[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

A few comments on your response here:

First of all, this is an internet discussion forum. If we all just defered to people 'in the know' there wouldn't be much to discuss. If we all just believed the press conferences and interviews, there wouldn't be anything to talk about. It would be: Feaster said this is his final cut and it is the best solution for the team. Ok, well he would know. End thread. Bettman says this TV is the absolute best he could get and is a major step for the league. Ok, well he would know. End thread. Discussion, has to come from what we as observers are able to observe and research. Do I work for the NHL? No, but am I (and many of the others who feel similarly) doing the best with what I see, experience, and read about? Sure am.

Secondly, you can't take everything you hear in life at face value anyway. We all know that. If we did, we'd believe every politician, get suckered by every commercial, and fall to every business' said press release. Simply because someone closer to the situation says something is true, or their viewpoint is correct, doesn't make it so. In fact often it's the opposite as they are trying to save whatever interest they have in the situation, be it a job, a reputation, or even just an opinion. We all learn from an early age to sense when things are a little off, and we all need to learn to read between the lines.

Lastly, I didn't mean any different opinions aren't correct or valid, in fact many times I softened my arguments by saying the situation could appear worse than it actually is. However, I was only replying to your challenge to give reasons on why the league may not be the healthiest it's ever been (a phrase you used) and why I felt there might be bigger issues bubbling below the surface that might be linked to how the league has been managed. Now I believe I did the first. The second is more of an opinion that one can choose to adopt or not based on the arguments everyone has contributed for or against in this thread.

Now how could you do it better? Well, that's the million dollar question isn't it? But see that's why I don't have the fancy degrees and am not getting paid the millions of dollars. It's not my job. But it doesn't mean I can't understand enough to add something to the discussion or have a valid opinion. Even if that opinion is that the people in charge aren't doing a good job. We've all come across people who have been trained or hired to do something we never have, or couldn't do, that have royally fataed it up. If my surgeon caused me to bleed internally while performing a routine surgery and it caused me problems I would have every valid right to tell him he screwed up.

You also compared the NHL to the NBA and MLB. (Basically the other leagues beside the NFL) Well, NBA is going through their lockout right now, so that's a strike against them. I will be honest and say I don't really know enough about MLB to argue for them being in a better or worse position, or being managed in a better or worse way. However, I'm not sure either are looking at 30% of their teams being in trouble.

To be fair, the NHL has a bigger problem than the other two leagues. They aren't as popular as the other leagues and are operating from a worse position. At least when it comes to additional revenues like those earned from TV. So in a way, managing this league would be harder. But does that mean we shouldn't ask for a certain level of success? Does that mean they get a free pass when it comes to making mistakes? Does that mean we shouldn't, as paying fans, shouldn't be disappointed or scared when we continue to hear about franchises in trouble? Does that mean we're not allowed to shake our heads when locales we knew would never work simply aren't working and are weakening the league?

As I said, I think I passed the first challenge. The second, is of course an opinion one can choose to take or not, nothing more. And while I do take it, I don't discount or feel strongly against those who don't. Both are valid. And probably neither can be known right now (if ever). If you do want me to clarify where I felt the mistakes were made to further strengthen that opinion, I'll be glad to do so but it will take me some time to get my dates and numbers accurate. But as I said, I don't think one can look at the situation we have now and say there weren't mistakes or other course of action would probably have worked better.

I don't know how to multiquote, and that's quite essay there so forgive me if I wind up jumping around.

As to your first point, I didn't say you have to accept press releases or the statements of management as gospel. As to the TV deal I referred to an industry report that considered an extremely good deal for the NHL (I'm trying to find the link, I believe I posted it before. It was from a media industry analyst basically saying that the deal was at the top end of what the NHL could have hoped to have gotten. I found a couple of more opinion based articles saying as much, but this was more of an analysis than an opinion. I'll try to dig it up.)

I think we're on the same page with your second and third points. I don't think that there's no room for questioning, but I will defer to an educated opinion based on a complete body of information over a 'they should have done x instead' opinion based on virtually nothing. If a rationale is provided, and actual arguments are put forth, there's plenty of room for discussion around a number of issues. We may still be speculating on much of the information, but at least there's some attempt to operate in reality. I have no time for the 'Bettman sucks' style of criticism that we see all the time hear from certain posters that lacks anything even remotely resembling a solid argument.When it comes to critiquing a decision where a, b, and c all have plausible arguments backing them and the people with complete information pick a I'm not going to sit here and say they made a stupid choice. If I can make an argument with half information why would a decision made with full information not be legitimate? I hope that clarifies what I meant with the whole deferring comment.

As for the rest, I think your characterization of 8 teams in trouble is inflated. Dallas isn't in trouble, Hicks is. St. Louis is a similar situation. Considering the economic climate in the US it's no surprise that businesses relying upon the spending of discretionary income are living with tight margins. this isn't limited to sports teams, this is an economy wide issue, there's no reason to think that the NHL would be exempt from the issue. There's also the factor that in some markets the NHL is essentially still in a stage of investment. Franchises in non-traditional markets should not be judged strictly upon their current financial statements as there is a need to utilize long term strategies for growth and development of market share and revenues, it's not about immediate gratification. Actually no sports franchises should be judged upon their financial statements, or approximations thereof, these are entities that are typically part of a much larger structure that sees owners benefit through related companies. If you ever get to see the organizational tree for a professional sports team you'll likely be surprised at the number of different entities and the maze of relationships between them. Now some moves are obviously going to work, and some are obviously going to fail, an expectation of perfection would be unreasonable. Atlanta was clearly a failure. Phoenix I'm not so sure, the market itself has potential but I don't know that it can overcome the mess that it has become. Dallas has been a massive success, Nashville appears to be building a solid base, San Jose is a success to the point that it's easy to forget it's part of the whole sun belt expansion.

You also hit on an important point in that the NHL faces a more difficult job, it is the only league that's pushing into places where it really had no traditional presence. Every other major sport has the benefit of being relatively known in virtually every major market, there are very few large large markets where an NBA team wouldn't survive given the proper building etc. The same can't be said for the NHL, so many major markets have no familiarity with the game and no local base into which the NHL can tap. From day one the NHL has been fighting an uphill battle in many markets. The argument that the NHL should simply leave these markets for places where the game is established misses out on the concept of growing your market share. Appealing exclusively to existing fans is all well and good when the goal is to maintain your current position in the marketplace, it's completely incompatible with the goal of growth. If the NHL chose to stand pat in it's traditional markets it would find itself as a dying league in the near future. Not only are other leagues making efforts to grow, but the demographics of the US are changing. A focus on the northeast leaves you in an area of the country that has been relatively stagnant, or in some areas shrinking, in terms of population. People are moving into southern markets, and while not all of them are going to become hockey markets a presence in the area is important to the longterm health of the league.

I guess my overall point is that people take a far too narrow view when looking at the decisions made by most businesses, especially when they have an emotional investment like a lot of sports fans do.