Rumor Owners meeting today to approve expansion to 34 teams

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

I wonder with Bell now divested in MLSE if Toronto is an enticing expansion opportunity for them?

[Canada 02]

4 billion reason's why they will do this plus another 5 billion shortly after

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Nothing is widely successful for the league compared to the other three big NA sports. Now he wants to expand back into a market that has failed twice. Meanwhile he ignores a Canadian market with an NHL ready building because it is in Canada. We just saw one of the largest US tv markets lose their franchise to Utah of all places. How anyone can think the NHL has been wildly successful in the second half of Bettman's tenure is unfathomable to me.

Again, how are you measuring success? From a business point of view the NHL has been very successful under his watch.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

I wonder with Bell now divested in MLSE if Toronto is an enticing expansion opportunity for them?

Now that would make entirely too much sense.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again, how are you measuring success? From a business point of view the NHL has been very successful under his watch.

Compared to what? All other of the 3 major Sports leagues in North America make billions more in revenue, even MLB with attendance down. Even the Premiere league in soccer brings in significantly more money than the NHL. Then you have the failure of two very large markets in Atlanta and Arizona failing as well. Now explain to me how the NHL has been very successful under his watch.

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Watered down product gets more Water.

I hear this sentiment a lot but I don't necessarily agree with it.

More people are playing hockey than ever before and the game is more entertaining than it has been in past 30 years.

Just my opinion.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Compared to what? All other of the 3 major Sports leagues in North America make billions more in revenue, even MLB with attendance down. Even the Premiere league in soccer brings in significantly more money than the NHL. Then you have the failure of two very large markets in Atlanta and Arizona failing as well. Now explain to me how the NHL has been very successful under his watch.

I don't think those are fair comparisons. Those leagues have always been larger and will always be larger.
I would look at revenue growth, franchise value growth, and other metrics that are about the health of the business and the revenue being generated.

The NBA has had several franchises move as well. 6 since the year 2000. The NHL has had 2.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Now that would make entirely too much sense.

BCE's dividend is 140% of their cash flow. Their debt is colossal and two rating agencies just downgraded it.

They're not buying anything.

[TheIronMaiden]

Some silver lining to two expansion teams is that it would drive the cap up so high that Huberdeau's contract would feel modest.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Again, how are you measuring success? From a business point of view the NHL has been very successful under his watch.

Bettman and his rules etc sucks. I think he is influenced by the old guard a lot, guys like Lou who have a very outdated view of the game and world.

We also don't have the Flames without Bettman. Edmonton doesn't have the Oilers, Ottawa doesn't have the Senators, Winnipeg doesn't have the Jets.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Here is a chart that shows average franchise value since 2000

Pretty stunning growth during the Bettman era

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...U.S.%20dollars.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Bettman and his rules etc sucks. I think he is influenced by the old guard a lot, guys like Lou who have a very outdated view of the game and world.

What rules? And it what way is a guy like Lou influencing the broader game?

I find these opinions to be tied up in cliches and lack information or specifics.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What rules? And it what way is a guy like Lou influencing the broader game?

I find these opinions to be tied up in cliches and lack information or specifics.

Rules might be the wrong word.

Things like the playoff format, and playing way too many games in division prior to the change. The TV stuff comes to mind, some of that isn't his fault because coming out of the lockout the NHL on US TV was worthless.

He isn't in tune with the digital world like a Adam Silver of the NBA.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Some silver lining to two expansion teams is that it would drive the cap up so high that Huberdeau's contract would feel modest.

Has the growth in cap (per team) been higher in years when expansion teams have been added?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Shazam

BCE's dividend is 140% of their cash flow. Their debt is colossal and two rating agencies just downgraded it.

They're not buying anything.

BCE sold their stake of MLSE, Rogers has the control of pretty much everything sports in Toronto. The could easily afford an expansion franchise in Toronto.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Here is a chart that shows average franchise value since 2000

Pretty stunning growth during the Bettman era

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...U.S.%20dollars.

That is the only pro argument for Bettman and it isn't even a great one. This Athletic article sums it up well

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/413...shared-article

Bettman’s tenure defended with two simple words: record revenues. Today’s NHL is making far more money than ever before, the argument goes, and maybe more than they ever dreamed possible back in 1993.



That’s certainly true. But do you know what other sports have achieved record revenues over the last 30 years? Virtually all of them. Between soaring TV deals, publicly funded buildings packed with luxury boxes, an explosion in corporate sponsorship and any number of brand-new revenue streams, the last three decades have seen money pour into the world of sports at rates that border on the obscene. It’s not an exaggeration to say it would have been literally impossible for the NHL not to have achieved “record revenues” in this environment. If your goal is to defend the commissioner, just pointing at the bottom line and declaring case closed isn’t good enough.

[Ped]

I don't particularly like Bettman, but he's basically the spokesperson for the owners. Whatever you want to blame him for, it's what the owners basically wanted.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

That is the only pro argument for Bettman and it isn't even a great one. This Athletic article sums it up well

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/413...shared-article

I presented actual information. What information do you have to support the premise that he has done a poor job?

[Locke]

I dunno, I think Bettman's done a pretty spectacular job during his time and the owners should be pleased with him, their Franchise values have sky-rocketed under his watch.

Love him or hate him, he's done his job well.

"Grow the game and revenues." I think he's done that.

The only thing I dont understand is Arizona. I think there is something within that scenario that we don't know because the pieces of that fiasco dont really add up.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

BCE sold their stake of MLSE, Rogers has the control of pretty much everything sports in Toronto. The could easily afford an expansion franchise in Toronto.

I mean, a Toronto franchise would print money and there would be no shortage of bidders willing to pony up for the rights to it.

But I doubt Bell is on that list - they really needed the money from the MLSE sale. They're very financially stressed, they've been borrowing to fund their dividend for years and they're the worst positioned telecom for the future (biggest percentage of legacy/declining type assets)