NHL Lockout

[segnosaur]

http://bleacherrepor...passing-the-nba

Looks like trouble to me. The trend is your friend and the trend is favoring the NHL to the dismay of whiny Canadian purists, thank goodness they are disposable fans.

Ummm... look at the date of the article. It was from 2011. Some of the information is outdated, and some of it is built on rather shakey assumptions.

- It talks about the risk of the NBA loosing a season. However, since the article was published they have signed a new collective agreement, so no risk of loosing a season. Furthermove, the collective agreement they did sign gives the owners a much bigger share of revenue than they received previously.

- The NBA also has better revenue sharing model than the NHL has. Perhaps the NHL owners can pull their collective heads from their rears and put in a better model, but it doesn't really look good

- So, between the new collective agreement, the better revenue sharing, and bigger TV deals, I doubt the NBA has that much to worry about.

- They seem to be concentrating on league profits as a whole. I've already pointed out that the league average is gragged upwards by a few teams. (That also happens in the NBA, but with their better revenue sharing deal that won't be as much of a problem anymore.)

- They seem to put a lot of emphasis on "gimmics"... the winter classics, the changes to the all-star format. Perhaps those changes will continue to be successful, but perhaps we should wait a few more years to see if they still remain popular in the future. (And, more importantly, whether those changes actually make a difference to the overall popularity of the sport, or whether they remain one-off gimmics that give a temporary spike and nothing else. Plus, keep in mind that some of those can also be adopted by the NBA. No reason they can't hold their own "classics".

- Also, keep in mind that this article praised the move of the Thrashers to Winnipeg... considering your claim of a need to expand to the U.S., I find it ironic that you're citing an article which pointed out that the best thing was for a team to move from a 'new' market to a more traditional hockey territory.

[segnosaur]

You know, some people might think placing teams in areas where they have to win to be successful financially is rather foolish.

All teams will go through slumps... some temporary (like during a rebuilding phase) others longer. Putting a team in a city where they'll loose money and go bankrupt because they have a few loosing seasons makes the league less stable.

And people who have billions of dollars say otherwise.

In case you didn't know, being a billionaire doesn't necessarily make you Omnicient. (the financial melt-down in the past decade should be proof of that.)

- Some owners may have made bad judgement calls. Being successful in one business doesn't necessarily make you an expert in all businesses. (They may have misjudged the benefit of things like the salary cap, for example. Or ran into unexpected arena problems)

- In other cases, a team may be "community owned", taking over from an owner that has bailed because the team is unprofitable

If you think that being rich means they automatically make perfect business desions, then explain why Atlanta had to move. Was the team earning so much money that the owners (I think it was Time Warner) didn't have any more place to put it?

Edited to add:

One other thing... the NBA also has billionaire owners. Yet early you posted an article suggesting major problems in the NBA. If being a billionaire makes one competent to run a team, why would the NBA be in such trouble then with all the financial genious' around?

Edited October 18, 2012 by segnosaur

[carepov]

Not sure if I would consider them "glory years" (since I do recognize that there were still problems with the league) but I'd probably have to say the 1980s for a few reasons:

- Goal scoring was at a peak (and many people do equate goals=excitement, with a bit more open play than they had previously

- Costs (and player salaries) were still reasonable. (Tickets were a bit more affordable to the average person.)

- Equipment and conditioning had improved from previous decades. (Yes, those things might be even better now, but they were still decent back in the 1980s.)

- Relative labor peace. (Remember all the work stopages have occured since the early 1990s. Its all fine and good to talk about how great the rules are and how talented current players are, but if they aren't playing hockey, why does it matter?)

- Yes, there were teams that struggled. However, to me the problems seemed to be more localized... i.e. individual teams not doing well. The problems seem to be more widespread now, despite the salary cap and supposed big TV contracts.

Good points. Maybe you are right, ahhh the good ole' 80's...

[segnosaur]

Not sure if I would consider them "glory years" (since I do recognize that there were still problems with the league) but I'd probably have to say the 1980s for a few reasons:

Good points. Maybe you are right, ahhh the good ole' 80's...

Yeah I used to be cool in the 1980s.

Ah, who am I kidding?

I don't want you to think that I'm totally ignoring some of the more recent changes.

I do recognize that a few of the rule changes do make the game better. I also agree that because of greater globalization we get access to star players that might not have been available 30 years ago.

Just that the other drawbacks (more expensive tickets, work stopages, etc.) detract enough from the game to out-balance the good changes from the past few years.

Edited October 18, 2012 by segnosaur

[blueblood]

Ummm... look at the date of the article. It was from 2011. Some of the information is outdated, and some of it is built on rather shakey assumptions.

- It talks about the risk of the NBA loosing a season. However, since the article was published they have signed a new collective agreement, so no risk of loosing a season. Furthermove, the collective agreement they did sign gives the owners a much bigger share of revenue than they received previously.

- The NBA also has better revenue sharing model than the NHL has. Perhaps the NHL owners can pull their collective heads from their rears and put in a better model, but it doesn't really look good

- So, between the new collective agreement, the better revenue sharing, and bigger TV deals, I doubt the NBA has that much to worry about.

- They seem to be concentrating on league profits as a whole. I've already pointed out that the league average is gragged upwards by a few teams. (That also happens in the NBA, but with their better revenue sharing deal that won't be as much of a problem anymore.)

- They seem to put a lot of emphasis on "gimmics"... the winter classics, the changes to the all-star format. Perhaps those changes will continue to be successful, but perhaps we should wait a few more years to see if they still remain popular in the future. (And, more importantly, whether those changes actually make a difference to the overall popularity of the sport, or whether they remain one-off gimmics that give a temporary spike and nothing else. Plus, keep in mind that some of those can also be adopted by the NBA. No reason they can't hold their own "classics".

- Also, keep in mind that this article praised the move of the Thrashers to Winnipeg... considering your claim of a need to expand to the U.S., I find it ironic that you're citing an article which pointed out that the best thing was for a team to move from a 'new' market to a more

traditional hockey territory.

The trend over the past 20 years suggests that the expansion down south and current management has done well for the NHL. He numbers are stating that the league is growing and is on par with the NBA. That's a big accomplishment for a league that started in Canada, and I like it's growth prospects. The league can't grow in Canada, there are already hockey fans there. As you know business takes some losses expanding in new markets as it costs more to gain customers rather than retain old ones.

Like I said I trust the judgement of billionaires running something like the NHL over Joe hockey fan. Maybe they know a little something about business expansion. Better billionaires running the NBA as they are better suited to turning the ship around than Joe basketball fan.

[dre]

The league can't grow in Canada, there are already hockey fans there.

Actually the league could easily grow in Canada. There could easily be three more teams with a better bottom lines than the bottom few US teams.

[segnosaur]

Wow, amazing... blueblood managed to post an article that:

A: totally ignored anything from my previous post

B: repeated stuff that had already been handled/debunked

Ummm... look at the date of the article. It was from 2011. Some of the information is outdated, and some of it is built on rather shakey assumptions.

- It talks about the risk of the NBA loosing a season. However, since the article was published they have signed a new collective agreement, so no risk of loosing a season. Furthermove, the collective agreement they did sign gives the owners a much bigger share of revenue than they received previously.

- The NBA also has better revenue sharing model than the NHL has.

He numbers are stating that the league is growing and is on par with the NBA.

Again... he ignored the fact that the NBA

A: has a better revenue sharing plan than the NHL

B: has bigger TV contracts

C: isn't dealing with yet another work stoppage

So no, the NHL is not 'on par' with the NBA, and your repitition of the claim doesn't make it a 'fact'

- They seem to be concentrating on league profits as a whole. I've already pointed out that the league average is gragged upwards by a few teams. (That also happens in the NBA, but with their better revenue sharing deal that won't be as much of a problem anymore.)

- They seem to put a lot of emphasis on "gimmics"... the winter classics, the changes to the all-star format.

- Also, keep in mind that this article praised the move of the Thrashers to Winnipeg... considering your claim of a need to expand to the U.S., I find it ironic that you're citing an article which pointed out that the best thing was for a team to move from a 'new' market to a more

traditional hockey territory.

The trend over the past 20 years suggests that the expansion down south and current management has done well for the NHL.

Again, ignoring the fact that the "financial success" of the NHL is conentrated on only a few teams, and a large number are loosing money (and many have done so consistently for several years).

And yet another work stoppage.

So how is that 'doing well'? Enjoying your NHL season so far? How's your favorite NHL team doing this year?

The league can't grow in Canada, there are already hockey fans there.

And evidently the league can't really grow much in the U.S. either, as teams like Phoenix show. Its just not something that's in their culture. (The lack of ice in the winter might have something to do with that.)

Oh, and I forgot to remind you: your very article (which pointed out how 'great' the NHL was doing) praised the movement of teams back to Canada. Strange that you didn't mention that in your response.

Like I said I trust the judgement of billionaires running something like the NHL over Joe hockey fan. Maybe they know a little something about business expansion.

Or maybe they don't.

Once again (since you seem to have ignored this)... if being rich makes you omnicient and capable of making perfect business decisions every time, then explain to me why the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg. Did they earn so much money in Atlanta that they had nowhere else to put it? Heck, explain all the money-loosing teams in the NHL (especially the ones that have lost money on a regular bases.) Explain the Nashville Predators, who are scrabling to find new investors. If the NHL was such an assured money-making scheme then why aren't they beating investors back with a stick?

[Black Dog]

The trend over the past 20 years suggests that the expansion down south and current management has done well for the NHL. He numbers are stating that the league is growing and is on par with the NBA. That's a big accomplishment for a league that started in Canada, and I like it's growth prospects.

Except you are wrong. While revenue growth corresponds with Bettman's southern strategy, revenue growth was driven by teams in traditional hockey markets (taht is: most of the Canadian teams). Meanwhile the southern teams are just barely hanging on.

The league can't grow in Canada, there are already hockey fans there. As you know business takes some losses expanding in new markets as it costs more to gain customers rather than retain old ones.

The league has lots of room for growth in Canada. There's literally tens of thousands of fans who are not being served by the NHL right now in some major markets. Fans in Quebec and the GTA are all

And you're suggesting the NHL is better served by continuing to try to turn car-racing and gator wrasslin' enthusiasts into puckheads?

Like I said I trust the judgement of billionaires running something like the NHL over Joe hockey fan. Maybe they know a little something about business expansion. Better billionaires running the NBA as they are better suited to turning the ship around than Joe basketball fan.

Yeah the owners are so smart and business savvy, they are sewering a season for a new CBA 6 years after they routed the players on the last one.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Black Dog

[blueblood]

Wow, amazing... blueblood managed to post an article that:

A: totally ignored anything from my previous post

B: repeated stuff that had already been handled/debunked

Again... he ignored the fact that the NBA

A: has a better revenue sharing plan than the NHL

B: has bigger TV contracts

C: isn't dealing with yet another work stoppage

So no, the NHL is not 'on par' with the NBA, and your repitition of the claim doesn't make it a 'fac

Again, ignoring the fact that the "financial success" of the NHL is conentrated on only a few teams, and a large number are loosing money (and many have done so consistently for several years).

And yet another work stoppage.

So how is that 'doing well'? Enjoying your NHL season so far? How's your favorite NHL team doing this year?

And evidently the league can't really grow much in the U.S. either, as teams like Phoenix show. Its just not something that's in their culture. (The lack of ice in the winter might have something to do with that.)

Oh, and I forgot to remind you: your very article (which pointed out how 'great' the NHL was doing) praised the movement of teams

back to Canada. Strange that you didn't mention that in your response.

Or maybe they don't.

Once again (since you seem to have ignored this)... if being rich makes you omnicient and capable of making perfect business decisions every time, then explain to me why the Thrashers moved to Winnipeg. Did they earn so much money in Atlanta that they had nowhere else to put it? Heck, explain all the money-loosing teams in the NHL (especially the ones that have lost money on a regular bases.) Explain the Nashville Predators, who are scrabling to find new investors. If the NHL was such an assured money-making scheme then why aren't they beating investors back with a stick?

The NHL is still in growth phase, the growth of the game since Bettman has arrived is in disputed, it has grown and grown huge. And a part of that strategy has been expansion in southern markets. A painful part of that strategy is that it costs money to gain new customers, and that goes for everything. Like I said these owners are billionaires and know more about business than Joe Canada hockey fan who clings to the glory days when the league was in financial trouble. The board of governors is aware that growing the game down south will take time and money, and I'm sure an expansion down there of that magnitude wasn't thought up Of in a scale of years, but probably decades.

Given that the NHL and NBA have similar attendance and comparable tv ratings shows that the NHL is gaining ground on the NBA. As the NHL grows it will get more favorable tv contracts. The NHL is growing down south whether you want to accept it or not.

The thrashers moved to Winnipeg because the owner sold the team. In case you haven't noticed, there is a recession down there which has hurt some owners more than others. Not only that, the move to Winnipeg had a lot of caveats as in the stadium needs to be sold out all the time at inflated prices or it's game over. The team in Winnipeg failed just like Atlanta did, and why teams in every league get moved around including the NFL.

Unfortunately Joe Canada hockey fan isn't seeing the forest for the trees and that the league is in competition with 3 other leagues for an audience, and those three other leagues all have 30 teams spread out over a wide geographical area.

[Black Dog]

The NHL is still in growth phase, the growth of the game since Bettman has arrived is in disputed, it has grown and grown huge. And a part of that strategy has been expansion in southern markets. A painful part of that strategy is that it costs money to gain new customers, and that goes for everything.

Your argument is completely undermined by the fact that NHL revenues would likely be even higher if they dropped the worst of the money-losing franchises (all of which are U.S. sunbelt teams).

Like I said these owners are billionaires and know more about business than Joe Canada hockey fan who clings to the glory days when the league was in financial trouble. The board of governors is aware that growing the game down south will take time and money, and I'm sure an expansion down there of that magnitude wasn't thought up Of in a scale of years, but probably decades.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Given that the NHL and NBA have similar attendance and comparable tv ratings shows that the NHL is gaining ground on the NBA. As the NHL grows it will get more favorable tv contracts.

Say what? NHL TV ratings are abysmal. The highest rated NHL game ever was the Bruins/Canucks Game 7, which drew about half the rating of this past year's NBA finals Game 1. Last year's final between two huge media markets in LA and New Jersey drew disappointing ratings and was beat down by....the NBA.

The NHL is growing down south whether you want to accept it or not.

Cite?

The thrashers moved to Winnipeg because the owner sold the team. In case you haven't noticed, there is a recession down there which has hurt some owners more than others.

LOL. Just so happens that the teams hit hardest are all southern market teams. Go figure.

Not only that, the move to Winnipeg had a lot of caveats as in the stadium needs to be sold out all the time at inflated prices or it's game over

I'm a lot more confident in Winnipeg's ability to sell out its rink on a regular basis than Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Florida...

The team in Winnipeg failed just like Atlanta did, and why teams in every league get moved around including the NFL.

The first Jets incarnation was the victim of a lot of factors including a $0.68 US Canadian dollar. Could it ahppen again? Maybe, but I bet a lot of other franchises would go down the tubes first.

Unfortunately Joe Canada hockey fan isn't seeing the forest for the trees and that the league is in competition with 3 other leagues for an audience, and those three other leagues all have 30 teams spread out over a wide geographical area.

It doesn't matter how big your potential audience is if no one cares about your product. And no one cares about the NHL outside its core markets.

[Boges]

Screw these guys.

It looks like the owners will try to break the Union. 50-50 was the best the players were going to get.

The salaries NHL players get compared to the relative strength of the league (compared to NFL, NBA and MLB) is totally out of whack.

The owners hurt themselves by giving ridiculous salaries to marginal players but, oh well, it's their money.

Black Dog is right. Why should the NHL pander to owners in hurting teams in Florida, Arizon and California? The fact that the league refuses to move Phoenix to the GTA where Leaf abused fans would welcome them with open arms is quite frankly offensive.

I'm not picking a side here. Both of them can go to Hell.

At least the Leafs didn't look to be much better than last year so I'm likely not missing out on much. NFL and NBA look to be interesting this year too. The Raptors might (and I mean MIGHT) actually be somewhat competitive this year.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Boges

[Black Dog]

Black Dog is right. Why should the NHL pander to owners in hurting teams in Florida, Arizon and California? The fact that the league refuses to move Phoenix to the GTA where Leaf abused fans would welcome them with open arms is quite frankly offensive.

Thing is, though, the owners aren't all on the same page. Toronto, New York, Montreal: they aren't interested in sharing their revenue with the struggling teams; they want that money to come out of the player's share of the pie.

As for picking sides, I'll never pick a side that has scumbags like Ed Snider and Jeremy Jacobs on it.

[segnosaur]

And once again blueblood managed to repeat the same tired junk that's already been debunked.

The NHL is still in growth phase, the growth of the game since Bettman has arrived is in disputed, it has grown and grown huge.

And once again, since you seem to be incapable of understanding, I'm not disputing that the league has grown.

The problem is that:

- While the league has grown, so have the costs. If I double my revenue but triple my expenses, I'm not necessarily any better off, and may actually be worse off than before. Please try to undertand that point. Its rather important.

- Much of the revenue increase is due to increased ticket prices. This harms the fans who might, you know, actually want to attend a game or 2 but cannot anymore.

Like I said these owners are billionaires and know more about business than Joe Canada hockey fan...

As Black Dog stated, that's a fallacious appeal to authority.

The fact that a persion is an expert in one area of business does not mean that they will be an expert in all areas of business.

Assuming Mr. Billionaire will be an expert in running a hockey team if he made his fortune selling food would be foolish.

...who clings to the glory days when the league was in financial trouble.

In case you didn't notice, the league is in financial trouble now.

Or perhaps you didn't know... over half the teams are lost money in 2011. http://bizofhockey.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=442:inside-the-forbes-2011-nhl-valuations&catid=33:nhl-news&Itemid=51

And in case you didn't know, the league was never in danger of folding back in the "glory days". Yes, some individual teams may have struggled and had to move (just like today) but the NHL was not in danger of going under.

The board of governors is aware that growing the game down south will take time and money, and I'm sure an expansion down there of that magnitude wasn't thought up Of in a scale of years, but probably decades.

Well, lets see...

Tampa Bay entered the league in 1992. So they've been around for decades. Last year, they lost over $8 million. (A loss of 10%).

What about the sharks? They've been in the league even longer. And they lost $7.8 million last year.

So, you argued "give it years/decades". We've given it decades. Teams down there are still loosing money.

Oh and before you claim "well the teams have to win to be financially successful", Tampa Bay has won a stanley cup. And the Sharks have won multiple division championships.

Given that the NHL and NBA have similar attendance and comparable tv ratings...

Errrr... not really.

Not only did the NBA sign a TV deal that was worth (I think) 5 times what the NHL deal was worth, lets look at 2012 TV playoff ratings for the finals, shall we?

- The NBA finals had games that had between 15 and 19 million viewers, pretty much on par from the previous year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NBA_Finals#Broadcast)

- Game 3 of the NHL finals had a viewship of 1.7 million (or roughly 10% of the NBA audience). Furthermove, ratings seemed to have decreased by about 1/3 from the previous year's final. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/star-power-hasnt-been-enough-to-ignite-nhl-tv-ratings-in-the-us/article4234785/)

So, just how long will it take the NHL to catch up to the NBA if the NHL viewship is decreasing while the NBA viewership is steady or increasing? Is there some sort of bizarre reverse math in place?

And yes, there may be some difference due to the penetration of cable into various markets, but the fact that the ratings for the NHL finals decreased since the previous year means that the channel isn't the only factor.

The thrashers moved to Winnipeg because the owner sold the team. In case you haven't noticed, there is a recession down there which has hurt some owners more than others.

First of all, you do realize that the league can block the sale and/or relocation of a team, right?

Secondly, you seem to be missing the point... Yes the owner sold the team, but why? If you think hockey is such a big money maker, and that those billionaires are in it "for the long term", why would they have felt the necessity to move? Even if there was "a recession down there", that kinda shows your claim that this is a long term strategy is kind of debunked if it can be derailed by an economic downturn.

Oh, and I should point out... the group that used to own the Trashers also owns the Atlanta NBA team. They kept the NBA team, despite there being "a recession down there".

...why teams in every league get moved around including the NFL.

Yes they do... But the point is, the Thrashers moved from "new territory United States" (the area that you claim is where the league needs to expand and will become insanely rich) back to a more traditional hockey territory.

Unfortunately Joe Canada hockey fan isn't seeing the forest for the trees...

Actually we just prefer to, you know, look at actual data rather than trusting in billionaires who have seen their teams loose money year after year....

...and that the league is in competition with 3 other leagues for an audience, and those three other leagues all have 30 teams spread out over a wide geographical area.

The NHL had no need to be spread out over the same geographical region as the NFL/NBA/MLB. The league could still be profitable even if they constrained themselves to more traditional hockey markets.

It does a Canadian fan absolutely no good to have a team placed in (for example) Florida, especially if that florida team is going to struggle. All it does is increase competition for existing players (and possibly drive up ticket prices).

[dre]

Hopefully the NHL will collapse, and a new league will emerge

[Boges]

It's Over!.

10 year deal so it'll be awhile before Hockey fans will have to deal with this again.

As a Leafs fan I have very little hope for this season but I'll be on the bandwagon for a bit. They only played half a season last year so perhaps a 48 or 50 game season will be good for them.

People who say they'll boycott probably aren't hockey fans to begin with. It's sports! The players have a narrow window to make their money and the owners want a better return on their investment.

Life is to short to get too upset about this I suppose.

GO LEAFS GO!!!

[Black Dog]

It's Over!.

10 year deal so it'll be awhile before Hockey fans will have to deal with this again.

As a Leafs fan I have very little hope for this season but I'll be on the bandwagon for a bit. They only played half a season last year so perhaps a 48 or 50 game season will be good for them.

People who say they'll boycott probably aren't hockey fans to begin with. It's sports! The players have a narrow window to make their money and the owners want a better return on their investment.

Life is to short to get too upset about this I suppose.

GO LEAFS GO!!!

Yeah, I have a hard time taken anyone who was so disillusioned by this seriously. Were they not around for the last lockout? Do they expect the league or players to actually care about the fans? It's an entertainment product for crying out loud!

I'm excited for the oIlers: they have some of the best young players in the league who will be in mid-season form by now. And they'll be playing meaningful game sin January for the first time in five years!

[kimmy]

meh. Maybe I'll care more once they're playing again.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Welcome back NHL...let the real fighting begin !

Edited January 6, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[-TSS-]

I also hope that this was the last ever lock-out there was going to be. So, this season each team will play 48 games before the play-offs. That is a much more sensible amount of games than the usual 82.

[Shakeyhands]

let the real fighting begin !

Typical non-hockey comment. Stick to your football.

[Michael Hardner]

Do they expect the league or players to actually care about the fans? It's an entertainment product for crying out loud!

If you are a fan, ask yourself how much you would put up with from pro hockey before you just found something else to do with your time.

A lockout every 2 years ? More expansion teams in the deep south ? How about a Leafs organization that is able to make money year after year but neglects to focus their management talent on giving the fans a winning team ?

I never asked myself that question because after the last lockout I just found myself disinterested and stopped watching.

[Black Dog]

If you are a fan, ask yourself how much you would put up with from pro hockey before you just found something else to do with your time.

A lockout every 2 years ? More expansion teams in the deep south ? How about a Leafs organization that is able to make money year after year but neglects to focus their management talent on giving the fans a winning team ?

I never asked myself that question because after the last lockout I just found myself disinterested and stopped watching.

It's annoying, but I don't see why some fans take it personally. I didn't stop watching TV when the writer's strike disrupted the networks a few seasons back. The only thing that would make me stop following hockey is if the product became so bad that it became a chore to watch, like it was in the late '90s.

[-TSS-]

Is the NHL going allow its players to participate next year's olymoics in Sochi? The timing of the olympics hockey-tournament is a bit inconvenient as it is in the middle of the season. As it happens, when the olymoic final is on a sunday, on tuesday the finalists are already playing for their teams in the NHL.

[guyser]

Is the NHL going allow its players to participate next year's olymoics in Sochi? The timing of the olympics hockey-tournament is a bit inconvenient as it is in the middle of the season. As it happens, when the olymoic final is on a sunday, on tuesday the finalists are already playing for their teams in the NHL.

Yes, it is expected they will be there but likely their last.

[Boges]

They'll negotiate the Olympics separately. The Juniors were in Russia the past few weeks and few games were on at a convenient time to anyone who really had to watch the game. The bronze medal game last Saturday started before 4am