We'll see; that graph over at Mirtle's site showing each team's 2007-2008 revenues show that outside the big 3 (Toronto, Montréal & NYR), there is a large array of teams in the 85-100 millions bracket, and then the rest tailing off toward the 55 millions last place Coyotes. That was last year, this year things went down and may go down even more next year.

I read somewhere, once (about baseball...) that putting two teams instead of one in an oversized market cuts into the initial team's revenues but actually increases the total revenues from that area.

Now, I'll go on an absolute, absolute limb here, hopefully I'm not being a total fool: let's say the RIMyotes brings the GTA revenues 25% up (overly optimistic, I know), and let's say everyone outside the top 3 actually see their revenues go down next year (#4 on that list is Detroit...)... Then you have an even heavier top, slowing down the cap and floor fall. The next 25 guysare holding the balance of power and a dip in salary obligations is certainly welcome to a lot of them. I won't even talk about the bottom 10.

Mirtle talks about a league where 20 out of 30 teams breaking even or worse. The revenues are down, the cap going down is very, very important for these 20 teams. What is best for these guys? Having the top 10 (and really, a lot may be actually from the top 3-5) subsidize a bottom 3 who in return hold back the cap, or have the relative weight of the top ten increase by replacing a bottom 3 by a top 10 team, thus slowing down the cap's fall?

I think Bettman is safe for now.
 

From the point of view of the vast majority of owners, I think it serves them well financially if Phoenix is somehow able to stay where they are and become viable with the help of the fairly limited revenue sharing in the NHL (which has decreased every year of the new CBA, if I understand it properly).

I mean if I'm an owner in St. Louis, keeping the value of a franchise high is a top priority, as it affects my line of credit directly, whether I'm using that money to operate the Blues or elsewhere. But whether Balsillie is successful this time or not, he manages to accomplish this annually (I'm not in the heads of the STL Blues creditors, but I think this would be the case).

And having the Coyotes move to Hamilton helps me little. I probably get next to nothing in revenue sharing anyways, and a healthy Ontario team, even after the it cannibalizes some of the BUF and TOR markets ... how does that help me?

I mean if "The NHL" were a person, it would most definitely benefit him. But for most of the owners as individuals ... not so much.

As imaginary Blues owner, what I would love to see is expansion into the Ontario market. That way I get a big chunk of cash, and the CBA, inexplicably, doesn't allow the players a dime of that money. So I'd be wanting Gary to get that sorted before CBA renegotiation.

In fact, if I'm the STL owner, I'd be seeing this PHX situation as an opportunity. If the NHL can somehow find a way to keep the team in PHX, even partially subsidized, and negotiate an expansion team for Balsillie in Ontario at the same time.

(Gary sez: He's got us by the balls in Phoenix, Mr TOR and Mr BUF, a new team is going to be in southern Ontario. Either next season by relocation of PHX, without compensation to yourselves, or the season after that with some compensation to yourselves.)That's my dream scenario as imaginary Blues owner. What would be yours?
 

...I think it serves them well financially if Phoenix is somehow able to stay where they are and become viable with the help of the fairly limited revenue sharing in the NHL...Somehow! No shit.

I think the more relevant issue (at least regarding what I was trying to address with this post) is, if I'm the STL owner, I have my own challenges, and at some point, I look at the amount of resources devoted to propping up (helping, whatever) persistently unprofitable franchises and say,

Enough. This can't go on. Revenue sharing shouldn't be to prop up franchises that have apparently no hope of succeeding otherwise.

To go back to Bastiat (as I like to do every so often), what is the Unseen here? If the Leafs' "extra" revenue wasn't devoted to the survival of several franchises, what would it be buying? And are we sure that, on balance, that wouldn't be a better use of it?
 

If the revenue sharing cash directed to PHX per year (lets say it's $15M a year for 5 years, over and above the leagues existing and diminishing revenue sharing scheme) after an arrangement with Reinsdorf, Moyes' creditors and the city of Glendale. Then my cut is, at most, $500k per year. It would burn my ass to send that cheque to the desert every year, but what is the alternative?

If the team in HAM brings in $120M per year in HRR and costs BUF and TOR $30M per year (wild guesstimates) ... well the effect on league HRR, and the payroll I need to maintain the same level of team ... mental arithmetic says I'm over that $500k already.

PLUS the cash cow I've been dreaming about (expansion in Ontario), well it dies in the pasture.

Everything has to be taken in the context of the NHL as a monopoly. And the only people who have a vested interest in looking out for "the NHL" is the NHLPA, and they managed to get no power whatsoever in the new CBA, despite their concessions, the 'partnership' exists only in the rhetoric.

Bettman has to do what is best for the majority of the 30 owners, that's all. I don't think he's doing God's work, not by any stretch.
 

As imaginary Blues owner, what I would love to see is expansion into the Ontario market. That way I get a big chunk of cash, and the CBA, inexplicably, doesn't allow the players a dime of that money. So I'd be wanting Gary to get that sorted before CBA renegotiation.

In fact, if I'm the STL owner, I'd be seeing this PHX situation as an opportunity. If the NHL can somehow find a way to keep the team in PHX, even partially subsidized, and negotiate an expansion team for Balsillie in Ontario at the same time.Yeah, this is what I think the endgame Balsillie is shooting for is. This is a fun piece of litigation to watch - Balsillie is, to my eye, trying to build risk to the NHL in the hopes of forcing them into a favourable settlement: a new team in Southern Ontario, at a price he's willing to pay. To date, he's been unable to really put the issue squarely before the courts, as he hasn't owned a team. The fact of a bankruptcy, which wasn't present in the Pittsburgh and Nashville situations, changes everything, because it pulls the decision making process from the owners and puts it into the hands of a third party who will consider other factors.

Daly's rhetoric, the considered legal opinion of the internets and Colby's fine column the other day notwithstanding, I'm not so sure that this is a complete slam dunk for the NHL. Colby didn't reference the Raiders litigation, which went the other way on a territoriality provision similar to that at issue here. I haven't examined the issue in great detail but I don't think that the NHL has an open and shut case here that they can exercise absolute control over where franchises move.

If it's not open and shut, and there's a risk that they could lose, you instantly have some owners who should be looking hard at cutting a deal. A loss here and you might see a race amongst owners to move another team into downtown Toronto - screw Hamilton and Vaughan. The Leafs don't want that. Personally, I'm convinced that a team in Vaughan or Hamilton wouldn't hurt their ticket prices that much; the Leafs are an institution and Vaughan's a long way from Bay while the Hammer is further. They have a really compelling interest in controlling the process and not having things turn into a free for all.

Similarly, as Vic points out, it's better for the owners if they get the price of the market in Southern Ontario rather than some poor unsecured creditor in Arizona. If I'm another owner in the NHL, how much of an appetite do I have to take any risk to preserve Toronto and Buffalo's market rights, when a loss means that millions of dollars that would otherwise be in my pocket, aren't.

My bet is that this gets settled, the creditors get as little as possible and Balsillie is going to have a team in Southern Ontario.

If the team in HAM brings in $120M per year in HRR and costs BUF and TOR $30M per year (wild guesstimates) ... well the effect on league HRR, and the payroll I need to maintain the same level of team ... mental arithmetic says I'm over that $500k already.Expansion never really made much sense to me to begin with, because you had these new teams eating into centrally generated revenues while contributing little other than a one type payment. A lot of these guys are, IMO, short term thinkers. The additional salary is something that they might have to do, or they can be more efficient and avoid it. The $500K is a cheque that has to be written.

I've got a pretty good hunch that Balsillie is going to get his team.
 

I snicker whenever Bettman or owners talk about their objections being about Balsillie respecting the "process."

It's really just greed. In the Globe the other day an owner seemed to be more mad that Balsillie just didn't wait a bit longer and get an expansion franchise and cut the other owners a cheque.

Likewise, the Leafs were reportedly going to ask Balsillie to pay a $800 million territorial rights fee, which is basically the cost of about 4-5 crappy Southern market teams just for the right to play in Vaughan. Shameless.