Olympics: Non-Starter?

[sandysan]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A0WaWSMnIQ8/Rx7TwTGurRI/AAAAAAAAAJY/alGWsOB1RjM/s1600/nhl-revenues.jpg

so the nhl's increased revenues are due to olympic participation ? Pshaw ! you know how one could test that ? don't go and see if revenues drop. you in ?

 

[Xokkeu]

so the nhl's increased revenues are due to olympic participation ? Pshaw ! you know how one could test that ? don't go and see if revenues drop. you in ?

You see an overly simplistic point gets an overly simplistic counter point.

The Olympic participation idea is a long term investment that is nearly impossible to quantify on a four cyclical basis. You aren't going to go to one Olympics and suddenly make $1 billion in new revenue. The goal is continued international exposure to the sport. In the same way that the FIFA World Cup went from something only immigrants watched on closed circuit tv in the states, to European club teams raking millions of dollars off the American market. The more hockey fans there are the better for the NHL because the NHL is the top league, and will always attract the eyeballs. In the same way kids are buying Barcelona jerseys instead of or in addition to LA Galaxy jerseys.

But like any long term investment, if you sell off early you don't reap much reward.

 

[sandysan]

You see an overly simplistic point gets an overly simplistic counter point.

The Olympic participation idea is a long term investment that is nearly impossible to quantify on a four cyclical basis. You aren't going to go to one Olympics and suddenly make $1 billion in new revenue. The goal is continued international exposure to the sport. In the same way that the FIFA World Cup went from something only immigrants watched on closed circuit tv in the states, to European club teams raking millions of dollars off the American market. The more hockey fans there are the better for the NHL because the NHL is the top league, and will always attract the eyeballs. In the same way kids are buying Barcelona jerseys instead of or in addition to LA Galaxy jerseys.

But like any long term investment, if you sell off early you don't reap much reward.

Ah yes the " impossible to quantify" but still essential argument. Its not 4 years is 2 decades, no lift. None. Believing in the tooth fairy or other lies like Olympic participation helps the league is so easy when you claim there are no metrics. Ignoring the fact that the IOC prevents the NHL from linking ANYTHING from the Olympics to the league. Screw the IOC, those not carrying their weight get rich off the backs of others and through graft. Screw em.

Or just insist there are unquantifiable benefits that only some can see. I'm sure the IOC likes getting rich off of shield talent.

Again if participation in the Olympics drives hockey markets, how are Torino and Nagano? And if the idea is that the nhl has to provide their talent for 50 or 100 years, who in their right mind waits that long for a possible ROI?

Not people in the business of running professional leagues, that's who.

If there is no sustained benefit by ANY metric, thinking that if we only go to the next five olympics that money will flood in is a sucker's position.

 

[mouser]

Here is the issue. Ovechkin is going no matter what. But now what if Backstrom says he wants to go? Backstrom missed out (unfairly) on the gold medal game in Sochi, and im sure that drives him nuts. Whats Leonsis going to do, say yes to Ovi but no to Backstrom? Then if they are going, what do you think John Carlson, Kuznetsov and Holtby are going to say.

Then all of a sudden the owner is facing the prospect of losing half his team, decides to shut down the whole idea. Then you have chaos.

Agreed, which is why if the NHL decides not to go to the Olympics I expect the league will likely bar all owners from permitting players to go. Redirect any flack away from the individual owners and let the "collective" league take the fallout.

 

[Xokkeu]

Ah yes the " impossible to quantify" but still essential argument. Its not 4 years is 2 decades, no lift. None. Believing in the tooth fairy or other lies like Olympic participation helps the league is so easy when you claim there are no metrics. Ignoring the fact that the IOC prevents the NHL from linking ANYTHING from the Olympics to the league. Screw the IOC, those not carrying their weight get rich off the backs of others and through graft. Screw em.

Or just insist there are unquantifiable benefits that only some can see. I'm sure the IOC likes getting rich off of shield talent.

Again if participation in the Olympics drives hockey markets, how are Torino and Nagano? And if the idea is that the nhl has to provide their talent for 50 or 100 years, who in their right mind waits that long for a possible ROI?

Not people in the business of running professional leagues, that's who.

If there is no sustained benefit by ANY metric, thinking that if we only go to the next five olympics that money will flood in is a sucker's position.

Where's the word essential? I think you're just making stuff up to argue with yourself

 

[sandysan]

Where's the word essential? I think you're just making stuff up to argue with yourself

At least you didn't take issue with unquantifiable. Its been 5 Olympics, 2 decades. No bump. None. So stop insisting that the NHL benefits from fattening the IOC's wallet. They don't. Having millions of eyes for 2 weeks when these eyes only look for 2 weeks every 4 years doesn't help the NHL.

 

[Xokkeu]

At least you didn't take issue with unquantifiable. Its been 5 Olympics, 2 decades. No bump. None. So stop insisting that the NHL benefits from fattening the IOC's wallet. They don't. Having millions of eyes for 2 weeks when these eyes only look for 2 weeks every 4 years doesn't help the NHL.

You're just making my own arguments up so its hard to follow. Anyway I don't have the internal league data on international sales, nor is an Olympic effect likely to be able to be isolated out of that data. As said it's a long term investment on the leagues part and it's not something that will see instant returns.

 

[JackSlater]

You're just making my own arguments up so its hard to follow. Anyway I don't have the internal league data on international sales, nor is an Olympic effect likely to be able to be isolated out of that data. As said it's a long term investment on the leagues part and it's not something that will see instant returns.

In the same vein, good luck trying to pinpoint what exactly the NHL loses by participating in the Olympics.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Agreed, which is why if the NHL decides not to go to the Olympics I expect the league will likely bar all owners from permitting players to go. Redirect any flack away from the individual owners and let the "collective" league take the fallout.

This makes sense. I just don't see how the NHL could possibly allow someone to shrug off their obligations to their team without any repercussions. They basically have to make a stand, what's interesting is what will those repercussions be?

Go to the Olympics and ... be suspended for the rest of the season including playoffs?

 

[Xokkeu]

In the same vein, good luck trying to pinpoint what exactly the NHL loses by participating in the Olympics.

Just seems like they are made they don't get the money. I understand the frustration of not being able to use Sidney Crosby's goal in 2010 and whatever other highlights in their marketing, but the only actual money they lose is related to all star weekend.