I'm just saying this becasue with TV ratings so low that it appears that almost no one is watching at all and a horribly marketed league I think some investment group would do this in a few years. Myabe 5 maybe 7 maybe 10 I don't know but I think it will happen. I mean the current commishioner is an idiot.
2007-09-01 04:45:53 · 12 answers · asked by James 2 in Sports ➔ Hockey
NO. The same reason that there are no rival leagues to the NBA, MLB, or NFL.
There is only so much money to go around. The only thing the NHL is lacking, is a big bucks television contract in the US.
1. Merchandising sales in the US are higher than ever.
2. The recent deals signed with Gatorade, IBM, Anheuser-Busch and Nike are the biggest the league has ever had
3. Revenue in the league was at it's highest level ever in 2006-2007 (1.4% higher than 2000-01)
4. Canadian Television revenue is higher than ever.
5. CBC's playoff audiences were the highest yet past the 2nd round without the Leafs or Canadiens.
In order for another league to succeed you need...
1. Revenue
2. Players (and without revenue - how do you pay them)
It made me laugh everytime Bobby Hull said in 2003 that the new 'WHA' will be fan affordable and player salaries in line.
I mean, how can you say that when the very players people want to watch are begging for even money.
Bobby Hull: Yes, families will be able to watch our games
Broadcaster: How is that possible?
Bobby Hull: We will keep prices affordable, and player salaries in line?
Broadcaster: The NHL players are claiming they aren't paid enough and are locked out as a result. How will you tell Jaromir Jagr that he has to play for $2 million when he thinks $10 million is too low?
Bobby Hull: There are a lot of talented players in the world not in the NHL......
Delusions like that mean that there will be no rival league.
2007-09-02 05:29:38 · answer #1 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
VERY unlikely, every time a rival league did show up it was because the NHL was ignoring a market, in the old days all the NHL teams were in the east, so western leagues took up the slack, and as they lost players to the NHL they disappeared, when they returned the NHL chose to put teams out west, then when the WHA came along the NHL responded by adding more expansion teams. Right now there are 30 teams, the same number of teams as baseball, basketball and only 2 fewer than NFL football, there are really no other places to go, and not nearly enough players to stock the teams.
2007-09-01 15:13:01 · answer #2 · answered by Limestoner62 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look, TV ratings for NHL in the US have ALWAYS been low. They are not low in Canada at all so "no one is watching" is total BS.
Also, the NHL has ALWAYS been marketed poorly.
The WHA tried that back in the '70s and that was a pile of fun but times change. The only hope is if Russia forms a breakaway league as they seem reluctant to sign that transfer agreement with the NHL on players and do have the bucks now.
2007-09-01 11:34:13 · answer #3 · answered by fugutastic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that's been tried twice by the WHA and then the IHL. It doesn't really matter so much about the TV ratings if the seats are full. Why pay megabucks to players in a smaller market when teams like the Quebec Rempart and Manitoba Moose draw very well while spending very little on payroll? As a business proposition the Rempart are a lot better bet than a big-budget operation.
2007-09-01 05:27:30 · answer #4 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it. The NHL is succeeding despite it's leadership.
A rival league would have inferior players for several seasons and would end up being gimmicky to try and draw fans.
From a purely financial point of view - if the NHL the world's premiere hockey league, has lousy ratings (even when on ESPN), why would I want to invest in a second rate league hoping it will do better.
The better solution is to replace Bettman. An oversized plush Peter Puck would probably suffice until a suitable replacement could be found.
Don't worry Gary won't be unemployed long - he has the best name (Bettman) to go back to the NBA...
2007-09-01 04:58:09 · answer #5 · answered by James 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the answer is no. It is marketed badly, but the NHL is not a fledgling league. Its still got loads of money behind it for more maketing attempts and more possible tv contracts. Its not that the NHL doesn't know at all what they're doing, its more that hockey, despite beinmg a sometimes entertaining sport, just isn't that popular. Creating a smaller, less marketed league with absolutely no history and mostly second tier players with good players going downhill would not impress anyone.
2007-09-01 04:55:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just because our commissioner is very, very bad doesnt translate into a part of the NHL breaking away and forming a new republic (sorta like the civil war) Once Bettman is fired (O lord, please be sometime soon!) The NHL will be able to get back on its own two skates and hopefully rebuild to the position it once held
EDIT - I think Leafs_fan will be that investment group
2007-09-01 05:06:37 · answer #7 · answered by TBL 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I think the further down the road we go, the less likely it will be. People are turning to more and more variety and diversity. Hockey, in particular, has felt this . . . but I believe other leagues are losing fan-base as well. No hard numbers to back that up, but it seems to be happening as new and different sports (and other diversions) come along.
2007-09-01 04:52:23 · answer #8 · answered by The Corinthian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
accually i look for webcast of the european league's to start increasing and maybe some low end cable or sat. channels to show championship games. I find it funny over there they hijack our sat. signal to watch american broadcast sports and tv yet dont know anyone doing the same over here. I really dont see it getting hugely popular but sounds more reasonable then a new league starting up.
2007-09-01 08:32:55 · answer #9 · answered by Jay Argentina 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask Bobby Hull.
2007-09-01 05:05:51 · answer #10 · answered by The Caseman 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋