OT: 2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part X: Is There Any Hope? Edition

[Chaels Arms]

I am sure you are not alone holding this opinion. I can gladly align to it as well. But this is what he said... he was quite candid and not happy about it either. Hint - he is in top management on an original 6 NHL team that makes money.

And everything he told you was blatantly obvious to anyone who has been following this situation to any degree through the media.

 

[DutchShamrock]

I disagree. They didn't "concede" anything - there is no CBA and whatever came before doesn't exist.

I do agree that the primary issue here has to be contracts and free agency.

wrong. They conceded based on the last cba which is how every single negotiation in the country is viewed. Can we get past petty definitions yet and just acknowledge that the players have surrendered no small amount? The league can figure out if its enough to re open business or not. Both sides can compromise on their last respective offers or hang tight.

 

[GoAwayGiannone]

I hope you're right, RB. I trust you more than anyone I know on this stuff, you're usually spot on with it.

I hope a deal is done soon. It would be a great late christmas gift.

The truly disappointing thing is that it shouldn't have to be a Christmas gift at all

 

[Oak]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Jack+Todd+Ugly+Canadians+show+again/7738933/story.html

"At this point, we’re hoping for a shutdown. Blow it up and start over, without a half-dozen dead-weight teams and the man Larry Brooks calls the Canceler-in-Chief, because if Bettman announces the cancellation of a second full season, he should announce his own resignation at the same time.

If the deal you killed a season to get was so bad that you had to kill another entire season to get a different deal, then I’m sorry, but you’re an idiot. If the owners have a shred of intestinal fortitude, they’ll tell Bettman not to let the door hit him on the way out."

I like this idea. Blow the damn league up. The welfare case teams need to move to Canada or fold.

 

[NYRFAN218]

adater ‏@adater
As of tonight Bill Daly tells me: still nothing scheduled re: any new formal CBA talks. Merry Xmas

https://twitter.com/adater/status/283759433698402305

 

[gary laser eyes]

Here's to hoping the players spent a lot over Christmas and are really in need of some fresh income lol.

 

[broadwayblue]

Yeah, merry freaking christmas indeed. Start the countdown timer...10 days until the season is toast.

 

[BBKers]

And everything he told you was blatantly obvious to anyone who has been following this situation to any degree through the media.

Oh really? Almost 10.000 posts here on The Rangers Board so far alone. Does not seem that obvious for all...

 

[haohmaru]

wrong. They conceded based on the last cba which is how every single negotiation in the country is viewed.

What? Why? Because you say so? The last CBA might be a point of reference from which to start negotiations, but the players aren't "conceding" anything because there isn't anything to concede. There's no agreement. That's just a fact.

 

[True Blue]

That's the point. All the people coming to post here that they are done with hockey will be the first ones back. They are the most emotional ones, but that's because they are the most emotionally-invested ones. It's the same way that you never break up just because you got into a fight with your long-time girlfriend. She can tell you, "I hate you, I am breaking up with you" but you know it's not real. But the new girl who doesn't care and doesn't pick up the phone because she's out with someone else, that girl is the one who's really gone.

Same here. Those people who scream the loudest that they don't like hockey anymore will be the first ones to have "makeup sex" with the league the second the CBA is negotiated. But all the new fans, all those who were watching hockey casually, they are gone. They won't sign the "I hate the NHL petition", they simply don't care.

In the end, what hurts the NHL is loss of revenue. I agree that they damage that they have already inflicted has put a damper on the 3 years of record revenue. I also agree that what casual fans that they made are now mostly lost. The other issue that the NHL is going to face is from the hardcore fan that are not "done", but will just refuse to spend any more money. They will continue to root from the comfort of their couch. IN the end, that WILL hurt the league even more.

Off course, they is all secondary to the fact that these are uncharted waters. There is simply no way to measure the effect of canceling 2 out of 8 years. My gut tells me that this is not a thing that a professional league wants to test out. Right now, it seems that whatever advice the NHL is getting is telling them opposite.

 

[True Blue]

I like this idea. Blow the damn league up. The welfare case teams need to move to Canada or fold.

Not quite so cut and dry. There is no president for this. 2 out of 8 years canceled? I would think that most of Bettman's southern expansion teams do not come back. And again, if this season is canceled, there will be no hurry for Fehr to start next year on time. Off course this is chicken and egg. IMO, if this year is canceled AND you loose a portion of the following year, you might as well kiss the NHL as we know it good bye.

This also does not speak to what happens to local economies. If the state of Florida suddenly has 2 hockey teams that are folding, for instance.

That is the one factor that is forgotten about. Yes, the players are loosing money. But the owners are watching their $200m investments shrink towards zero, while continuing to pay fixed costs. No billionaire wants that or will be able to stomach it for long.

This is all silly. And frankly that the NHL is willing to take a chance of navigating uncharted waters of a second cancellation of an entire season, seems so out of touch with reality..........When are these people going to wake up and find out that NO ONE is talking about them?

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

It's amazing no one on any sports show is talking about the lockout (they did for the NBA, MLB during the work stoppage, NFL refs etc). Owners and players need to realize that hockey is just not big here in the states and if they want talk stations to care even less, then lose another season, and see how bad the sport becomes.

 

[Beacon]

It's amazing no one on any sports show is talking about the lockout (they did for the NBA, MLB during the work stoppage, NFL refs etc). Owners and players need to realize that hockey is just not big here in the states and if they want talk stations to care even less, then lose another season, and see how bad the sport becomes.

Their goal, like that of any business or employee, is to make a profit, not to grow the industry. Does a car salesman think, "if I dont treat this customer right and give him a great deal, that will harm yhe industry"? Of course not.

Owners dont care if they make a profit by growing hockey or by reducing salaries.

All the talk here about the league shutting down is emotional cry-baby whining. When a season is reduced to half the games, the attendance per game skyrockets because casual ticket buyers attend the same number of games but are bunched into fewer games played. That was true in 1995. The league experienced unprecedented growth from 1991 to 2005 despite two lockouts and a strike.

Anyone who says the league will shut down has no idea what he is talking about and just goes on his own emotions.

 

[turcotte8]

Their goal, like that of any business or employee, is to make a profit, not to grow the industry.

They would make more money if tried to grow the industry and make it more popular. More popularity equals more profits for them.

 

[Beacon]

They would make more money if tried to grow the industry and make it more popular. More popularity equals more profits for them.

Not necessarily. Cutting expenses can potentially be more effective than growing the industry.

$200 - $100=$100

$180 - $70 = $110

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They would make more money if tried to grow the industry and make it more popular. More popularity equals more profits for them.

That's simply false. More popularity equals more revenues, in the NHL's case it's been for the big market teams. The smaller market teams are left with a mess, which is why we are in this position today.

The thought that you can plant hockey anywhere and the game will organically grow is so inheritantly flawed that the NHL will never be healthy until its led by a commissioner who doesn't possess delusions of grandeur

 

[turcotte8]

That's simply false. More popularity equals more revenues, in the NHL's case it's been for the big market teams. The smaller market teams are left with a mess, which is why we are in this position today.

The thought that you can plant hockey anywhere and the game will organically grow is so inheritantly flawed that the NHL will never be healthy until its led by a commissioner who doesn't possess delusions of grandeur

I understand the league has too many teams in place that won't work and I'm all for contraction and/or franchises moving.

The point I was making was that owners should be trying to make the game more popular (which would include relocating/contraction) and as a result of that they would be making more money because the league would be healthier.

They seem to think that cutting costs is the answer and instead of trying to fix the league they are worrying too much about player costs when that isn't the solution to the problem just a temporary band aid.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I understand the league has too many teams in place that won't work and I'm all for contraction and/or franchises moving.

The point I was making was that owners should be trying to make the game more popular (which would include relocating/contraction) and as a result of that they would be making more money because the league would be healthier.

They seem to think that cutting costs is the answer and instead of trying to fix the league they are worrying too much about player costs when that isn't the solution to the problem just a temporary band aid.

So owners should let players continue to take 57% of league revenues and invest more in marketing. What the hell it's only money right?

 

[I Eat Crow]

Still nothing new? Not good...

I would dare say that this lockout would almost be worth it if a few deadweight teams were cut. I would feel horrible for the fans of those teams, but the talent pool has become way too diluted. However, almost nothing is worth losing an entire season over, neve mind a second season in the course of as many years. It's madness.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

I don't care what anyone says, three lockouts under Bettman's watch is simply unbelievable.

 

[turcotte8]

So owners should let players continue to take 57% of league revenues and invest more in marketing. What the hell it's only money right?

No the owners shouldn't think that getting as extra 7% is going to fix all their problems.
If they didn't have their heads up their own ***** they would be pressuring Bettman every minute of every day to fix the current system that can't work without a huge increase of exposure and profitability.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

I don't care what anyone says, three lockouts under Bettman's watch is simply unbelievable.

Is a 50%+1 majority of governors needed to fire him or something more?

 

[Leetch3]

Is a 50%+1 majority of governors needed to fire him or something more?

23 owners need to be against him. as long as he has 8 owners behind him, he can do whatever he wants.

 

[BBKers]

23 owners need to be against him. as long as he has 8 owners behind him, he can do whatever he wants.

And he certainly does....

 

[Beacon]

No the owners shouldn't think that getting as extra 7% is going to fix all their problems.
If they didn't have their heads up their own ***** they would be pressuring Bettman every minute of every day to fix the current system that can't work without a huge increase of exposure and profitability.

That's right. Putting hockey teams across the whole southern tier of the US will be as profitable as putting a pork store in Borough Park. There's just no market for hockey down there.

The league was better off building hockey rinks across that region for a generation. But that would cost money and it was seen as better to take money from expansion franchises. In the end, however, it cost the existing Original-21 more money to prop up the expansion franchises than the money they got from them.

There are simply too many teams. You can't have a Canadian sport (NHL) having the same number of teams as an American sport (NBA, NFL, MLB). Canada is a small country and the U.S. doesn't care about hockey. Hockey is barely more popular than volleyball.

I will bet you anything that more people here watch soccer than hockey, but immigrants who grew up outside of the US don't speak good English and do not speak to pollsters. There are 54 million immigrants living in the United States. A large majority of them are from countries where soccer is the dominant sport (Latin America, Russia, Germany, even Asia watches soccer).

While among the 250 million native Americans, only 1% may like soccer, there are tens of millions of immigrants who watch it. And yet, despite tens of millions of potential fans, it's still impossible to maintain a large and a strong soccer league.

There are some differences, such as the fact that MLS sucks as a league and the NHL is the best in the world, but the truth is that hockey is much more like soccer in terms of profitability than it is like the NBA/NFL/MLB.