View Single Post
10-08-2012, 12:46 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Spacemania View Post
I do hope so, then again how many players bothered to put that in the contract, intentionally or otherwise. THAT is my real worry. They went with the intention of staying.
The NHL contract takes precedence. No matter the out clause. The player gets sued if he has a contract and doesn't comeback after the CBA is signed. The player would also likely suffer at the hands of the IIHF for international play if he walked on a primary contract in any league. AIUI, all NHL players get out clauses because they risk lawsuits and Euro teams are reluctant to get too many NHL players on one team because the lockout could see a mass exodus. The other issue is insurance, the players/team need to get insurance on their NHL contracts which is very expensive. There is a strong financial disincentive to sign NHL players in Europe based on that insurance alone.

The NHL is garnering TV market share. I would guess that Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and possibly Minnesota outdraw NBA audiences in those cities. I would check NHL vs NBA audiences again in a decade. Don't go year to year. The league has dramatically improved their national TV contract in the US since the last lockout and the combined national contracts, US and Canada, make it even more dramatic. I think dismissing national TV contracts as a drop in the bucket and big ones as a pipedream is extremely shortsighted and pessimistic. I agree that NHL is better live, but . . . I do think that the lockout could damage market growth and I also think that if the league listens to the "let them play" crowd that going to defensive hockey in the extreme will damage market penetration. In some senses the NHL is paying for the relatively conservative outlook of hockey back in the 50s and 60s as they were extremely late to the game in expansion.

I also think that the US surpassing Canada in the number of youngsters involved in hockey gives the lie to "hockey never making inroads in the US". Again pessimism in the face of facts that point in the opposite direction. California, Texas and Tennessee have seen dramatic growth of programs. Kind of ironic as Canada has stagnated in growth, much less the possibility that there is a slight decline north of the border.

When they considered Glendale for the Yotes, Scottsdale was another possibility. Scottsdale had better demographics for hockey as well as location within the Valley of the Sun.

Last edited by SJeasy: 10-08-2012 at 01:20 PM.
SJeasy is offline