Wall Street Firm offers $3.5 Billion for NHL

[MDE3 0]

:D Unless of course the EEL becomes a part of a larger NHL ....one with a much reduced salary level......(I never tire....)

[Chadd 916]

There are not enough rich European clubs to take 60 to 300 players that will make $3 million+ per season.

My guess is that the league would lose a handful of those types of players TOTAL if it went to a $30 million per team budget/cap.

Europe isn't as desirable a landing spot as the NHLPA and their mouthpieces would have people believe.

Heck, even Spector is starting to figure out that the viability of a major European league has been overstated.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/3422330

As Theo pointed out, only top stars would be making $3M per year over here with a $30M cap. If it's a matter of making $1M here or $750K at home, it's not unreasonable to see many European players staying home. I don't believe we would see many NA players going over, but the number of european players coming here would certainly decrease and that will change how the game is played here.

I would like to see a real Euro club championship every year at the end of the season. If that is successful, a limited league of the top (existing) teams could be a possibility but well down the road. No way they make what NHL players USED to make, but if the NHL payroll drops low enough, you never know.

I don't see that many middle of the road NHLers get those kinds of paydays in Europe.

The revenue streams don't support salaries at that level outside of a handful of Russian clubs and maybe another handful of teams perhaps in leagues like Sweden.

Seriously, most European clubs pay players on par with what the AHL does. And guys in the AHL make around $150k at the top end.

I doubt too many European clubs will be forking over even $500k for middle of the road NHL guys.

That's also assuming the top players only get $3M. If they were to get $5M or so, that makes much less available to the non-stars in the reformed NHL. Many of the Euro clubs also provide housing, cars, drivers, nannies, etc... on top of salaries. Not to mention the possible loss of talent to the WHA. The amounts are debateable and both of our arguements are pointless as all of this is conjecture.

[Jim Bob 0]

That's also assuming the top players only get $3M. If they were to get $5M or so, that makes much less available to the non-stars in the reformed NHL. Many of the Euro clubs also provide housing, cars, drivers, nannies, etc... on top of salaries. Not to mention the possible loss of talent to the WHA. The amounts are debateable and both of our arguements are pointless as all of this is conjecture.

The WHA?

Please, the WHA is going to be a glorified redux of the IHL. It will compete more with the AHL for talent than the NHL.

And as far as Europe goes, you also have to figure in the factor that the top end earning potential is a lot less over there than it would be in the NHL.

Plenty of players would come over and take less in the short run and gamble that they'll break through to the top end of the pay scale and make more than they ever could in Europe.

The only guys that would end up in Europe would be a trickle of middle of the road guys that are being displaced for young guys coming up that will get paid less than they would to be role players.

That won't have a visible effect on the talent level in the league.

[Chadd 916]

If the NHL were to implement a cap at the level that was mentioned, other leagues would take advantage of the opportunity.

[Jim Bob 0]

I don't see any other league that has the revenue generating capacity to get anywhere near those numbers over the long term.

Any potential challenge would only last a few seasons like the USFL, the original WHA, and the ABA at best.

[mik3 1]

The thing is, if the cap was started, those wouldn't be the numbers. It's not like a cap is going to start and guys are going to ask for the same money. And at that point you'd see far fewer europeans coming over when they can play for the same money back at home.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Apperantly thre 3.5 was a starting point and the company is willing to go higher.

I can definately see a new league coming in and thriving off of a low cap. They would need to keep the league small and to the few places that can afford it. Come in with a WHA type league with NO cap, in big markets and steal the best players away with higher slaries for the better player. Keep the league small and only to the areas which can afford it. Before long it would be the only league around and it'd be a better league.

[Jim Bob 0]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=117038

The initial offer of $3.5 billion might be merely a starting point.......

Under the offer, the average franchise value would be $117 million US. The plan does include a formula to weigh compensation based upon revenue and assets of each team.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Theo- That was one of the crazy Idea's I had. The idea I posted, while blurry as hell, was basically a new 6 team league, which just steals the NHL's good players. The 2 tiered league is something I do believe in (the one you alluded to) and I think it'd make for some better more exciting hockey. They could have the top and bottom teams switch and everything just tier the league. I hate seeing teams like Carolina, Anahiem make runs for a single year because of a clutch and grab system which swings together for a summer. The playoffs are becoming a joke, or at least thats my take. It's not the best teams making it, its the teams that are able to bend the rules the most. Good teams are able to get through, and I like seeing new teams, but sometimes these things boggle my mind. The major flaw with the 2-tiered system is the drive. It'd be at the least a 2 year step to win the cup, and alot of fans might be lost because they aren't 'A' division teams.

Basically all I want is less teams. The game grew too fast, and its hurting any further growth.

[MDE3 0]

The real secret is to grow the game of hockey itself from the bottom up, creating more fans.....not create a top heavy cumbersome league which drags out the play for endless months, causing fans to fall away to other sports just when their hockey attention should be at it's peak..

Both ends of this spectrum are necessary of course. There has to be a pyramid with a prize at the top, to draw the kids and their "dreams of glory" into the game..a corny but very real element. However if too many teams are created "at the top" of this pyramid..in relation to the total number of players and fans, the value of this prize is greatly diminished, and causes confusion with the fans.

If on top of this the overall play of the game itself gets disinteresting, by extending too long into the season, or by playing the game in a dreary manner dictated by economics, and not the thrill of the game...the allure of the game itself is dulled, and draws fewer 'aspirants".

The thrill of the sport needs to be re-ignited, the game needs focus and excitement....doing all of this will require a huge change in the status quo of the pro game as we know it...the catharthis we are seeing, while painfull to watch for all of us...may be just what the sport truly needs in the long run.

[all-star 0]

forbes said the nhl is worth 4.9 billion. i doubt they'd sell it for 3.5

[kosydar 0]

I watched this show on FSN the other day called "Hockey's Greatest Era". Its about the Original Six. It definitely makes me want a smaller league more and more. The rivalries and competition in each game were simply amazing. It was like Wings vs. Avs or Leafs vs. Sens every day. I know it isn't feasible to have a 15-20 team league, but I think it'd save hockey.

[Chadd 916]

I watched this show on FSN the other day called "Hockey's Greatest Era". Its about the Original Six. It definitely makes me want a smaller league more and more. The rivalries and competition in each game were simply amazing. It was like Wings vs. Avs or Leafs vs. Sens every day. I know it isn't feasible to have a 15-20 team league, but I think it'd save hockey.

Reducing the number of teams will not increase the number of fans. Every year the ratings show that hockey fans tend to be fans of their team and not of the sport in general. Once their team is eliminated from the playoffs, they stop watching. You will not be able to grow the game by making it less available. We all agree hockey is better live than on TV, reducing the number of teams will reduce the number of people who can go to games. It will also increase ticket costs, the other biggest hurdle to most people who want to go see games.

A lot of people want to go back to the "good old days" but they have to recognize that going backwards is usually not an option, let alone the best option.

[kosydar 0]

The thing that is appealing to me about a smaller league is that the overall quality of play would be much higher. There are some 700 players in the NHL right now, but if you reduce that number by 200 or 300, then the level of competition rises drastically. Plus, with fewer teams to play, there will be more rivalries and better games. I agree that this won't increase the number of fans, but frankly I've given up on that. The only way I see the league getting more popular is by improving the game itself.

[Chadd 916]

Unfortunately the media would focus on it being the first major sport in North America to undergo a dramatic downsizing and would never be treated as anything close to a major sport again. Nobody would ever see the games on a national basis.

[MDE3 0]

This offer is not going away. They have upped the ante.....said $3.5 B. was just a starting point.....

The following diatribe is not based on anything more than a "what if" conjecture, so I am not spouting anything based on inside "facts" here, just some thoughts about how or why this might not be too bad a deal, if structured in a certain way.

Imagine for a moment if the deal was structured with a combination of cash and shares for the franchises. Some clubs might want to opt out right away and take a cash deal, while others might retain their value in the new league as share holders, where they recieved a pro-rated share value for their club instead of cash.

This would retain the current owners who wish to remain, with a vested interest, not only in their own club, but in the success of the whole league. If the shares evaluate ..the clubs become worth more.

Share options could be established where a given owner could opt to buy more shares based on his "profit" peformance..ie The original value of the league was established and then 100,000,000 shares created. Different clubs recieve a different number of shares based on their asset and market share currently..ie based on their pro rated value within the toal purchase. So of the original share issuance, let's assume 750,000 were divided among the owners, and 250,000 shares remain as common stock "options" held collectively by the league.

If the owners feel that their club is increasing in value, independant of the league, ie generating a significantly greater cash flow than other clubs, the owner could opt to buy up more of this common stock...up to say 5000 shares. Thus gambling that the direction that the league as a whole is improving and thus the share values. Voting weight would be assigned to shares, where a fixed voting bloc of say 15,000 shares belonged to every club (assuming 30 remained), and then those remaining shares would be assigned on a pro rated value basis....

League decisions could be based on voting share weight. The decisions would not necessarily be made to favor one club over another, but to make the best decision for the league which would raise stock values. Getting rid of clubs might have a negative efect in some cases, or in others a positive effect. However nobody would truly make a gain, unless the league as a whole contiued to flourish, and then become more profitable.

Players could have limited stock options too as part of their package.....This would help influence their decisions as being "best for the sport" not necessarily best for themselves in a short term deal. They might make more money as a shareholder if things go well than as a salaried employee.

How would the "new owners" profit?..They would recieve a share block for structuring the deal. By not doing this as a pure "cash buyout" lot's of positive options might emerge.

Just some things to ponder here.