Confirmed with Link: Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th

[Bravid Nonahan]

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 10 teams just straight up die. Then, remove the salary cap. Since when did Sports become communist.

 

[Penalty Kill Icing*]

@OP: I'd prefer it the way it is right now. Not really a fan of contraction as much as other people.

The lockout has been going on for months.

They haven't cancelled sessions, they're still talking.

So you really didn't think that he meant "cancellation of season" when he first posted it?

Its about time people made better contribution to the thread than picking on the tiny unimportant mistakes of the OP. And FYI, they aren't still talking. Not for past 2 weeks. They WERE talking, not ARE talking.

 

[Maximus74]

Surprised most people are siding with owners... last time I checked, this is a lockout not a strike... Anyways - I have an interesting idea... if this is all about money (which it seems to be...) why not re-examine the premise that every team gets an equal # of home games...

For example, the Leafs generate $2,000,000 easily per home game... a team like Phoenix - less than a million.

Is it not smart business to have teams like the Leafs have more home games than a team not attracting as much?

You generate more money - give ten extra home dates to the Leafs and that is $10,000,000 extra dollars for the league... Other teams like the Rags, Wings, etc., could do the same thing.

I know that players woudn't like it (at least the players on the teams with fewer home games) - but if this is what it takes, tough...

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19...-really-behind-the-nhl-lockout/#ixzz2FimlbN3L

I'm surprised at how little revenue sharing there is in the NHL. Someone should suggest they increase it.

What a ridiculous article.
Wasn't even attempting to be impartial.

It says the NBA "revenue shares" 50% of all revenue. Anybody that fully understands what percentage is actually shared would know that that is an obnoxious statement to make.
Essentially, ALL teams put 50% of revenue into a pool. And then ALL teams get a certain percentage of it back. For example, if the Bulls (a richer team) takes 42% back, the Grizzlies (a poorer team) takes 58% back.
When all the numbers are added up... it's a pretty similar number being actually shared to what the nhl's most current offer was.

In the MLB and NFL, it's television revenue that's shared. But the nhl can't get a strong american national television deal until they have a more even distribution of fans around the country!!!
Which is why the nhl is trying so desperately to grow the game in those non hockey markets.

What a ridiculous article. Was it written by Fehr himself?

 

[Bomber0104]

Fans who want to keep a 30 team league and like the idea of growing the game seem to support the owners.

Why 30? Is this a strategic number you have for growing the game? I'll tell you something. The game could stand to grow more on the East coast where the NHL already had viable markets. Injecting a foreign game in remote areas of the United States without a market base, then having the nerve to try and get the players to make concessions for these losses is ridiculous.

Fans that think the league should contract and just stay in the more traditional hockey markets seem to support the players.

Correct, and it seems like a pretty basic business plan. Try to profit. If there is more profit, that benefits both the owners and the players. COntraction reduces the number of jobs available but increases owner and players wealth.

So I think all these arguments we do about who's "greedier" and such are beside the point. For the players and owners, this lockout is about money. For us fans, it's more about which nhl we'd like better.

Im a fan of the Leafs so I side with the players because Toronto would absolutely love to be the Yankees.

I personally would just really like a league where success is created primarily by intelligent management decisions, not financial advantages.

As Leafs fans, we can't really trust our managers to succeed based on good decisions alone historically, so again I side with the players so we can ahve a substitute to making intelligent decisions which is to be like the Yankees and simply purchase players.

You call the league "anti-competitive". But it's just as competitive as before. The only difference is that the teams must now compete using intelligent management decisions, not bidding wars.
That's a far superior league, in my opinion.

The NHL is anti-competitive because it uses its monopoly in arena ownership and leases to enforce anti-compeitive legislation against certain teams (Leafs) to benefit other teams (Sunbelt) which harms players, owners, and fans alike. Why does Tampa Bay get Stamkos? Oh yeah, cuz they have a terrible franchise and won a raffle behind closed doors.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

Why 30? Is this a strategic number you have for growing the game? I'll tell you something. The game could stand to grow more on the East coast where the NHL already had viable markets. Injecting a foreign game in remote areas of the United States without a market base, then having the nerve to try and get the players to make concessions for these losses is ridiculous.



Correct, and it seems like a pretty basic business plan. Try to profit. If there is more profit, that benefits both the owners and the players. COntraction reduces the number of jobs available but increases owner and players wealth.



Im a fan of the Leafs so I side with the players because Toronto would absolutely love to be the Yankees.



As Leafs fans, we can't really trust our managers to succeed based on good decisions alone historically, so again I side with the players so we can ahve a substitute to making intelligent decisions which is to be like the Yankees and simply purchase players.



The NHL is anti-competitive because it uses its arena ownership to enforce anti-compeitive legislation against certain teams (Leafs) to benefit other teams (Sunbelt) which harms players, owners, and fans alike. Why does Tampa Bay get Stamkos? Oh yeah, cuz they have a terrible franchise and won a raffle behind closed doors.

I want a league where success is based primarily on intelligent management decisions and the league can grow.
You want a league where success is based primarily on whoever has the most money and the league can't grow.

Neither opinion is right or wrong. We just have two different views of what would be a better nhl.

 

[Bomber0104]

I want a league where success is based primarily on intelligent management decisions and the league can grow.
You want a league where success is based primarily on whoever has the most money and the league can't grow.

Neither opinion is right or wrong. We just have two different views of what would be a better nhl.

I think a league can surely grow with a competitive player market. Just stick to Canada and Eastern United States with some strategic markets like Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota. When market size reaches a critical mass you can then look to neighboring states and markets.

I don't believe dropping hockey behind enemy lines into the sunbelt is the correct strategy both from a marketing standpoint but also a financial and labor one too.

I will admit I am biased as this type of league structure would surely benefit the team I support (Leafs).

 

[4evaBlue]

What a ridiculous article.
Wasn't even attempting to be impartial.

It says the NBA "revenue shares" 50% of all revenue. Anybody that fully understands what percentage is actually shared would know that that is an obnoxious statement to make.
Essentially, ALL teams put 50% of revenue into a pool. And then ALL teams get a certain percentage of it back. For example, if the Bulls (a richer team) takes 42% back, the Grizzlies (a poorer team) takes 58% back.
When all the numbers are added up... it's a pretty similar number being actually shared to what the nhl's most current offer was.

In the MLB and NFL, it's television revenue that's shared. But the nhl can't get a strong american national television deal until they have a more even distribution of fans around the country!!!
Which is why the nhl is trying so desperately to grow the game in those non hockey markets.

What a ridiculous article. Was it written by Fehr himself?

The article just shows that you can put a spin on anything, and facts can be distorted to suit any agenda. NBA with 50% revenue sharing.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

DO...thats simply untrue. I don't support either side. Couldn't care less. I do understand that it is a business and therefore the investors in the businesses will want to be profitable. What an obscene idea eh? I do support contraction because at the end of the day, the fan is the benefactor of contraction. Less teams means less players make the NHL, means better hockey theoretically...You can't tell me as a fan of the Leafs, that you give a crap if Phoenix or NYI or Nashville or whoever is in financial dire straits, keeps their teams. Who cares? The people of those cities don't care or they wouldn't be in financial ruin. Why should I?

Nothing wrong with a 24 team league...Would be fine.

I could care less for either side and have been a proponent of a 20 team league since before the last lockout. My biggest problem has been finding another suitable western location as my league would have 10 Canadian teams and 10 US teams and would ensure a Canada vs US final every year (helps keep some fans whose teams have been eliminated interested). My league woul also ensure at the very least home and home against every team in the league (it's ludicrous that some fanbases never get to see players). I'd probably shorten the schedule a touch too.

 

[4evaBlue]

I could care less for either side and have been a proponent of a 20 team league since before the last lockout. My biggest problem has been finding another suitable western location as my league would have 10 Canadian teams and 10 US teams and would ensure a Canada vs US final every year (helps keep some fans whose teams have been eliminated interested). My league woul also ensure at the very least home and home against every team in the league (it's ludicrous that some fanbases never get to see players). I'd probably shorten the schedule a touch too.

And how would that plan help the game's growth, and expanding its fanbase?

I'm fairly confident that if 10-15 years ago, the league's goal was to maintain status quo, they could have come up with something very similar.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

And how would that plan help the game's growth, and expanding its fanbase?

I'm fairly confident that if 10-15 years ago, the league's goal was to maintain status quo, they could have come up with something very similar.

Who said I'm interested in expanding the fanbase?

 

[4evaBlue]

Who said I'm interested in expanding the fanbase?

Then the methodology is not the thing to question, but what the long term goals of the NHL should be. Clearly, some feel that growing the game's popularity is not needed. Just as clearly, the league does not feel the same way.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Then the methodology is not the thing to question, but what the long term goals of the NHL should be. Clearly, some feel that growing the game's popularity is not needed. Just as clearly, the league does not feel the same way.

Sure. I'm not questioning what the league thinks. I'm merely stating what I prefer. I'm interested in quality, they're interested in money.

 

[showtime8]

Then the methodology is not the thing to question, but what the long term goals of the NHL should be. Clearly, some feel that growing the game's popularity is not needed. Just as clearly, the league does not feel the same way.

How do you feel about growing the game?

Should the NHL stay away from certain markets or does the greater exposure help?

 

[4evaBlue]

Sure. I'm not questioning what the league thinks. I'm merely stating what I prefer. I'm interested in quality, they're interested in money.

Not necessarily. Growing the game's popularity could result in hockey cultures forming where there has been none before. This would result in more kids playing the game, and more future prospects coming from non-traditional markets/leagues. Ultimately, the league could end up with more, and higher quality athletes.

One alternative is sacrificing long term gains in favor of short term ones, the other option is the exact opposite (more risk, but also more potential reward).

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Not necessarily. Growing the game's popularity could result in hockey cultures forming where there has been none before. This would result in more kids playing the game, and more future prospects coming from non-traditional markets/leagues. Ultimately, the league could end up with more, and higher quality athletes.

One alternative is sacrificing long term gains in favor of short term ones, the other option is the exact opposite (more risk, but also more potential reward).

It could. I don't really care. If they want to do it, they can do it without watering down the NHL. Other leagues do.

 

[4evaBlue]

How do you feel about growing the game?

Should the NHL stay away from certain markets or does the greater exposure help?

I don't mind the league and the owners collectively supporting a couple of franchises, and establish a solid hockey presence in those markets. Support those franchises until they're able to stand on their own, without having to give tickets away just to lure people into the arenas. Those $99 family deals, that include 4 tix, 4 hot dogs, 4 drinks, and parking are just ridiculous, even for nosebleed seats. You probably can't even get that at a Marlies game.

What they forgot to do before expanding, is making sure that the league was financially stable. When more than half of the teams are barely scraping by, it's not a good time to take on an expansion project.

They also went overboard with the expansions. The league could simply not afford to make concentrated efforts to help develop hockey cultures in all the areas they've expanded to over the last two decades.

 

[showtime8]

It could. I don't really care. If they want to do it, they can do it without watering down the NHL. Other leagues do.

The best players are still going to make the teams, regardless of where each person is born.

I do get your point though. Its basically like saying, how many NHL players are born in Nevada? Not really a common market and no exposure, which means?? I can count the amount of players on 1 hand.

 

[showtime8]

I don't mind the league and the owners collectively supporting a couple of franchises, and establish a solid hockey presence in those markets. Support those franchises until they're able to stand on their own, without having to give tickets away just to lure people into the arenas. Those $99 family deals, that include 4 tix, 4 hot dogs, 4 drinks, and parking are just ridiculous, even for nosebleed seats. You probably can't even get that at a Marlies game.

What they forgot to do before expanding, is making sure that the league was financially stable. When more than half of the teams are barely scraping by, it's not a good time to take on an expansion project.

They also went overboard with the expansions. The league could simply not afford to make concentrated efforts to help develop hockey cultures in all the areas they've expanded to over the last two decades.

And any team that gets taken away is admitting defeat from Bettman's point of view. I don't think you see any sort of reduction while he's still commissioner.

I really don't mind the amount of teams that are in the league. The exposure of the game in the non-traditional markets doesn't bug me at all. But like you have been saying, they didn't do their due dilligence on how solid the league was and just started handing out franchises like they were guests of an Oprah show. I think you have to look at population of each state and start to grasp how efficient it is for Canadians to come down and see a game or how easy it is to start a rivalry with another team in a neighbouring state. For example, I think that moving a team from Florida to somewhere close to Columbus (ie. Cincinnati) would be a smart move. A population of 300,000 people.... 4 and a half hour drive to Pittsburgh to see guess who?(draw people) A 4 hour and a half hour drive to Chicago that is full of history in the league, a 4 hour drive to Detroit who have been good for the past 200 years and a 4 hour drive south to start a rivalry with constant competitive Nashville. How does that not make any sense? Eastern time zone.

 

[MapleLeafGardens*]

Sportsnet Connected posted tonight that over $666 MILLION DOLLARS in PA salaries has already been flushed down the toilet.

How many of you can actually grasp the mere thought of tossing away millions of dollars in pay cheques if it were you?

The greedy selfish fools that are the NHLPA are now just days away from officially jumping off the cliff and writing off their entire 2012/2013 salaries. The PA also would prefer to launch costly long drawn out court actions against the very people that sign their pay cheques.

 

[Epictetus]

Not necessarily. Growing the game's popularity could result in hockey cultures forming where there has been none before. This would result in more kids playing the game, and more future prospects coming from non-traditional markets/leagues. Ultimately, the league could end up with more, and higher quality athletes.

One alternative is sacrificing long term gains in favor of short term ones, the other option is the exact opposite (more risk, but also more potential reward).

The first paragraph is all hypothetical, but there is nothing tangible to suggest that this is the way to go (at least, at present). The NHL needs to fix their business-plan, as any plan that has a lockout this many times clearly does not have a sound business-plan.

Cater to strong hockey markets, build up the game, and then consider further expansion. At this point, Europe may even be a better option.

I think a league can surely grow with a competitive player market. Just stick to Canada and Eastern United States with some strategic markets like Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota. When market size reaches a critical mass you can then look to neighboring states and markets.

I don't believe dropping hockey behind enemy lines into the sunbelt is the correct strategy both from a marketing standpoint but also a financial and labor one too.

I will admit I am biased as this type of league structure would surely benefit the team I support (Leafs).

I agreed with everything you were saying until the last sentence. You don't need to be a Leaf fan to see how poorly run this business-plan is.

For the sake of demonstration, let's take an average 2nd/3rd liner. Grabo, for instance. Once his ELC wore off, he received a 3 year $3M contract, which was extended by a 5 year $5.5M deal, which expires when he turns 32. If Grabo is EXTREMELY lucky, he'll find a sucker GM (hopefully not Burke) to give him a 5 year $4M deal to enter into the twilight of his career. Career earnings: ~ $56M, avg per season: $4.3M

Now let's compare his career earnings to say, Crosby. Crosby's cap hit has been $8.7M since his ELC expired. First a 5 year contract @ $8.7M per, then a 12 year contract @ $8.7M per. He will be 37-38 when his last contract expires with an $8.7M cap hit. Career earnings: ~$150M, avg per season: $8.7M

I'm sorry, that's not even close. Comparing a mid tier player's salary during his prime to a star's front loaded contract's avg cap hit is very deceptive. Take a look at the actual salaries received year to year to make such comparisons. Crosby's $12M, Pronger's $7M, etc. Stars are being paid like NHL stars, and end up with 2-3x the career earnings of an average player. Under the previous CBA, that difference is even larger should a serious injury occur to the player, since their contract does not last until they're pretty much ready to retire.

This is my point. The gap now is not as large as the gap before. You can call it greed (sure seems like it), but the NHL either has to figure out a way to further increase this gap between star-player and mid-level player, or the lock-out will continue. The NHL players feel as if they are worth more, especially when you take into consideration the earnings of other athletes across sports. The owners will complain about the lack of revenue, however, that goes back to their lack of sound business model. Why expand when your model is not proven and can best be considered a "niche". That is my issue.

Unfortunately, lockout is a necessary evil when shortsighted players are involved. Consider the owners' current demands. Imagine if on top of introducing the cap, and whatever else was changed in the previous CBA, the current demands would have been added to that list, as well. How long do you think the '04-'05 lockout would have lasted?

Both parties are at fault; I don't think either lock-out is the result of one party alone.

They have to use baby steps. Each time they try to tweak the model, this is what happens. How can they try to fix it when every single suggestion to improve the business, and expand the popularity of the game is treated as billionaires trying to pull one over on us?

And isn't the bolded the problem? IE: a sound model does not have a lockout every time there is a problem.

I have never believed, nor will continue to believe that this is the result of "billionaries trying to pull one over on us."

The plan has fundamental problems, and needs to be adjusted accordingly. Part of the problem is the player's and their greed (just look at how they are acting and complaining in Europe), but the other problem is this 30 franchise, salary cap model.

 

[4evaBlue]

The first paragraph is all hypothetical, but there is nothing tangible to suggest that this is the way to go (at least, at present). The NHL needs to fix their business-plan, as any plan that has a lockout this many times clearly does not have a sound business-plan.

Cater to strong hockey markets, build up the game, and then consider further expansion. At this point, Europe may even be a better option.

All those season openers overseas are a clear indication that a Europe plan is definitely in the works. It will no doubt take a huge step back due the lockout.

And yes, the benefits of expanding into a new markets are always hypothetical. I don't fault the league for trying to grow the game, I fault them for not being patient while carrying out those plans.

This is my point. The gap now is not as large as the gap before. You can call it greed (sure seems like it), but the NHL either has to figure out a way to further increase this gap between star-player and mid-level player, or the lock-out will continue. The NHL players feel as if they are worth more, especially when you take into consideration the earnings of other athletes across sports. The owners will complain about the lack of revenue, however, that goes back to their lack of sound business model. Why expand when your model is not proven and can best be considered a "niche". That is my issue.

When a star has 3x the career earnings of a mid-tier player, I don't think it's an issue. Grabo, being a late bloomer has no record of his salaries prior to the age of 24. I guess I should have included a salary of 0 from ages 21-24 in order to get a more accurate average earnings throughout his career. It'd be something like $8.7/season vs $3.2M/season.

Point is, star players get big money a lot sooner, and keep getting those big salaries until much later than average players do.

Both parties are at fault; I don't think either lock-out is the result of one party alone.

Agreed.

From the owners' side:

• not being able to implement a CBA with absolutely no loopholes last time around
• not being able to negotiate a business model that will never need to be tweaked
• impatience with expansion plan
• spoiling their athletes with charter flights, first class hotels, and handing out those Pejorative Slured contracts which lead to a sense of entitlement. They essentially created this bunch of spoiled brats.

From the player's side:

• greed

And isn't the bolded the problem? IE: a sound model does not have a lockout every time there is a problem.

I have never believed, nor will continue to believe that this is the result of "billionaries trying to pull one over on us."

The plan has fundamental problems, and needs to be adjusted accordingly. Part of the problem is the player's and their greed (just look at how they are acting and complaining in Europe), but the other problem is this 30 franchise, salary cap model.

The league introduced a whole new system during the last lockout, and had to make major concessions in order to get their proposal accepted by the PA, and end the lockout. There's no way they could have gotten the PA to agree to all the things they felt was needed for a successful business model at that time.

There's nothing wrong with capping a team's player salaries in order to encourage parity. A cap that increases by 10-15% every year is a huge problem, even if it wasn't for the 10 or so deadbeat teams.

 

[4evaBlue]

And any team that gets taken away is admitting defeat from Bettman's point of view. I don't think you see any sort of reduction while he's still commissioner.

Agreed, unless it's an absolute last resort to cut off the limb to save the rest. It's neither in the players', nor the owners' interest at this time. Best option is for both sides to figure out how to make it work. If the players giving up some HRR% now to benefit the growth of the game, their momentary losses will be recovered in short order if the plan succeeds.

Just look back to how badly the players supposedly got screwed during the last CBA, and their salaries still doubled over the span of 7 seasons.

I really don't mind the amount of teams that are in the league. The exposure of the game in the non-traditional markets doesn't bug me at all. But like you have been saying, they didn't do their due dilligence on how solid the league was and just started handing out franchises like they were guests of an Oprah show. I think you have to look at population of each state and start to grasp how efficient it is for Canadians to come down and see a game or how easy it is to start a rivalry with another team in a neighbouring state. For example, I think that moving a team from Florida to somewhere close to Columbus (ie. Cincinnati) would be a smart move. A population of 300,000 people.... 4 and a half hour drive to Pittsburgh to see guess who?(draw people) A 4 hour and a half hour drive to Chicago that is full of history in the league, a 4 hour drive to Detroit who have been good for the past 200 years and a 4 hour drive south to start a rivalry with constant competitive Nashville. How does that not make any sense? Eastern time zone.

Agreed on this point, as well. This is fully on the ownership/league. While my US Geography is really bad, Cincinnati sounds like a reasonable place to relocate one of the struggling teams to. Enough distance from other franchises that generating their own fanbase shouldn't be too bad, but close enough to current hockey markets, where the population may have some interest in the game (more so than people in Columbus, Phoenix, etc).

 

[ULF_55]

I certainly hope they decertify.

The management of the NHL has been inept since implemented, expanding without considering the market, letting the fee be the key reason to let them in.

How do they deal with their product? Allow them to receive career ending injuries, allow them to get punched in the head causing concussions, cutting their salaries 24% in lone lock-out and then wanting to cut their salary another 12% in the next lock-out.

I wouldn't call their approach to collective bargaining anything but heavy handed. Discuss things? No, just lock out the product and hope they run out of money and have to take more and more concessions.

How about the fans? They just expect the fans to come running back, likely with ticket price increases, and hope the successful franchises continue to cover up their mistakes Bettman has made. Heck they only moved Atlanta because ownership there didn't want the team anymore and no one else was standing around with a blank cheque in the USofA.

Decertify and let every team swim or sink. Stop hiding behind CBA's that are greed based.

Owners greed has caused all this and does every lock-out.

 

[4evaBlue]

QQ moar.