52 replies to this topic

[mxm262]

Everyone in the area is such a die hard Leaf fan. I highly doubt the fans that they claim can't go to Leaf games because of the demand for tickets is going to just all of a sudden stop being a fan of the team and switch to a new team.

Oh, the irony

[Aitchmack]

You clearly don't follow European sports.

Ha, I know what you mean. I live in the UK & am also a soccer fan. My soccer team was even owned by Bernie Ecclestone & Flavio Briatore of F1. Probably the only two people to make a profit out of running and selling a team! I think all sports investors go in with the intention of turning a profit but very few ever manage to achieve it.

A new franchise in Toronto would have no problem attracting die hard Maple leaf fans imo. Mainly youngters that can't get Leaf tickets that'll do it so they can stick it to their dad & brothers when their team beats the Leafs. Just plain old human nature.

[njdevsftw]

I live in the UK & am also a soccer fan. -- I think all sports investors go in with the intention of turning a profit

Dude, seriously.. You think Abramovich bought Chelsea to make money??! ..?! How bout Sheikh Mansour in Man City?!? Granted these are the most grotesque examples, but you see the same thing in varying degrees in all the major soccer leagues in europe. Manchester City spent £314,900,000 (roughly $515,500,000) purchasing players the last 4 (!) years. That's roughly the same as Man United have spent over the last 25 years.. It's simply not possible to justify that kind of spending from a business perspective, even if you have an elaborate 300 year long business plan.

No sir. European sports, all though I guess soccer (and russian hockey) sticks out as the worst examples, is a playground for the richest men in the world. Many of these guys are clearly not looking to make money, but to have fun playing "Football Manager" with real life teams.

You do realize Samuel Eto'o makes around $29M a year playing soccer in a sh!tty ass russian club noone had even heard of two years ago? Yes, that's roughly the same as the combined salaries of Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin.

Edited by njdevsftw, 28 February 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[Aitchmack]

Dude, seriously.. You think Abramovich bought Chelsea to make money??! ..?! How bout Sheikh Mansour in Man City?!? Granted these are the most grotesque examples, but you see the same thing in varying degrees in all the major soccer leagues in europe.

You're right about that. It never ceases to amaze me how mega successful businessmen lose all sanity once they've bought a team in their chosen sport.


You do realize Samuel Eto'o makes around $29M a year playing soccer in a sh!tty ass russian club noone had even heard of two years ago? Yes, that's roughly the same as the combined salaries of Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin.

Yes, I know. The obscene amounts of money has pretty much ruined football in the UK in my opinion (I know I'm in the minority on that one) and is a big factor in why I've all but given up being interested in it and switched to watching hockey.

[DaneykoIsGod]

In addition, one problem with the salary cap that needs addressing is the fact that teams would be actively against a 2nd Toronto team because of the revenue it would generate.

I'm not sure how exactly it works in the NHL, but wouldn't revenue sharing make a revenue monster market like Toronto v2.0 a good thing for other teams?

[njdevil26]

Oh, the irony

Care to expand on your really informative post?

[lucifer91]

I'm not sure how exactly it works in the NHL, but wouldn't revenue sharing make a revenue monster market like Toronto v2.0 a good thing for other teams?

Not if they are a cap floor team

[DaneykoIsGod]

Not if they are a cap floor team

But wouldn't the added money from revenue sharing help a cap floor team reach the cap floor?

It might be a moot point because I'm pretty ignorant to revenue sharing numbers and whether they really add up to anything substantial at all. The way the press plays it out, you'd think revenue sharing from the Yankees alone practically keep several small market MLB franchises afloat. While the NHL doesn't have anything that comes remotely close to what the Yanks pull in, I'd imagine that (if the NHL's revenue sharing setup is anything consequential at all) a second Toronto team would be financially beneficial to small market teams.

[Devils731]

Adding a high revenue team would increase the cap ceiling and floor more than revenue sharing would distribute.

[mxm262]

Care to expand on your really informative post?

relax dude

You don’t see the irony in talking about the difficulty for people to switch to second team in large market with an original 6 team and generations of loyalty behind it?

[DaneykoIsGod]

Adding a high revenue team would increase the cap ceiling and floor more than revenue sharing would distribute.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks.

[Exit56]

relax dude

You don’t see the irony in talking about the difficulty for people to switch to second team in large market with an original 6 team and generations of loyalty behind it?

I didn't think it needed further explanation either, fwiw

[Chuck the Duck]

Without the Islanders getting a new building in the next few years, they're out of the NY market (I just don't see them moving to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, where the capacity for hockey is a little over 15,000). If that happens, then I think the NHL would do everything in their power to keep the Devils here in order to continue to rake in the big TV contract and sponsorship money from having a 2nd team in the NY market.

Based upon the current status of the Devils lease at the Rock, and the TV contract with MSG, as others have already said, it would be prohibitively expensive to move the team in the foreseeable future for any new owner. The team would have to go into bankruptcy, and have it purchased and moved out of that procedure before it could conceivably happen.