Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted October 17, 2003 A couple questions. Do you think the league will lockout next year? and if they do I've heard rumors that at least a couple teams would be contracted. If that turns out to be true, do you think it would a good thing for Hockey, or a bad thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted October 17, 2003 If the NHL locks out after this season, they die. So no, I don't think either side would be stupid enough to not hammer out an agreement before anything can happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
razazteca 0 Report post Posted October 17, 2003 I have a question for those in the know: Why did some Canadian teams move south? Is it because of the tax structure or the unwillingness of the cities to not pay for new stadiums? How profitable are the teams in the USA compared to Canada. Why are there hockey teams in Arizona, Florida, Nashville? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted October 17, 2003 Property taxes are killers so most teams moved to the States to stay competitive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted October 17, 2003 The canadian dollar killed off teams I think. They had to pay people in American dollars and they weren't getting the help they were looking for from the league/government. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted October 17, 2003 It's a combination of taxes and the difference in currencies. Players are paid in US funds, and the Canadian dollar is worth less than the US, so it costs Canadian teams more to pay their players. As it is right now, the only profitable Canadian team are the Leafs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest gthureson Report post Posted October 17, 2003 A few things: 1) Municipal and Provincial governments are far less willing to spend lots of money to build an arena they do not own. They may be willing to loan *some* money, or give *some* breaks, but they kind of arrangements you see in the US where the city/state spends $200 million to build a spanking new arena that they give/sweetheart deal to the team simply does not happen. This idea of 'city/state pride' that is tied up in attracting a sports team just isn't there. Despite Canada being referred to as Soviet Canuckistan and other socialist references, there is an opinion on the government level that business should be able to build their own arena if they want it. If they can't afford to build the thing, why should the city? 2) Property Taxes: Canadian cities don't give NHL teams a break on them. The Montreal Canadiens pay more in property taxes each year than all the US teams combined. And this is after Molson built the Molson/Bell/whatever Centre out of their own pocket. They injected probably around 300 -350 million all told into the city of Montreal building the thing, and couldn't get a dime less on property taxes than it was assessed for. 3) Canadian dollar. Prior to about 1990 or so (I think it may have 1992, when they had a really short strike), Canadian team signed guys to contracts in Canadian funds. Now the entire league works its contracts in US funds. Depending on the flucuation of the dollar, this can cripple some of the teams, as all their revenue comes in Canadian currency. A drop in the dollar can mean a serious shortfall in revenue. 4) Teams in trouble don't own their own arena. Namely Calgary and Edmonton. Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa all own their arena, and will be okay because of it. The Flames and Oilers don't, and sometimes have to fight tooth and nail to get shares of parking and concessions and the rest of the revenues that the other teams factor right in. *interesting sidenote* The Senators, despite bankruptcy, have been profitable for the last five or six years. Their albatross was much of the initial construction debt incurred on building the Palladium/Corel Centre and the highway off-ramp (Which they had to build for themselves), plus the failed real estate development around the arena. The team itself has made money the last few years. Thats the short of the financial troubles of some Canadian teams. As for the lockout? The NHL will survive. Bobby Hull's WHA could become a competitor in time, if its managed right, but not right out of the gates. The NHL could lose a bunch of players back to Europe or to this rival league, though, if it drags too long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the max 0 Report post Posted October 17, 2003 I'm betting on most of them going to Europe during the lockout. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted October 17, 2003 Personally, what really needs to be changed is to get Gary Bettman out of the commissioner spot and put some one else in, like a Bobby Hull, Wayne Greztky, Ken Dryden, Bobby Orr, or some kind of former NHLer that actually cares about the prestige about the sport and not totaly fuck over the sport like Bettman did. Also another side note and its well pointed, that Toronto Maple Leafs do not pay much for the taxes, because them, the raptors, and the Toronto Rock split on the taxes, making it easier for them to compete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
