

That math doesn't add up. To begin with, why is Melnyk going to sell his team for a third of what the Seattle expansion team is paying? Why would the league cut Ottawa a break on a future expansion fee "because the city shouldn't have lost their team" as you say, but wouldn't cut QC a break a few years ago? If someone is going to pay $500 million for an expansion team in Ottawa, why wouldn't they just buy the Sens? The idea that Melnyk would take $200 million and let the league have $300 million of the sale price of his team is silly.

The answer to all these questions is fairly simple - they won't happen.

[thurmas]

Does someone have the figures of how much each NHL team is losing right now with no fans in stands and just relying on TV money? If memory serves me right the Jets total cost of running the team in 2018-2019 was $105 million as an example.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Does someone have the figures of how much each NHL team is losing right now with no fans in stands and just relying on TV money? If memory serves me right the Jets total cost of running the team in 2018-2019 was $105 million as an example.

I believe it's something like 30-60 million per team lost in gate revenue.

The rest of it gets mirky, because the loss of merch sales, sponsorship deals, and TV money is tied into how well their ratings are for the season.


My understanding is a large portion of this loss we recouped by freezing the salary cap/avoiding another lockout.

The potential US tv deal is where the real concern is. Taking the season off was never an option. They could potentially loose 20 million a year per team for the next decade if they loose out on the big NBA/NFL money.


Just from personal experience the league is getting a ton of money out of me and my wife. Buying Jerseys/sweaters/decorations/Streaming services, and watching more commercials in 1 month than we have in a regular year(thanks ad block).

And make no mistake this is likely a permanent change in our spending habits. I'm already planning to get an Avs Jersey for Xmas(Newhooks), etc. Our Amazon subscription is up in august, and it seems likely we won't get another one. Politics/shitty sjws hijacking star wars/star trek/comic book movies etc has left a sour taste in my mouth. Not to mention my intense rage as Disney has got rights to the Alienverse/Orville/Firefly etc.