NHL teams boycotting Olympics?

[Tyrolean]

no way a boycott.

 

[Sampe]

The NHL signed an agreement saying that they should put Olympic interests above their own?

Let me quote you again:

Tell me one business model by which an employer will give an employee time off, costing their business severly, just so they can pursue their own personal interests?

The owners *have* agreed to give the players time off...

...which *will* hurt their business in the short run.

And the players *are* pursuing their own personal interests in the Olympics.

Now I admit I sort of missed that "just so" part which I assume refers to the reasons behind signing that contrat. However, they are pretty much irrelevant here. It's obvious that this is a long term investment for the NHL, but what matters is that the NHL has signed the contract and the owners will have to comply with it.

It's OK if the owners have "an interest in how their business is run, and the security of their prime assets". But if they want to violate a contact they'd better look in the mirror. They simply should have had that interest while signing those contracts in the first place.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Right. The NHL had no intentions of trying to market their league at all. They were trying to do it for the greater good.


An employeer has an interest in their how their business is run, and the security of their prime assets?

Get out, really?


Stupidest thing I have ever read.

Bettman is paid by the owners, and the decision to go to the Olympics was, by large, a decision made by the owners. This was a decision to market the league, a decision made by the league and its shareholders in NHL franchineses. Now Bettman should fine the people writing his cheques and making the decisions?

Rediculous


Right. Tell that to the hundreads of No 1 goalies who can lose their job with just the slightest slip. It's a competitive market in the NHL, and there is no such thing as job security.

By the greater good I mean showcasing the NHL as well as the game of hockey. That is of course beyond you.
These owners did sign this agreement as Sampe said knowing full well they would have to comply. Bettman and those under him while working for the owners also have to work independantly to do a proper job. If one owner is out of line by pressuring a player while 29 others are not then you could expect they would want something done about it. They all do not think like you and actually are standing by the contract they signed. A rogue owner or three have to be clipped. Colin Campbell is also paid by the NHL and has to make decisions against their 'assets" as per the collective agreement.
When Ted Leonisis attacked a fan , in other words something he was not supposed to do- he had to pay a fine. The nerve of those people he hired fining him. That just shouldn't be.

 

[Phanuthier*]

btw, in case you didn't understand, the issue i was talking about was the eventuality (you brought up) of a player going out skiing while/getting injured. Don't know how your reply is related..

Heck, I had no idea what caveat your talking about when a player withdraws from the Olympics.

 

[Phanuthier*]

The owners *have* agreed to give the players time off...

...which *will* hurt their business in the short run.

No they haven't. They are still playign a pre-season, 82 regular season games, and playoffs, arn't they?

It's obvious that this is a long term investment for the NHL, but what matters is that the NHL has signed the contract and the owners will have to comply with it.

True, but that long term inverstment is not at the cost of short term considerations.

Will a company invest in a new product knowing they'll go bankrupt, for the sake of that product being successful in the future?

But if they want to violate a contact they'd better look in the mirror.

What was violated?

 

[Phanuthier*]

When Ted Leonisis attacked a fan , in other words something he was not supposed to do- he had to pay a fine. The nerve of those people he hired fining him. That just shouldn't be.

It seems to me that the realm of business is totally beyond you. The NHL business has a board of directors to which they control the league - one does not have power. Leonisis was out of line to attack a fan, and was fined. Could he take it to the Board of Directors meeting? Sure, but there's a good chance he's lose. Now if Don Waddell and Darryl Sutter were fined for the rediculous reason of suggesting a player to rest their injury during a break for the better of their NHL franchise, more then a few of the Board of Directors would likly look into the matter.

This "greater good" of having the Olympics does not hurt their franchise or business. The agreement was to allow NHL players to participate in the Olympics, and they are. The topic at hand, which you have totally missed, is whether or not NHL teams should be allowed to make recommendations to a player, such as Kiprusoff and Lehtonen. These players were not forced to withdraw, it was with their own decision - and the argument is whether or not teams are allowed to "pressue" a player into going or not. Tell me one instance in which a player has been told by their NHL team that they can't participate in the Olympics? In Kiprusoff's case, Kiprusoff was not told he can't go, but rather was told that he would not be given rest to heal his injury, so he choose to withdraw. The violates none of the terms . So you have no case.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

It seems to me that the realm of business is totally beyond you. The NHL business has a board of directors to which they control the league - one does not have power. Leonisis was out of line to attack a fan, and was fined. Could he take it to the Board of Directors meeting? Sure, but there's a good chance he's lose. Now if Don Waddell and Darryl Sutter were fined for the rediculous reason of suggesting a player to rest their injury during a break for the better of their NHL franchise, more then a few of the Board of Directors would likly look into the matter.

This "greater good" of having the Olympics does not hurt their franchise or business. The agreement was to allow NHL players to participate in the Olympics, and they are. The topic at hand, which you have totally missed, is whether or not NHL teams should be allowed to make recommendations to a player, such as Kiprusoff and Lehtonen. These players were not forced to withdraw, it was with their own decision - and the argument is whether or not teams are allowed to "pressue" a player into going or not. Tell me one instance in which a player has been told by their NHL team that they can't participate in the Olympics? In Kiprusoff's case, Kiprusoff was not told he can't go, but rather was told that he would not be given rest to heal his injury, so he choose to withdraw. The violates none of the terms . So you have no case.

Phanuthier, I am with you on it being their own decision, I am more battling against whatever pressure is being exerted on them.I still think the bottom line is Kipper could have gone should he chose to do so. Lehtonen is just a common sense decision not to go. He's had major groin troubles.

 

[Sampe]

No they haven't. They are still playign a pre-season, 82 regular season games, and playoffs, arn't they?

Oh, I thought we were discussing the time during the Olympics. My bad.

True, but that long term inverstment is not at the cost of short term considerations.

Will a company invest in a new product knowing they'll go bankrupt, for the sake of that product being successful in the future?

No, but see my other comments.

What was violated?

I was speaking hypothetically to mostly debate against the argument that NHL teams have any right to *force* their players to withdraw.

But I also hate the idea of manipulating your employees. There is quite a difference between an honest, well reasoned suggestion and a calculated threat made to look like one.

Case Kiprusoff: was the actual contract concerning Olympics violated? Can't be sure since I wasn't there, but probably not. However, there's also the general contract between the employees and the employers. Does an NHL team have a right to flat out deny an injured player the chance to heal his injuries if he so prefers? And if so, what purpose would that serve? Certainly no long term one and in this particular case even a short term (this season) gain was questionable concidering the fact that the NHL playoffs were not exactly a week away when the injury was diagnosed.

It's impossible to say what *really* happened between Kiprusoff and the Flames. But the way I see it, either Kiprusoff clearly chose the Flames over the Olympics or the Flames were using his injury as an excuse to pressure him while Kiprusoff was being a typical, overly loyal Finn.

One more thing though:

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't soccer players released from their club teams to play in the World Cup, and don't the leagues continue playing during the World Cup? If this is the case, couldn't the NHL consider doing the same thing. Agree to release any player to join the Olympic team or World Cup team (if they moved it to later in the year) but not shut the league down.

While the true problems lie deeper, fixing the schedule would have the quickest impact on participation in the Olympics. And I'm starting to like the idea above more every minute. No need for cutting the amount of NHL games, no one has to play extra games, no one gets an unfair advantage of resting while others play, less reasons for owners to pressure their players etc. If only the owners would realize the long term possibilities behind this...

 

[Phanuthier*]

It's impossible to say what *really* happened between Kiprusoff and the Flames. But the way I see it, either Kiprusoff clearly chose the Flames over the Olympics or the Flames were using his injury as an excuse to pressure him while Kiprusoff was being a typical, overly loyal Finn.

I think the two most obvious ones are

1) As said in the media, Kiprusoff would not be given time to rest his injury during the season. If he wanted to rest, it would have been the Olympic break.

2) Kiprusoff medication that he needs to play (pain killers) are a banned substance, and he didn't want to hurt Team Finland by testing positive for a banned substance.

 

[pihinalle]

The Olympics should be played without NHLers since it's not a best-on-best tournament after all. Some people supposed it was going to be even better than the World Cup. It's not even close to it.

 

[helicecopter]

The Olympics should be played without NHLers since it's not a best-on-best tournament after all. Some people supposed it was going to be even better than the World Cup. It's not even close to it.

Yeah, not even close..I guess it's a matter of opinion. In '98 and '02 it was better than the '04 World Cup imo, and i guess one key reason is it's more important than the World Cup. Players (not only people) care more about winning the Olympics than the World Cup, especially for European players and federations it's not even close. The effort by federations it's much stronger for the Olympics and the anticipation for the event way higher for everyone (fans, media AND players), providing more adrenaline..

oh, and the way the World Cup tourney is organized makes it abundantly unfair..

 

[Sampe]

The Olympics should be played without NHLers since it's not a best-on-best tournament after all.

In that case, the Olympics should be held without male hockey players period. The gold medal from men's hockey would represent nothing - not even an amateur title since all the best non-NHLers are professionals.

Case in point: Olympic soccer. You've got a bunch of U23 players plus a few overaged reinforcements. Who cares about the results?

 

[LannysStach]

hockey fans are in for one heck of a gift in a couple weeks – especially the final 5 days – Feb 22 to 26th – is going to be some of the best hockey ever played on the planet. there’s not one, but four, dream-teams – Canada, the Russians, the Czechs and the Swedes. plus 3 or 4 “Belarus’s†primed for the upsets. I highly recommend suspending all other activities at that time.

the players Want to play for their country in the Olympics – or so they all say in every interview.

the owners Want their players to play in the Olympics – or so they said in the boardroom when they wanted the Olympic participation as part of the new CBA.

from the owners point of view, it’s called product-placement. the world, but specifically for the NHL’s interests, North America will be transfixed by the Olympics for 3 weeks, including 24-7 coverage on one of the three big networks. by showcasing the artistry of the game, the business side (owners) predict it will bring in more revenue because more people will get turned on to the sport. (plus, they still get All their regular home games in the 82-game season) it gives the fans a free buzz, and hopefully they’ll come back for more.

I’m sure most of us here feel hockey’s the most exciting sport – but its TV audiences are lower than NASCAR, bowling or golf (and probably poker, judging by recent programming). but the owners, and probably most hockey fans, feel the game is more exciting than bowling. but nobody else gets it. hence the NHL revenues being so low, and there being a lock-out last year.

how do u fix it? have a ton of people see the best players on the planet playing their hearts out for their country. have toe-dipping sports fans see these all-star bands of players jamming together at a one-time-only gig. (each Olympic’s line-ups are SO unique) it’s by far the biggest chance for hockey to have any kind of a break-through this year. more people will watch the Olympics than any 7-game final you can conjure up.

every season the league takes a break for a flakey little all-star game to try to generate interest. the Olympics are a 12 day all-star game with players actually trying to win. they never made a major movie about any Stanley Cup victory called “Miracle on Ice†or anything else. and there was a nice red mile in Calgary in 2004 – but it was 3,000 miles long in 2002.

from the player’s point of view, every comment I’ve ever read by an NHLer who played in the Olympics said it was the greatest or proudest moment of their lives (except maybe the ’98 Americans ) and they all come back better hockey players than they left because they had an intensive 2-week seminar with the 20 other best players their country has birthed.

over 60 NHL players are coming home with medals – so about 2 guys on every team are just gonna be skating on air after this.

this is a win win win win situation – for the players, the owners, the fans, and the game.

 

[helicecopter]

hockey fans are in for one heck of a gift in a couple weeks – especially the final 5 days – Feb 22 to 26th – is going to be some of the best hockey ever played on the planet. there’s not one, but four, dream-teams – Canada, the Russians, the Czechs and the Swedes. plus 3 or 4 “Belarus’s†primed for the upsets. I highly recommend suspending all other activities at that time.

Nice post! Only, i don't get that bolded part.. USA , Finland and Slovakia look to me more as legitimate contender than Belarus kind of potential upsetters!

 

[LannysStach]

cheers!
"Belarus" you might say is an Olympic buzz-word or code word for a lower team that upsets a favored team. certainly the most famous upset in recent olympics was Belarus over Sweden in the quarter-final elimination game in 2002.

you got yer big four (Canada, Russia, Czechs, Swedes)
if any of these 4 are not in the 2 medal games, there's been an upset.
most likely caused by your second tier: Finland, Slovakia, USA.

but of course to be a true "Belarus" you should probably be even lower ranked, this year, say, a Germany, Kazakstan or another team i don't want to mention cuz i just want it to happen.

 

[psycho_dad*]

Belarus beating sweden was a freak accident that can happen once in 20 years. Finland, USA, Slovakia winning these other 4 is nothing miraculous and has happened often. USA has been in the finals twice in last 10 years (in the "super tournaments") and Finland has been in the finals once, and won bronze in nagano. Slovakia has not been impressive in these tournaments but they have been doing good in the world championships though.

Any of these 7...well at least any of these 6 can win the tournament. Belarus? No, maybe a single game against one of these teams every 10-20 years but not a tournament. Even germany is much more likely than Belarus.

Comparing Finland and USA to what Belarus did is seriously undermining these two teams that have been succesfull in the super tournaments. In the last olympics, Finland lost 3-2 to Canada (olympic gold winner) in quarterfinals. In Nagano they beat Canada in the bronze game, dropped sweden out of the games in quarters. In world cup Finland lost the final to canada. Underdogs yeah...because of the roster only. Not based on success and level of play.

 

[LannysStach]

comparing olympics is difficult because so much changes in four years.

the only relevance this time, imho, is that the swedes are going to be inspired by their embarasment last time. if you're a canadian, imagine if your heros got eliminated in the very first game by a country know one's ever heard of? their whole country is about ready to (figuratively) hang these guys if they don't kick some serious butt this time (like, at least some medal for starters).

of course Finland and the US are better than Belarus, but actually in this year's olympics, i just think the Fins without Kipper and the Yanks without a Richter are gonna fall short.

it all comes down to the hot goalie anyway.

and it's so funny reading the insights into Belarus's prospects. (psst, they're not in the Olympic ice hockey competition this year)

 

[Slime]

you got yer big four (Canada, Russia, Czechs, Swedes)
if any of these 4 are not in the 2 medal games, there's been an upset.
most likely caused by your second tier: Finland, Slovakia, USA.

No, com'on... it's not an "upset" if Rus-Cze-Swe miss the semi-finals by getting beaten by any of Fin-Svk-USA in a quarter final! For Canada it would be an upset, but the difference ain't that big between the rest of your "first tier teams" compared to the "second tier". The difference gets relatively bigger if we talk about chances of winning the whole tournament, but in one game any of the top 7 teams can win.

(like helicecopter I loved your first post , but was surprised to see the word Belarus anywhere near the top 7, haha).

 

[LannysStach]

i hope i cleared it up that it was just a phrase, not a specific country.

i used to consider there to be a top 7. but upon further inquiry i've concluded there is a seperation btwn the 4 and the 3. i used to include Finland, but not without Kipper, and now without Lechtonen.

i really think those top 4 are in a another league from the rest, each for different reasons (Czechs for goaltending, Russians for offense, Swedes for pride, Canada combo of all)

of course anything can happen when it's a one-game elimination tournament.

that's part of why it's so nail-bitingly wild!

 

[psycho_dad*]

i hope i cleared it up that it was just a phrase, not a specific country.

i used to consider there to be a top 7. but upon further inquiry i've concluded there is a seperation btwn the 4 and the 3. i used to include Finland, but not without Kipper, and now without Lechtonen.

i really think those top 4 are in a another league from the rest, each for different reasons (Czechs for goaltending, Russians for offense, Swedes for pride, Canada combo of all)

of course anything can happen when it's a one-game elimination tournament.

that's part of why it's so nail-bitingly wild!

I could agree with you if sweden had performed even close to finlands or USA's level in the last 10 years of super tournaments.

You are reading too much into rosters and forgetting the actual tournaments where these teams have played eachother.

 

[LannysStach]

you're totally right about reading too much into rosters. teams can look great on paper and not make the final four, and teams full of unknown non-NHLers often surprise and make the climactic quartette.

i said before it's all about the 'tending -- but it's also about gell, and that's the intangible nobody knows (including the players & coaches) until it happens or doesn't.

oh, and for Sweden -- King Henri! imho, this guy's So for-real, and with kipper out he's probably the 2nd best goalie in The Games. combine that with Alfredsson, the Sedin brothers, and Hetterberg all having prime-of-their-life seasons, then add Forsberg & Mats playing for their only chance to avenge a national embarasment, add in the rock, Nick "Norris" Lindstrom walling the D, and the new secret weapon in net -- they're absolutely for real.

just as you can't tell the final from a roster, so too can you not call tomorrow from yesterday.

de-rank the Swedes if you want, but if the two best goalies lead their teams, it'll be a Czech-Swede final.

 

[Murky]

Did you not read the annoucement?

I read the announcement. Did you read the one saying Kiprusoff had agreed to evaluate his condition closer to Olympics and decide if he would play - 12 hours before Team Finland was announced and a day before he made the announcement? One could assume that something had changed during that period. Now what could that be?

Before you start evaluating my ability to grasp the business side of the decisions without knowing a thing about me. May I point out that I actually do understand it and I have got my living from such things for nearly 30 years.

What I said in my earlier posts stands. Hockey and the fans are loosing in all this.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

I read the announcement. Did you read the one saying Kiprusoff had agreed to evaluate his condition closer to Olympics and decide if he would play - 12 hours before Team Finland was announced and a day before he made the announcement? One could assume that something had changed during that period. Now what could that be?

Before you start evaluating my ability to grasp the business side of the decisions without knowing a thing about me. May I point out that I actually do understand it and I have got my living from such things for nearly 30 years.

What I said in my earlier posts stands. Hockey and the fans are loosing in all this.

It is all pretty Murky.

 

[Phanuthier*]

I read the announcement.

Then you agree that he isn't faking an injury, which you suggest in that post.

Your business sense seems to be completely lacking if you can't understand the fact that priorities of Kiprusoff and the Flames for playing him. You don't put another business's priorities over yourself. That's just stupid.

 

[Raimo Sillanpää]

Then you agree that he isn't faking an injury, which you suggest in that post.

Your business sense seems to be completely lacking if you can't understand the fact that priorities of Kiprusoff and the Flames for playing him. You don't put another business's priorities over yourself. That's just stupid.

how can a business priority be risking further injury by playing him?

That's just stupid.